Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 23
The Current Status of Non-Lethal Weapons In assessing the full spectrum of effort and attention given to non-lethal weapons, the committee found the area to be broad but with significant interrela- tionships. To place in context the findings and recommendations presented in subsequent chapters, this chapter summarizes (1) the current status of non-lethal weapons technologies and effects on the health of personnel against whom the NLWs are used; (2) the progress of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, the focus of DOD's joint activity in NLWs; and (3) the activities in other areas that influence the understanding and use of these weapons, including Service and other agency development programs and operational experience, science and technology status, recent studies and assessments, and the legal environment within which the use of NLWs must be addressed. 2.1 NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGIES .p There are numerous, very broad classes of technologies that have been consid- ered for non-lethal use. Several previous studies 2 3 4 have exhaustively cataloged potential technologies, systems, and mission areas. Different taxonomies, data- 1Jaycor. 1996. Mission Applications of Non-Lethal Weapons, San Diego, Calif., July 9. 2Jaycor. 1994. Non-Lethal Technologies Database for OASD-SOILIC, San Diego, Calif., June 21. 3Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. 2000. Report on Technology Options to Leverage Aero- space Power in Operations Other Than War, SAB-TR-99-11, Department of the Air Force, Wash- ington, D.C., February. Available online at . 4Sauer, Maj Joel, USMC, "U.S. Marine Corps Non-Lethal Weapons Experimentation," briefing to the committee on March 6, 2001, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, Quantico, Va. 23
OCR for page 24
.; 24 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY bases, and mission analyses have been completed as part of these studies. One of the most recent studies was the Joint Mission Area Analysis (JMAA) Conference spon- sored by the JNLWD.s This was a joint-Service evaluation that broadly reviewed potential non-lethal weapons technologies. Technologies were sorted by potential for application in more than 100 mission areas and by their perceived adaptability to different delivery modes. Of 45 potential technologies reviewed, the study identi- fied 12 candidate technologies for development: (1) millimeter wave, (2) chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL), (3) antitraction materials, (4) non-lethal delivery and deployment, (5) malodorants, (6) calmatives, (7) high-power microwave (HPM), (8) rigid foams, (9) tagging and tracking, (10) nanoparticles, (11) laser scattering obscuration, and (12) deuterium-fluoride/hydrogen-fluoride (DFIHF) lasers. The JMAA Conference and the studies cited provided the basis for the technologies considered in this study. The extensive list generated appears in Table B. 1 in Appendix B. The non-lethal-weapons technologies are grouped in six categories: (13 kinetic-energy technologies, (2) chemical and materials tech- nologies, (3) directed-energy technologies, (4) acoustic technologies' (5) electri- cal technologies, and (6) barriers and entanglements. Kinetic-energy NLWs include devices such as rubber bullets and stun grenades. Examples of chemical NLWs include malodorants and pepper spray for use against individuals, as well as fuel contaminants for disabling vehicles. Directed-energy non-lethal weapons systems include radio frequency (RF) trans- mitters for disrupting vehicle engines, as well as the familiar laser dazzler for use against individuals. Examples of acoustic non-lethal weapons systems are in- tense sirens and whistles for area denial. Electrical NLWs include lasers (stun guns) to incapacitate individuals. Finally, barrier non-lethal weapons technolo- gies include entanglement systems for stopping vehicles and sticky foams for use against individuals. Each category is discussed below in greater detail. Two additional technology areas not specifically included in the six catego- ries described above are essential to the success of NLWs; they are discussed as well. The two areas referred to as enabling technologies are delivery systems and sensor systems. Many NLWs, in order to be effective while remaining safe, require accurate delivery at long ranges. In addition, delivery systems with the flexibility to handle a variety of NEW payloads are desirable. Similarly, ad- vanced sensor systems are required to identify potential targets, to ensure accu- rate delivery of NLWs, and to assess their effects. Kinetic-Energy Technologies Most non-lethal kinetic-energy weapons derive from their lethal counter- parts. The rubber bullet for crowd dispersal is the classic example. Other kinetic sU.S. Special Operations Command. 2000. Joint Mission Area Analysis Conference, October 17-20.
OCR for page 25
; - THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 25 energy NLWs are concepts combined with other non-lethal techniques, such as non-lethal mines delivering smoke, electric shock, or pepper spray for area de- nial, and grenades for delivering anti-riot gas. Kinetic-energy NLWs were among the first non-lethal weapons developed, and they have been used extensively by police, troops, and security forces. Most non-lethal rounds and grenades are designed to be fired from existing weapons. The short range of many of these munitions, together with their deteriorating accuracy at range, limits their use to situations involving short standoff distances. For the most part, these weapons are well developed. Nevertheless, improvements are being pursued to broaden their applicability, extend their reach, and ensure their non-lethality. Table B. 1 in Appendix B identifies many kinetic-energy-based NLWs. Non- lethal projectiles of various kinds have been developed to stun, confuse, and disperse individuals and crowds. Rubber projectiles can be fired from standard- issue 1 2-gauge shotguns, either singly or in clusters of 12 balls, with a range of up to about 30 meters (m). The 40-millimeter (mm) Mkl9 grenade developed for shooting from M203 and M79 weapons dispenses rubber balls for dispersing large crowds and achieving site security. The 40-mm sponge grenade can knock down an individual at 50 m. The ring airfoil grenade launched by an M234 is an aerodynamically shaped, soft rubberlike ring that spins in flight and is accurate from 40 to 60 m. Stun guns in the form of air/water jets mounted on vehicles are designed for crowd control. For intercepting speeding boats, developmental work has been carried out on a 6.25-in.-diameter non-lethal torpedo capable of carrying a 50-lb payload. Control of trauma level from blunt projectiles remains a serious problem. At sufficiently close range, a rubber bullet can be lethal. Some effort has gone into designing a rifle system having an adjustable projectile muzzle velocity depend- ing on distance to the target (and possibly, seriousness of threat), thereby allow- ing control of blunt trauma effects. experience in using kinetic-energy non-lethal weapons for crowd control and dispersal. Through improved technology, the British, in particular, have been highly successful in limiting fatalities resulting from blunt projectiles. (See Section 2.7.) Knowledge of the level of blunt trauma from a given non-lethal weapon system is almost entirely empirical, gained largely from experience in the field and from limited tests on animals. The effects on a human can be highly variable, depending on factors such as target distance, strike location, and individual hu- man characteristics. At the present time, there exists neither a database nor calibrated models of the response of skin, tissue, and organs to blunt impact from which to assess human effects of non-lethal kinetic-energy weapons. The ab- sence of such data and models impedes development of new non-lethal weapons systems and makes it difficult to establish envelopes of safe use for existing systems. Although knowledge accumulated in research on blunt trauma in the automotive industry is useful, new knowledge is required regarding the human The British and Israelis have extensive
OCR for page 26
26 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY effects of kinetic-energy weapons, because the speeds are higher and the mass of the projectiles is lower in comparison with automotive crashes. Research on sports injuries is another area to be investigated for relevant effects data. Chemical and Materials Technologies A large array of chemicals and materials have been suggested as candidates for use as NLWs. They fall into two broad categories: (1) antipersonnel and (2) antimateriel. Chemical antipersonnel NLWs are intended to dissuade, tempo- rarily inhibit, incapacitate, or otherwise impede with no lasting side effects- individuals and crowds from taking certain actions. Chemical antimateriel NLWs are intended to disable, neutralize, or otherwise prevent the operation of electron- ics, engines, networks, and so on, in vehicles or infrastructure. The Army sup- ported much exploratory work over the past few decades and demonstrated some very promising ideas. Development activity by the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command (ECBC) on agents for NLWs has been markedly reduced in recent years, however, with the adoption of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Classes of compounds having potential as antimateriel NLWs that have been examined include combustion modifiers, anti-additives, fuel contaminants, lubri- cant contaminants, viscosity-enhancing agents, depolymerization agents, and abrasives that might be used against engines and vehicles. Corrosive agents, depolymerization agents, and embrittlement agents could be used against a wider . 6 range of infrastructure. Classes of compounds with potential for non-lethal antipersonnel use include riot control agents, malodorants, and calmatives. Riot control agents (RCAs) include chemicals that irritate mucous membranes and cause lacrimation, irrita- tion, or inflammation. RCAs produce rapid sensory irritation or disabling physi- cal effects that disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. They are well studied as a class, and many highly effective compounds with large safety margins have been identified. Most commonly known are oleoresin capsi- cum (OC), the active agent in hot peppers; chloroacetophenone (CN); and o- chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CS), or tear gas. Because of its persistence after application, CS has largely been replaced by OC, which has had recent, publicized use by civilian police agencies. ECBC and other groups have studied malodorants, and many compounds with repulsive smells have been identified. Some of these materials are the active ingredients in the most disagreeable natural odors, and some are synthetic cre- ations. Tests have shown that the repulsiveness of a particular compound to a person depends largely on the cultural background of the test subject. For ex- ample, manure is used as a fuel in some countries so residents in those countries are desensitized to a smell that is repulsive in other cultures. In addition, the olfactory sensitivity to many malodorants lessens with extended exposure, and
OCR for page 27
i 6 THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 27 the degree of repugnance diminishes. Mixtures of malodorants, a mixture of a malodorant and an irritant, and/or concepts of operations that avoid successive use of the same malodorant within a specific time frame could circumvent these limitations. Calmatives6 represent a class of chemical substances that offer strong poten- tial as effective NLWs. Major research and development (R&D) issues involving the use of calmatives are (1) the quantification of the effectiveness and margin of safety for these materials and (2) the development of the method of delivery that can rapidly provide the appropriate dose. The physiological effects of all calmatives that have been examined occur as a result of depression of the central nervous system, accompanied by mood alteration and respiratory depression. A review of some potential calmatives was published in 2000.7 High concentrations of calmatives in the body can lead to extended loss of consciousness or, in extreme cases, death. Safe yet effective applications of NLWs should limit exposures to well below those levels. The generally desired ratio of exposure between an effective dose and death is on the order of 103 to 104. (By comparison, the margin of safety for exposure to RCAs such as the lacrimator CS is about 2,500 to 30,000 dose units.8) Research carried out 10 to 15 years ago at ECBC began to examine the use of additional chemicals ("antagonists" mixed with "agonists") that would reduce the effect of respiratory depression, leading to acceptable margins of safety. The principal effect was still unconsciousness, which is unacceptable under most interpretations of the CWC. The research was not extended to the concept of mood alteration short of uncon- sciousness. The use of calmatives had previously been envisioned in connection with hostage situations and for use with "unmanageable" prisoners, but not for riot situations in which incapacitated individuals might be trampled or crushed in the rioting. In fact, research on the use of calmatives for peacekeeping situations has been practically nonexistent. To elicit the desired level of mood alteration with- out causing a dangerous level of respiratory depression (i.e., calming while main- taining consciousness) requires a tight control on dose level. The time of onset of mood alteration depends markedly on the method of delivery as well as on the type of calmative used. Inhalation leads to the most rapid onset of symptoms- on the order of 1 minute after exposure for certain fentanyls. With other methods 6Primary sources of information: Ken Collins, Gene Olajos, and Larry Bickford of the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command, and Joseph A. Rutigliano Jr., International and Operational Law Branch, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. 7Lakoski, Joan M., W. Bosseau Murray, and John M. Kenny. 2000. The Advantages and Limita- tions of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique, College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., and Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa., October 3. sin dose units: typically, with a respiratory agent exposure characterization of (ma - min)/m3, a dose unit multiplies this by an assumed inhalation of 20 liters of air in 1 minute.
OCR for page 28
i. 28 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY of delivery, such as absorption through the skin, 3 to 5 minutes is required for the onset of symptoms. However, a delivery method based on absorption through the skin could lead to contamination of U.S. personnel who come into contact with areas that have been exposed. Directed-Energy Technologies NLWs utilizing directed energy may be divided into three categories for the purposes of understanding applications and effects: (1) low-energy lasers and incandescent devices; (2) high-energy lasers; and (3) high-power millimeter- wave and microwave devices. Low-Energy Lasers and Incandescent Devices ,. The category of low-energy lasers and incandescent devices includes laser dazzlers and flash grenades that use intense visible light to temporarily blind or disorient a person. Laser dazzlers often use diode-laser sources of radiation at far-red wavelengths near 600 nanometers (nary) or solid-state lasers such as frequency-doubled neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG), which pro- duces green light at 532-nm wavelength. Current models are handheld devices resembling flashlights, or rifle-mounted models designed to mount much like a telescopic sight. Following are some examples: The Saber 203 laser illuminator utilizes a diode-laser source that operates at red wavelengths and fits onto the grenade launcher attached to a rifle. It creates glare and flash-blinding that cause adversaries to protect their eyes and slow their advance. It was used in Somalia during the withdrawal of UN forces and has been effective largely because illuminated subjects believed that deadly force would follow the beam of light. Because of concerns over eye safety and mini- mal effectiveness during daylight, it has not been fielded for standard use. · The hinder adversaries with less-than-lethal technology (HALT) system, similar to the Saber 203 dazzler, also uses a 650-nm (red) wavelength diode source. HALT is designed to mount on an infantry rifle directly below the gun barrel so that either the laser dazzler or the rifle may be used. Future plans for HALT include the capability for dual red and blue wavelengths that flicker off and to mitigate filtering by single-wavelength goggles. · The Dissuader uses a laser-diode source similar to that of HALT, operat- ing at red wavelengths, and operates much like a handheld flashlight. A different approach to laser dazzlers, the proposed veiling glare system, would use a laser designed to produce violet light at 360 to 440 nm. At suffi- ciently high intensities, light at these wavelengths induces fluorescence in the human eye, which, in turn, produces diffuse, defocused light in the retina, appear- ing to the subject as omnidirectional. So far, this approach has been tested only
OCR for page 29
THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 29 in cadaver lenses. Although the fluorescence effect is known and documented, the potential for optical damage to the retina or other portions of the eye remains uncertain. Unlike the veiling glare system, flash grenades produce a single intense burst of incandescent light, most often by the explosive combustion of some sort of fuel, and a significant pressure concussion accompanies the flash. An alternative approach utilizing a fuel-air mixture containing a metalized powder would re- duce the potential for unanticipated injury by reducing the concussion pressure by a factor of 100. High-Energy Lasers ~ . In this report, "high-energy laser" refers to a system with sufficient energy (and/or power) to ablate, melt, or burn material. Such systems can be lethal if directed against human beings. Their use as NLWs is intended for applications such as bursting automobile tires, rupturing fuel tanks, selectively cutting through electrical or communications lines, or setting fires. The advantage of such a system, if achievable, would be its capability for selective and precise targeting. A frequently cited example of such targeting involves a military convoy operated by armed soldiers holding civilian hostages. The laser system would rapidly sweep along the convoy, selectively targeting vehicle tires, tracks, and weapons, while avoiding injury to the hostages. The proposed approach to this type of system is the advanced tactical laser (ATL). Although still in the conceptual development stage, ATL would utilize a COIL. The laser, its chemical fuel, and laser beam director would be sized to fit on an aircraft platform such as an Osprey tilt-rotor craft or a C-130 transport. For the initial version of the ATL, the targets would be selected by a human operator who viewed the scene through a separate aperture co-aligned with the laser beam director. The operator would control the laser pointing using a manual designa- tor. In more advanced versions of ATL, target selection could also be accom- plished automatically using target-recognition and tracking software. Several issues associated with atmospheric propagation are likely to limit the effectiveness of ATL as currently envisioned. The first is atmospheric absorp- tion. At the COIL wavelength, atmospheric absorption will heat the column of air through which the beam passes; this heated air will defocus the beam, through a mechanism known as "thermal blooming," and will reduce the intensity on the target. Thermal blooming could be compensated for to some extent with adaptive optics, but that approach introduces significant complications to the system de- sign. The second issue concerns the ability of ATL to be pointed precisely. A limiting effect is atmospheric turbulence along the propagation path; this turbu- lence causes high-frequency beam "jitter," which reduces the intensity on the target. Vibration disturbances on the aircraft platform itself will also contribute to beam jitter, further reducing the intensity on the target. Finally, for ATL to
OCR for page 30
30 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY operate in the field, serious logistics issues would have to be addressed. The COIL fuel is composed of a number of caustic chemicals that require careful storage and handling. Although the technology to meet these requirements is available, they would be a concern for a system deployed to areas that lack proper handling systems. A second class of high-energy laser systems for antipersonnel application is designed not to cause damage directly, but rather to produce a kinetic shock through a laser-induced plasma. One such proposed system is the pulsed-energy projectile (PEP). PEP would utilize a pulsed deuterium-fluoride (DF) laser de- signed to produce an ionized plasma at the target surface. In turn, the plasma would produce an ultrasonic pressure wave that would pass into the body, stimu- lating the cutaneous nerves in the skin to produce pain and induce temporary paralysis. The proposed PEP system would accomplish this at extended ranges. Another proposed system is the pulsed impulsive kill laser (PIKL). PIKL is also at the feasibility-study level. High-Power Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Technology , ~ 5 This class of NLWs high-power microwave (HPM) and millimeter-wave technology can be grouped into two subcategories: (1) those designed to dis- rupt electronic systems, such as communications and computer networks; and (2) those designed to produce a physiological effect on an individual. Applications in the first category (electronic disruption) include the capabil- ity of disabling or destroying electronic equipment. All sensitive electronics- including computers, cell phones and radios, Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, and engine ignition systems are potential targets. HPM systems would provide this capability without the accompanying blast effects, physical damage, or death to nearby personnel characteristic of explosive or other high- kinetic-energy devices. HPM systems designed to produce these effects would utilize conventional millimeter-wave and RF generators combined with a suitable transmitter, such as a microwave horn or antenna. Unconventional approaches to generating and delivering HPM include Marx banks or explosive devices that would produce a single, intense pulse; they are usually referred to as electromag- netic pulse (EMP) devices. Some systems designed to produce physiological effects operate at frequen- cies corresponding to millimeter waves in the range designed to be absorbed by the skin or at lower frequencies designed to produce resonance inside the body. VMADS is a system of the first type. It utilizes a microwave generator and an operator-steerable antenna designed to produce a narrow beam width beyond small arms range. The VMADS effect causes an intense but non-lethal burning sensation in a quick exposure. Potential applications are crowd control or perim- eter protection around an airfield or other sensitive area.
OCR for page 31
THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 31 One area of concern with millimeter-wave devices designed to induce bio- logical effects is the potential for ocular damage such as corneal lesions, as well as the inadvertent exposure of targets at close range, which could lead to severe burns or other injuries. To be effective, the NEW must operate at intensities sufficient to induce avoidance, but below the threshold for serious injury. Acoustic Technologies , ~ Acoustics have been considered as a non-lethal weapons technology to dis- perse crowds and to temporarily startle or incapacitate individuals. A wide variety of effects have been explored or proposed. Acoustical energy at audible frequencies (about 20 to 16,000 hertz (Hz)) strongly couples into the ear; continu- ous sound in this frequency range can cause pain at a threshold of approximately 135 dB. Other frequencies—ultrasound and infrasound have also been studied. Vortex ring generators have been investigated as well. Explosive flash bangs provide a short, high-intensity acoustic pulse. Coupling mechanisms into the body have been proposed: for example, mechanically coupling and vibrating internal organs with infrasound, utilizing resonances in the airway to entrain breathing, heating the skin ultrasonically, and bone conduction at very high acous- . . . . tic Intensities. The concept of acoustic NLWs has focused on acoustic generators projecting sound downrange to affect crowds, to provide area denial, or to clear facilities. Generators that have been explored for producing these high intensities include sirens, whistles, pulse jets, vortex generators, explosives, and fuel-air devices. For interior use, very high intensity acoustics (>170 dB) have been investigated as an access-delay technology for physical security systems.9 Development of acoustic technologies for non-lethal weapons applications in air has generally not been successful for several reasons. Most significant is that there are no demonstrated extra-aural bioeffects that significantly affect ad- versary behavior. Driving audible acoustic intensities to levels above the hearing pain threshold can be effective, but it can also permanently damage hearing or can be easily countered. Other issues with sonic generators include exposure of friendly forces to the energy, difficulties in focusing the energy downrange, the rapid decrease in intensity with range, and the power requirements to generate and maintain very high continuous acoustic intensities.~° Underwater applications present a potentially more promising scenario, however, due to the increased coupling of acoustic energy. Past investigations have considered the use of ship sonar against underwater threats. Also being 9Cutler, R.P. 1999. "Tests of High Power Acoustics Sources," Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., September 30. Music, John. 1997. "Technology Assessment of Acoustics as a Non-Lethal Weapon," U.S. Marine Corps Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, Quantico, Va., December.
OCR for page 32
i. 32 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY investigated are underwater acoustic sources as warning or non-lethal options against such threats. Unknowns include environmental effects on fish and ma- rine mammals. Electrical Technologies ., The non-lethal electrical methods identified in Table B. 1 (Appendix B) have been developed for tasks as diverse as stunning individuals, stopping engines of moving vehicles, and temporarily knocking out electrical grids and power gen- eration. The class of NLWs that injects electrical energy into a human at high voltage, high frequency, low current, and with very short pulses is generally known as the stun gun. There are approximately a dozen manufacturers of such weapons, and each uses slightly different pulse parameters. The stun gun inca- pacitates an individual by stimulating nerve cells proximate to the discharge region and temporarily overriding normal motor control signals, causing uncon- trollable muscular contractions. Complete recovery occurs within about 15 minutes after the stun gun is turned off. Off-the-shelf stun guns are widely used in law enforcement because of their high degree of effectiveness. Their safety has received a moderate amount of attention in safety documentation by manu- facturers, but little to no actual data are found in the peer-reviewed literature, and basic mechanisms are not well studied. The effectiveness of these systems is severely limited in military operations by the fact that they can only be used at arm's length. Somewhat greater standoff distance is afforded by newer stun gun munitions, which can be projected as darts (two per round with trailing wires) with an effective range of 12 to 15 m or "air" lasers with a range of about 20 m, although 90 to 100 m would be more useful for military applications. A more novel concept is a proposed cylindrical "dart mine," which, when triggered, would spew darts in all directions for area denial. Its effectiveness remains to be established. For stopping vehicles, pulsed-current devices have been employed to inject an electrical discharge from a capacitor into the electrical system of the engine of a moving vehicle, causing the engine to misfire and stop. Direct electrical con- tact of the device with the engine block must be achieved; this creates a require- ment for an effective delivery system. This approach works for vehicles with modern electrical systems, especially those utilizing a computer. In most cases, the computer/electrical system is temporarily interrupted, and the engine can be restarted. The approach does not work as well or at all on vintage vehicles or diesels. In law enforcement applications of vehicle stopping, two systems have been employed: (1) stationary contact points positioned to anticipate a passing vehicle, and (2) small delivery vehicles designed to overtake and make contact with an offending vehicle. If the route of a threatening or fleeing vehicle can be predetermined as for an entryway to a garage or a driveway to a building then
OCR for page 33
THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 33 a strip containing the electric discharge system can be put in place ahead of time. When the route cannot be predetermined, the pulsed-current device must be launched in real time from a ground-based chase vehicle or helicopter. While there appear to be opportunities for the use of such devices in military applica- tions for example, missions geared to protecting U.S. embassies or operational airfields and docks the main impediment is the difficulty of delivery. In such cases, electrified fences may also prove useful. Barriers and Entanglements Barriers have been used as non-lethal weapons devices for many years by the Services, law enforcement and corrections, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in physical security applications. Existing and potential non-lethal mis- sion uses of barriers and entanglements are extensive. Barriers can be used to form a line of demarcation, to separate adversaries from friendly forces, to delay adversaries from gaining access to an area, to secure facilities, to stop vehicles, to disable boats, and to serve in many other applications where delaying an adversary's action is required. Barriers encompass a broad range of devices, materials, and systems, ranging from simple devices, such as caltrops, to complex barrier sys- tems utilizing movable concertina blankets and portcullises. They can often be made more effective by combining technologies, for example, concertina used in combination with an obscurant as a barrier in an interior application. Barriers may also include materials applications for the purpose of delaying adversaries. Well-known examples are sticky foams and rigid foams for rapidly blocking areas or gluing other barriers in place. Low-coefficient-of-friction ma- terials can act as barriers against the transit of personnel or vehicles. High- expansion-ratio, high-strength materials are of particular utility for non-lethal use, because the transported volume of these materials is far less than the dis- pensed volume. Many effective barriers utilize high-strength materials (e.g., steel) and mass (e.g., concrete or earth) to effect a needed delay. A challenge in applying barriers and entanglements to non-lethal uses is to develop effective barriers with weights and stored volumes acceptable for staging and deploying the barrier. Re-use is desirable in many applications to reduce deployment costs of barriers and to . . . minimize storage volume. Rapid deployment is often the major challenge for effective barrier use. For vehicle barriers or entanglements, rapidly deployable systems are necessary for putting barriers in place before a vehicle can enter a secure zone or for allowing timely interdiction of moving land vehicles or watercraft. Precision delivery of barriers may be required. An example is the running gear entanglement system (RGES), which has proven to be effective in temporarily stopping small, fast watercraft. A challenge with a RGES is to integrate the barrier with capable delivery systems providing rapid and accurate delivery. The Coast Guard, with
OCR for page 62
62 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY and prevented me from possibly being involved in the Boston massacre of 2000.-16 In February 2001, TF Falcon once again faced a tense situation. Soldiers from the task force encountered an illegal roadblock. As they tried to have the obstacle removed, a crowd quickly formed and the soldiers were confronted with a rock-throwing mob. The crowd wedged itself between the soldiers in the main force and their vehicles and blocked any movement. As the situation escalated, the soldiers decided to use NLWs. A first volley scattered the crowd, allowing the soldiers to move toward their vehicles. When it looked as if the crowd would reform, NLWs were employed again, dissipating the crowd and restoring order. In the incidents just described, both task forces had a full complement of conventional force at their disposal, but they chose to use NLWs instead and successfully accomplished their missions. While not a substitute for lethal force, the option provided an alternative before lethal force might have been employed. USAREUR's experience has been fed back to U.S. Army planners for purpose of improving equipment and tactics. Haiti ~ . f With the departure of Colonel Cedras in 1994, the U.S. invasion force con- verted to a peace support operation called Uphold Democracy. Some troops were provided with NLWs including OC (pepper spray), plastic baton rounds, and beanbag rounds for shotguns. Training for U.S. troops was provided in Haiti. A major obstacle in using NLWs was encountered because of an administrative blunder. Special permission for use of the particular NLWs deployed was re- quired, but it was granted only to the units initially involved in the operation. When units were rotated, the incoming forces found that they could not receive the transfer of NLWs from the departing unit, because authorization for use had not been extended to unit transfers. Panama/Cuba A large number of Haitian refugees were detained at the U.S. Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 1994. The Haitians became disenchanted with their living conditions and began to riot in December 1994, threatening the guards. Troublemakers were identified and moved to more secure sites in Panama, where the rioting continued. A limited number of NLWs loudspeakers, clubs, and shields- were available. The use of these systems required that the troops be in close proximity to the rioters, and several rioters were injured. .' ALEC James Brown, USA, commander of the air assault and the ground forces involved in fighting the Sevce, Kosovo, riot, personal communication, April 11, 2001.
OCR for page 63
~ - THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS Garden Plot (Riots in the United States During the Vietnam War) 63 Because of the riots over opposition to U.S. participation in the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, the military conducted large-scale training of troops in riot control procedures. In general, the troops relied on a show of force and CS to disperse crowds. They retained their standard rifles and were at times armed with live ammunition. While this show of force was effective under some circum- stances, the times when it failed, such as in the fatal shootings at Kent State University, led to a national crisis. The weapons available were inadequate to carry out a mission that the military had reluctantly assumed. 2.8 PROGRAMS IN OTHER SERVICES AND AGENCIES U.S. Army Non-Lethal Weapons Programs The Army Research Laboratory, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, conducted a program in NLWs from 1991 to 1995. This program later integrated into the JNLWD included development efforts in the Bouncing Betty, a 60-mm ve- hicle-launched non-lethal weapons grenade, and the canister-launched area de- nial system, as described in Section 2.1. During the program, the Army supplied the Marine Corps with NLWs for Somalia and also fielded NLWs for the South- east Asia Support Organization's (SASO's) peacekeeping operations. The Army continues to develop Army-unique NLWs at a modest level. The focus is on developing extended-range NLWs, improving the certainty of results, and developing enhanced effects from these non-lethal weapons. Current activi- ties are undertaken as lead service for the JNLWD and include the development of a 20-mm NLW round for the objective individual combat weapon (OICW). This round is designed to provide an airburst, dispensing liquid aerosols or pow- ders of calmatives, lacrimators, or malodorants; antitraction chemicals; and/or markers to counter personnel or clear facilities. The range of this munition is 5 to 1,000 m. In addition, the Army is developing a frangible 81-mm NLW mortar round with a range of 200 to 2,000 m. Also under investigation is the use of the high-capacity artillery projectile (HICAP) fired round to carry NLWs to a target. The HICAP has a fiber composite case. Its volume is much larger and collateral effects minimal compared with those of a conventional artillery shell. Additional efforts include concepts for dispensing "nanoparticles" to create engine combus- tion disturbances; an explosively driven high-power microwave generator; and lasers (for electric stun). A malodorant study and methods for dispensing liquid chemicals overhead have received joint program TIP support. Another activity involves development of an aversive audible acoustic system to focus an annoy- ing acoustic wave at hostile personnel. A program to develop a standoff RF engine-stopping system was terminated. The Army also conducted R&D on mechanical personnel-control systems, such as automatically launched nets. A significant program was conducted at 5
OCR for page 64
64 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, on a spectrum of chemical systems for antimateriel and antipersonnel NLWs, such as calmatives, lacrimators, and malodorants. Specific details remain classified. The program, after many years of Army R&D investment and the identification of promising technologies, was concluded with adoption of the Chemical Weapons Conven- tion in the early 1990s. U.S. Air Force Non-Lethal Weapons Programs Air Force missions that might utilize NLWs include humanitarian relief, non-combatant evacuation, airborne defense, and peacekeeping similar to mis- sions of the Army and the Marine Corps. In addition, the Air Force has the responsibility of maintaining the no-fly zone in Southeast Asia. The principal Air Force non-lethal weapons programs are in human effects at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, and in directed energy, through the Directed Energy Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico. In fact, the Air Force, under AFRL and JNLWD funding, has developed the leading capabilities among the Services in both non-lethal weapons effects testing and understanding and in directed-energy source development and system susceptibilities. A few examples of Air Force NEW R&D programs are Saber, HALT, and VMADS (discussed in Section 2.1~. The U.S. Coast Guard The U.S. Coast Guard, having both military and law enforcement responsi- bilities, is a fundamental component of the national military strategy. During peacetime, the 38,000-member active duty force operates under the Department of Transportation. Missions include maritime interdiction, security operations, counternarcotics operations, humanitarian assistance, migrant interdictions, and fisheries' enforcement. During wartime, as one of the Armed Services of the United States, the Coast Guard serves as part of the U.S. Navy, supporting a full spectrum of conflict in operations related to ports, coastlines, and other shallow waters. In exercising its daily law enforcement responsibilities, such as drug and migrant interdictions, the Coast Guard can and does use U.S. Navy resources and vessels. The Coast Guard currently uses NLWs in limited circumstances, but it is expanding the complement of weapons to support its maritime law enforcement mission.~7 Most Coast Guard operational scenarios are tactical, with small units operating in close range and in a shipboard environment. The Coast Guard needs ]7Jacobs, CAPT Brad, USCG, "U.S. Coast Guard Naval Studies Board Briefing," briefing to the committee on March 7, 2001, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Support Command, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 65
THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETlIAL WEAPONS 65 fixed or man-portable weapons to control non-hostile individuals or groups that are in the water within 30 m and hostile individuals or crowds within 100 m from their vessels, as well as weapons to nullify hostage situations. The Coast Guard also needs to be able to stop vessels when operating from its own cutters, helicop- ters, and fixed-wing aircraft. It must be able to intercept boats of various speeds and sizes within 100 m without capsizing them and risking serious injury to crew and passengers. The Coast Guard has proceeded on an evolutionary, but aggressive, path with NLWs, emphasizing careful development of operational concepts and sub- sequently deploying weapons to a limited extent for operational evaluation. Some dramatic successes resulted when the Coast Guard expanded its current suite of NLWs. It began Operation New Frontier in response to drug runners using go-fast speedboats equipped with counterintelligence radars and operating at night. l9 The initiative employed armed helicopters, high-speed boats (ver- sions of rubber hull inflatable boats), and a suite of NLWs that included sting ball grenades with flash bangs and rubber pellets, OC (pepper spray), and 40- mm foam batons fired from an M203 grenade launcher. It also tried an entangle- ment net deployed from the helicopter, a scenario that was minimally successful because deployment was difficult. In March 2000, the Coast Guard concluded Operation New Frontier and declared it a success. In contrast to its past record of limited apprehension of the go-fasts, the Coast Guard seized all six boats and their crews. The Coast Guard is enhancing its non-lethal weapons munitions and systems in coordination with the JNLWD. Today its M4/M203 provides both lethal and non-lethal capability in the same weapon and can fire a 40-mm foam baton as well as a sting ball round. While foam is both accurate and effective, the sting ball is adversely affected by the winds at sea. Therefore, a fin-stabilized round for a 12-gauge shotgun is being developed. Both copper slugs and ferret rounds have proven accurate. Riot control gear and large-capacity OC dispensers are promising for migrant interdictions, while individual OC dispensers are useful in one-to-one, close-range engagements. A version of the running gear entangle- ment system of interest to the Navy uses nets to entangle the propellers of high- speed, small vessels. It requires some adaptation to increase its effectiveness, since launching the nets manually is difficult. A surface-deployed compressed air launcher and an air-deployed canister system are being considered. A Coast Guard organizational initiative called Project Erickson will establish 18Thompson, Phillip. 2000. "A War Every Day: The Coast Guard's New Frontier in the War on Drugs," Seapower Magazine, Volume 44, No. 8, August, pp. 41-44. Available online at . 19Burgess, Richard R. 1999. "USCG to Go-Fasts: Not So Fast! Coast Guard Scores Aerial Hits Against Drug Runners," Seapower Magazine, Volume 42, No. 11, November, p. 52. Available online at cwww.navyleague.org/seapower/uscg_to_go.htm>.
OCR for page 66
OCR for page 67
OCR for page 68
OCR for page 69
OCR for page 70
OCR for page 71
OCR for page 72
Representative terms from entire chapter:
~ - 66 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY a Non-Lethal Weapons Center of Excellence (NLW COE) at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, along with a Fast Boat Center of Excellence.20 These COEs will be co-located with the U.S. Coast Guard Port Security Unit Training Detachment. The NLW COE will provide a focal point for the R&D of NLWs and serve as a testing ground for Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, D.C., and the Re- search and Development Center, Groton, Connecticut. Its primary function will be to identify, evaluate, and mature tactics, techniques, and procedures for all non-lethal weapons capabilities and to train personnel in their use. The NLW COE is conducting testing and evaluation of both the 12-gauge munitions and RGES at Camp Lejeune. The NLW COE also plans to strengthen relationships with the JNLWD, to maximize opportunities offered by non-lethal weapons developments managed by the directorate and other Services and governmental organizations. When new capabilities are required and do not exist within its own Service assets, the Coast Guard looks to the JNLWD, civilian law enforcement agencies, and even international sources to meet the requirement. In turn, the Coast Guard has frequently provided resources and information to the JNLWD. It has supplied substantial information about its operational experience with non-lethal muni- tions2l and has led several prototype evaluations. The Coast Guard has also provided detailed maritime scenarios that are relevant to the use of NLWs by naval forces and has supported the directorate's efforts to model and simulate non-lethal weapons capabilities. Today, Coast Guard units already equipped with NLWs include helicopter interdiction squadrons, over-the-horizon rubber hull inflatable boats, deployable pursuit boats, guardian patrol craft, and fast-rope teams.22 The intent is to move to year-round full operational capability with NLWs, commensurate with the results of their development and operational evaluations, and to provide appropri- ate non-lethal tools to all platforms, cutters, small boats, helicopters, port security units, and fixed-wing aircraft. While emphasis has been on the use of NLWs for drug interdiction, the Coast Guard anticipates a continuum of applications across a spectrum of missions. NLWs in Law Enforcement Non-lethal weapons technologies and tactics are an integral part of civilian law enforcement. Police are trained to employ a continuum of force, and in the vast majority of police arrests, firearms are not used. Many use-of-force situa- 20Stone, Sgt Arthur, USCG. 2001. "Coast Guard Unit Trains for New Role," The Globe, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, N.C., June 14; available online at
THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 67 lions encountered by police are sudden and in close contact with suspects, requir- ing immediate, instinctive response. Usually such a situation involves suspect arrest and requires hands-on physical restraint. Other instances may involve standoff situations with the time and opportunity to introduce NLWs. Most non- lethal use of force by the police involves weaponless tactics, such as grabbing and control holds. The use of force during pursuits is a significant issue, with ap- proximately one-quarter of all police vehicle pursuits resulting in collisions; spiked strips appear to be the most effective non-lethal weapons technology readily available.23 Correctional institutions have similar requirements for the use of non-lethal weapons. In the majority of cases, force is used in prisons and jails where inmates must be removed against their will from their cells. These extractions often result in injury to the inmate and sometimes to the officers. There are more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States with a potential need for NLWs. Many of these are small police or sheriff's departments with very limited procurement and training budgets. None of these agencies has R&D funding, although a number of departments have evaluated commercial NLWs for use.24 25 The central agency supporting R&D of NLWs for law enforcement is the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Law Enforcement Experience i .¢ Police use of force in the United States occurs infrequently. Each year approximately 1 percent of those persons having direct contact with the police have force threatened or used against them. As pointed out in a 1999 NIJ report, a 1996 study of 7,5 12 arrests found that police use of force occurred in fewer than 20 percent of arrests and 80 percent of these instances involved weaponless tactics.26 Police use of firearms occurred in only 0.2 percent of all arrests. Between these extremes, however, police are increasingly using other NLWs to provide force continuum options. Suspects under the influence of alcohol or drugs are more prone to violence during arrests. OC and lasers have been effec- tive in subduing these individuals.2728 NLWs also have been successfully 23Bayless, Kenneth, and Robert Osborne. 1998. "Pursuit Management Task Force Report," Aerospace Corporation, September. 24Kimerer, Clark, et al. 2000. "A Less Lethal Options Program for Seattle Police Department: A Report with Recommendations," Force Options Research Group, September. 25Meyer, Sgt. Greg. 1992. "Non-Lethal Weapons vs. Conventional Police Tactics: Assessing Injuries and Liabilities," The Police Chief, August. 26National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice. 1999. Executive Summary and Chapter 4, "Measuring the Amount of Force Used By and Against the Policy in Six Jurisdictions," Use of Force By Police: Overview of National and Local Data, Research Report No. NCJ176330, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., October, pp. vii, 25-44. 27Meyer, Sgt. Greg. 1992. "Non-Lethal Weapons vs. Conventional Police Tactics: Assessing Injuries and Liabilities," The Police Chief, August. 28Bubay, David. 1995. "Oleoresin Capsicum and Pepper Sprays," Law and Order, April.
68 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ! .¢ employed in hostage situations, suicide attempts, and other situations in which suspects are threatening force or actions not involving firearms. Riot control with NLWs remains an important police function, as evidenced in the Los Angeles, California, riots in 1992 and more recently in Seattle, Washington, during World Trade Organization meetings. In the NIJ study referred to above, use of chemical agents (primarily OC) was involved in 1.2 percent of arrests and impact weapons (baton or flashlight) in 0.7 percent. Electrical stun devices were not specifically cited; however, indi- vidual police departments have had good success with these devices.29 Because of its high reported effectiveness, ranging from 85 to 95 percent, OC may be the NLWs of choice in law enforcement today.30 Vehicle pursuit by police is one important non-lethal application in need of improved technology and tactics. For the period from 1990 to 1994, 331 persons on average were killed annually in police pursuits, and there were significantly more injures and property damage. Approximately 20 percent of pursuit fatalities are pedestrians or persons in other vehicles. These statistics have led some departments to enact a no-pursuit policy or to restrict pursuits. Nearly 50 percent of pursuits end in less than 2 minutes, but approximately 50 percent of collisions occur in these short-duration pursuits. This implies that to be most effective, vehicle barriers or disablement devices must be available and deployed early in a pursuit. Current technology used by more than 90 percent of law enforcement agencies is pre-emplaced barriers or tire deflation systems. However, boxing, barricading, and ramming are also used by many agencies. Existing options for vehicle-disable- ment weapons must be deployed from police vehicles or helicopters, which is prob- lematic because most police vehicles are manned by a single officer. Technologies that do not affect pursuit vehicles are desirable. Advanced vehicle-disablement technologies of interest to police include advanced mechanical bakers, chemical engine disablement, and electrical disablement. Commercial firms and government laboratories have developed a number of mechanical and electrical direct-injection devices.3~ Disablement devices that require pre-emplacement beyond the tire defla- tion devices currently available are of limited utility. National Institute of Justice Program The National Institute of Justice, which is the R&D arm of the Department of Justice, has three major areas of responsibility: (1) behavioral research, (2) physi- cal sciences research, and (3) dissemination of information to law enforcement 29Meyer, Sgt. Greg. 1992. "Non-Lethal Weapons vs. Conventional Police Tactics: Assessing Injuries and Liabilities," The Police Chief, August. 30 Bubay, David. 1995. "Oleoresin Capsicum and Pepper Sprays," Law and Order, April. 3lNational Institute of Justice. 1996. "High-Speed Pursuit: New Technologies Around the Cor- ner," National Law Enforcement and Corrections Center, October.
THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 69 and corrections institutions. The development of non-lethal incapacitation tech- nology is one of 11 research priorities in the physical sciences program. Recent developments have included a sticky shocker, a green laser dazzler, modifica- tions to a ring airfoil projectile developed by the military, a capture net fired from a 37-mm launcher, and an OC projectile that can penetrate window glass before dispensing pepper spray. Past research has investigated sticky foam and aqueous foam materials applications,32 33 direct-injection devices for disabling vehicles, and the safe use of OC. The total research budget for non-lethal weapons devel- opment is modest, and the NIJ program has tended toward leveraging past R&D or modifying existing weapons to improve and extend effectiveness. The NIJ also participates in several joint programs investigating non-lethal weapons technologies. The NIJ maintains a memorandum of understanding with DOD and the JNLWD to cooperate in non-lethal weapons technology develop- ment and evaluation. The NIJ also participates with the interagency technical support working group (TSWG) in sponsoring development of a range of physi- cal security and infrastructure-protection technologies. A notable non-lethal weapons program recently supported by the NIJ and the TSWG was the sticky shocker, developed by Jaycor.34 2.9 MAJOR STUDIES OR CONFERENCES SINCE 1996 Papers, conference proceedings, and studies of NLWs have continued un- abated since the JNLWD was created. A few of these are highlighted below in chronological order. Council on Foreign Relations The creation of the JNLWD has been viewed by some as a direct result of the Council on Foreign Relations study in 1995, described in Section 1.2.35 In 1998, the CFR conducted a second study of NLWs aimed at a review of what had transpired since an official policy was written and formally adopted and the JNLWD was formed. The principal findings of the study and subsequent actions were as follows: 32Goolsby, T.D. 1994. "Sticky Foam Restraining Effectiveness Human Subject Tests," final report for proposal 96920617, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., July 22. 33Goolsby, T.D. 1996. "Aqueous Foam Physical Characteristics Testing in Mock Prison Cell," final report for National Institute of Justice project 94-IJ-R-025, Sandia National Laboratories, Albu- querque, N.M. January 19. 34A reviewer of this report suggested a taser that includes a substantial round with a soft front end and a couple of darts to shoot into the clothing and convey an electrical shock. The round could contain a capacitor charged before the round is fired. 35Weiner, Malcolm H. 1995. Report of an Independent Task Force on Non-Lethal Technologies: Military Options and Implications, Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
70 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY · The report stated that there was a "high probability of major benefit from a large, urgent investment in non-lethal weapons and technologies." However, the JNLWD budget has not had any substantial increase. · The CFR also proposed that the JNLWD should "coordinate additional NEW programs within the Services." While coordination by the JNLWD has occurred, no significant independent non-lethal weapons development by the Services has taken place. · The CFR suggested that cognizance for NLWs should be at the National Security Council (NSC) level in order to provide NLWs a higher level of impor- tance and visibility within the administration. NSC attention to NLWs has been limited. Non-Lethal Defense Conference IV In March 2000 the National Defense Industrial Association hosted the Non- Lethal Defense Conference IV (NLD IV) co-sponsored by JNLWD, NIJ, and others. More than 400 people attended more than any in this series since NLD I, in 1993. NLD IV was the first conference held after the establishment of DOD policy on NLWs, formation of the JNLWD, and line item budgeting for these systems in the defense budget. The most significant change was in the attendance of representatives from major defense industries. Industrial attendees in previous sessions had been largely from small businesses that produced specific NLWs. NLD IV provided an overview of the status of NLWs and research. .. United States/United Kingdom War Games During 2000, a series of non-lethal weapons meetings and war games was conducted jointly with U.S. and United Kingdom units, facilitated by the JNLWD. The intent was to identify policy, requirements, and concepts of operations for NLWs. It was determined that NLWs had applicability across the spectrum, from operations other than war to major theater war. The recommendations were to field proven systems, educate the public about NLWs, develop training programs and establish logistic support, and work on organizational plans for use of NLWs. It appears that some effort has gone toward addressing those recommendations. It is too early to determine how effective the responses will be. Center for Strategic and International Studies The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conducted a study on non-lethal weapons national policy in 1999.36 It concluded that NLWs, if 36Swett, Charles, and Dan Goure. 1999. Non-Lethal Weapons Policy Study, Final Report, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., February 5.
: - THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 71 technically viable, would be extremely useful as instruments of national policy, and it recommended that the DOD executive agent undertake an expanded S&T program to determine the technical viability of many non-lethal weapons con- cepts. The report estimated that the level of effort required to address issues identified in the study for the leading technologies would be $100 million per year for 3 years. Joint Mission Area Analysis Conference On December 23, 1999, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and executive agent for the joint non-lethal weapons program requested that a joint mission area analysis be conducted. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) en- dorsed the conduct of the NEW JMAA on March 6, 2000. The initial JMAA Warfighters Conference was held in Washington, D.C., on March 27-31, 2000. The JMAA In-Progress Review was held July 18-20, 2000. The final JMAA Conference was held at Headquarters, U.S. Southern Command, October 17-20, 2000. The following findings and conclusions were produced: . The joint non-lethal weapons program is stable and visionary. · The joint non-lethal weapons program recognizes the potential of NLWs across the spectrum of conflict and at all levels of war. · Using a "strategy to task" methodology, the JMAA called out capability deficiencies, identified operational and support tasks needed to meet mission objectives, and provided a master list of non-lethal weapons technologies. CINCs and Services JMAA working-group members concurred with re- spect to three core capabilities and eight subordinate functional areas for NLWs (see Box 2.2~. · JMAA working-group members reviewed and concurred with findings and recommendations of the JMAA and draft mission needs statement. · JMAA working-group members supported the draft of a capstone require- ment document for each non-lethal weapons functional area, as appropriate. ; . Air Force Scientific Advisory Board During 19999 the U.S. Air Force charged its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) with conducting a summer study, titled "Technology Options to Leverage Aero- space Power in Operations Other Than Conventional War,"37 in which NLWs were one of the areas examined. As part of the study, an extensive survey of technologies that could be employed in current and future systems was under- 37Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. 2000. ``Technology Options to Leverage Aerospace Power in Operations Other Than Conventional war, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, SAB- TR-99-01, T. McMahan, chair, February.
i 72 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY # ~~C —C¢ntrol~cra ~ ~ ~ I. . I~=p~i~ —~~ny~-area —~CIOar ~facil~< ~Go~e~ :~_ Deny ar~ i: ~—Drably Co~nte~apa:l —Losable —-Deny w :: ~ ~ :~:~::~;:~.~.~OT~EX:~ Thatch i: :~::::: ::: :: ~ ~:~ : ::: : -I ~-~.~ ~~ ~~;~ I. -. ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i.: ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . hi. ~ . ~. -~ - - Brews c¢~rca=~emen ,. ::: ~~ : :~ :~::: if:: :~ :: ~ ::~: i: ::: ::: ~ ~ : :::: ::: ::: :: ~~ ~~ ~~-~ :~ ~ ~ :~: :: : :: :: i::: ~ ::::: ~: i: : :: :: ~ i:: : ~ ~~ - i: taken. It was determined that NLWs did have applicability across the spectrum of conflict and that they would enhance warfighting capability, but that a compre- hensive strategy for the Air Force was needed. Non-lethal resources, the study said, should be a part of the campaign planning process as an integrated option. The need for a comprehensive Air Force acquisition strategy to develop, test, and procure NLWs was identified. In addition, the SAB recommended that the Air Force do the following: · Develop capabilities to assess, in real time, the effects of annlier1 non- lethal means on adversaries for planning and operations; ~ . . ~ . . . . .. ~ .. -err - · Expand the use of non-letha~ resources to the lull spectrum of conflict during participation in warfighting experiments and exercises; and · Undertake selected technology initiatives in high-power microwave sys- tems, lasers, and other forms of electronic and information warfare.
OCR for page 67
OCR for page 68
OCR for page 69
OCR for page 70
OCR for page 71
OCR for page 72
Representative terms from entire chapter: