 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
| Copyright © 2012. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
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 R1
An Assessment of
llon-Letha~ Weapons
cience and Technology
Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons
Science and Technology
Naval Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
v
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special
competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #7, between the National
Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08288-9
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room W904
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth
Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the
Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medirine
.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate
that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is
autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences
to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination
of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to
be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of
medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute
of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in
1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are
chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Prepublication Copy~ubject to Further Editorial Correction
1V
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF NON LETHAL WEAPONS
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Chair
JOHN B. ALEXANDER, The Apollinaire Group
MICHAEL B. BERGER, Logistics Management Institute
RUTH A. DAVID, Analytic Services, Inc.
CLAY E. EASTERLY, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
MILTON FINGER, Livermore, California
CHARLES A. FOWLER, C.A. Fowler Associates
CHARLES HIGGS, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PHIL C. MOUSER, Raytheon Company
JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University
ALBERT I. KING, Wayne State University
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Integro
JAMES W. MEYER, Fairport, New York
ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University
STEVEN H. SCOTT, Sandia National Laboratories
WILLIAM M. TOLLES, Alexandria, Virginia
PAUL K. VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
KERRY A.M. WILLIAMS, Research Assistant (through March 8, 2002)
SIDNEY G. REED, Consultant
JAMES G. WILSON, Consultant
v
OCR for page R6
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD
.,
VINCENT VITTO, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc., Chair
JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California, Vice Chair
DAVID R. HEEBNER, McLean, Virginia, Past Chair (through December 31,
2001)
ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. (through December 31,
2001)
ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University,
Special Advisor
JAMES P. BROOKS, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
JOHN D. CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute
RUTH A. DAVID, Analytic Services, Inc.
PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies
ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation
BRIG "CHIP" ELLIOTT, BEN Technologies
FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Bedford, Massachusetts
RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses
HARRY W. JENKINS, ITT Industries
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories
DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia
WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland
JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International
ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University
NILS R. SANDELL, JR., ALPHATECH, Inc.
HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California (through December 31, 2001)
JAMES M. SINNETT, Boeing Company
WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania
PAUL K. VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia (through December 31, 2001)
RICHARD L. WADE, Risk Management Sciences
MITZI M. WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM LEWIS W. CRENSHAW, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, N81
RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91
Vl
OCR for page R7
~~e C~ [~ iffy
LTCEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding Ceneral, Marine
Cows Combo DevN~meN Command
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Senior Program Officer
MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer (as of September 3, 2002)
WARY ~ CO=ON, Baron O~c~
SUSAN O. CAMPBELL, Adminis~adve Assi~anl
KERRY A.~. WILLIAMS, Research Ass~1anl (through March 8, 2002)
IAN at. CAMERON, Pr~ecl As~stanl (as of March 25, 2002)
vzz
OCR for page R8
Prepublication Copy~ubject to Further Editorial Correction
TERMS OF REFERENCE
At the request of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate and the Of lice of Naval
Research, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council conducted an assessment of
non-lethal weapons science and technology that addressed the following terms of reference:
· Review the previous non-lethal weapons studies and initiatives, and assess their response
along with any DOD response.
Review the current and planned non-lethal weapons program of record as executed by the
Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate under the charge of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Review and identify current and planned Department of the Navy science and technology
programs (budget categories 6. I-6.3) that currently do or could in the future contribute to the
development of non-lethal weapons' capabilities.
· Identify technology developments (including synergies of technologies) that show
promise for enhancing existing non-lethal weapons capabilities or developing new non-lethal
weapons capabilities for use by naval expeditionary forces. These capabilities should not be
limited to weapons exclusively, but also should include training, handling, control, delivery,
logistics and maintenance support, countermeasures, and doctrine (or operational concepts)
development.
Identify programs that may represent duplication of effort or could benefit from
leveraging of resources.
Recommend science and technology program actions that might be initiated by the Of lice
of Naval Research in support of naval expeditionary force needs for non-lethal weapons.
This final report reviews and projects technology developments; identifies promising areas
for research in science and technology; identifies duplication or leveraging opportunities; and
addresses broader issues related to training, handling, control, delivery, logistics arid maintenance
supports countermeasures, and development of operational concepts.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS1
The Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology first
convened in February 2001 and held additional meetings and site visits over a period of 7
months:
· February T-2, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting: loins Non-Lethal
Weapons Directorate briefings on historical perspectives, current capabilities. joint concepts
ex~shng Service mission need statements, assessment ot science and technology needs, previous
studies, airborne tactical laser advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), and foreign
exchange agreements.
March 6-7, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Manne Corps Combat Development Command
briefings on Marine Corps non-lethal weapons chows) concepts and requirements; Manne
[During the entire course of its data gathering, the committee held meetings closed to the public in which it received
(and discussed) classified material. Accordingly, the content of this report is limited by restrictions to classification.
. . .
V111
OCR for page R9
Preface
As part of the nation's national security strategy, naval forces remain de-
ployed throughout the world, engaged in or ready to support operations ranging
from training exercises with joint and allied coalition partners, to humanitarian
relief efforts, to peacekeeping and peace enforcement, to combat. Non-lethal
weapons provide one means by which expeditionary forces can accomplish their
missions, particularly in urban areas, with a reduced likelihood of death and
injury to non-combatant civilians who might be encountered, for example, in
hostage rescue or human shielding operations. As a result of the National De-
fense Authorization Act of 1996 and because of Marine Corps initiative and
experience, the Commandant of the Marine Corps was designated the executive
agent for joint Service research, development, testing, and evaluation of non-
lethal weapons and non-lethal weapons technologies.
Operating with a yearly budget of approximately $25 million, the Joint Non-
Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) is executing these responsibilities. Less
than $1 million of this amount is used to support new technology development.
Currently, the role of the JNLWD in areas related to information warfare and
psychological warfare and with respect to single-Service activities is limited to
coordination and integration. At issue for the Department of the Navy is to what
extent and in what areas Navy-sponsored science and technology should provide
a research base for developing non-lethal weapons capabilities.
Non-lethal weapons consist of a diverse array of individual weapons that mini-
mize fatalities and undesired damage to property and the environment. They func-
tion in three realms: those of (1) counterpersonnel objectives, which include con-
trolling crowds; incapacitating individuals; denying areas to personnel; and clearing
personnel from facilities, structures, or areas of operation; (2) countermateriel objec-
IX
OCR for page R10
XPREFACE
fives, which include denying areas to vehicles, vessels, or aircraft, and disabling or
neutralizing vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or equipment; and (3) countercapability ob-
jectives, which include disabling or neutralizing facilities and systems and denying
use of weapons of mass destruction.
Non-lethal weapons technologies cover a broad spectrum, including areas
related to the development of acoustics systems, chemicals (e.g., antitraction
materials, dyes, markers, and malodorants), communications systems, electro-
magnetic and electrical systems, entanglement and other mechanical systems,
information technologies, optical devices, non-penetrating projectiles and muni-
tions, and many others. Combinations of non-lethal and lethal weapons are
possible. Synergy of non-lethal weapons with psychological, information, and/or
electronic warfare in a networked fashion could be especially effective. As non-
lethal weapons are developed and acquired, it is especially important that train-
ing, delivery, deployment, control, logistics, maintenance, and doctrine for use
are in hand. Forward-deployed, distributed naval forces offer great potential for
timely use of non-lethal weapons in a variety of scenarios.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
At the request of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate and the Office of
Naval Research, the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council con-
ducted an assessment of non-lethal weapons science and technology that ad-
dressed the following terms of reference:
· Review the previous non-lethal weapons studies and initiatives, and as-
sess their response along with any DOD response.
· Review the current and planned non-lethal weapons program of record as
executed by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate under the charge of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
· Review and identify current and planned Department of the Navy science
and technology programs (budget categories 6. 1-6.3) that currently do or could in
the future contribute to the development of non-lethal weapons' capabilities.
· Identify technology developments (including synergies of technologies)
that show promise for enhancing existing non-lethal weapons capabilities or
developing new non-lethal weapons capabilities for use by naval expeditionary
forces. These capabilities should not be limited to weapons exclusively, but also
should include training, handling, control, delivery, logistics and maintenance
support, countermeasures, and doctrine (or operational concepts) development.
· Identify programs that may represent duplication of effort or could benefit
from leveraging of resources.
· Recommend science and technology program actions that might be initi-
ated by the Office of Naval Research in support of naval expeditionary force
needs for non-lethal weapons.
OCR for page R11
.¢
PREFACE
Xl
This final report reviews and projects technology developments; identifies
promising areas for research in science and technology; identifies duplication or
leveraging opportunities; and addresses broader issues related to training, han-
dling, control, delivery, logistics and maintenance support, countermeasures, and
development of operational concepts.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and
Technology first convened in February 2001 and held additional meetings and
site visits over a period of 7 months: 1
· February 1-2, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting: Joint
Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate briefings on historical perspectives, current capa-
bilities, joint concepts, existing Service mission need statements, assessment of
science and technology needs, previous studies, airborne tactical laser advanced
concept technology demonstration (ACTD), and foreign exchange agreements.
· March 6-7, 2001, in Washington,D.C. Marine Corps CombatDevelop-
ment Command briefings on Marine Corps non-lethal weapons (NLWs) concepts
and requirements; Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory briefing on non-lethal
weapons experimentation; Marine Corps Systems Command briefing on non-
lethal weapons acquisition management; Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps brief-
ing on the Marine Corps perspective on directed energy; U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command briefing on weapons requirements, concepts, and experimen-
tation; U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Support Command briefing on current and
planned use of NLWs; Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEASYSCOM) brief-
ing on NAVSEASYSCOM perspective on NLWs; the Secretary of the Navy's
Antite~rorism/Force Protection Task Force briefing on actions stemming from
the attack on the USS Cole; and U.S. Army Program Manager for Mines, Counter-
mines, and Demolition briefing on the non-lethal weapons program for mines,
countermines, and demolition.
April 3-4, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Naval Research Laboratory brief-
ing on high-energy lasers and high-power microwave/millimeter-wave source
technology; U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Command overview of non-lethal
weapons science and technology; Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division Inter-
national and Operational Law Branch briefing on legal issues affecting non-lethal
weapons policy; National Institute of Justice overview of NLWs; U.S. Joint
Forces Command overview of experimentation and technical initiatives related to
NLWs and low-collateral-damage weapons; U.S. Special Operations Command
.
1 During the entire course of its data gathering, the committee held meetings closed to the public in
which it received (and discussed) classified material Accordingly, the content of this report is
limited by restrictions to classification.
OCR for page R12
Xll
PREFACE
overview of non-lethal weapons science and technology requirements, concepts,
and experimentation.
· April 29-30, 2001, in San Antonio, Texas, and Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Site visit to Brooks Air Force Base, Kirtland Air Force Base, and Sandia National
Laboratories for briefings on the Air Force non-lethal weapons perspective, over-
view of non-lethal weapons human effects, Human Effects Advisory Panel, joint
non-lethal weapons program Human Effects Center of Excellence, tri-Service
radio-frequency/microwave/millimeter-wave bioeffects program, tri-Service la-
ser bioeffects program, antisensor laser (Medusa), infrastructure, vehicle stopper,
modeling and simulation effects, active denial technology, and Los Alamos Na-
tional Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory non-lethal weap-
ons initiatives.
t
.,
· May 16-17, 2001, in Washington D.C. Small group visit to Office of
Naval Intelligence for Small Boat Threat Workshop.
· May 21, 2001, in Aberdeen, Maryland. Small group visit to Edgewood
Chemical and Biological Command.
· June 12-14, 2001, in Washington D.C. Deputy Study Chair briefing on
2000 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board study Technologies to Leverage Aero-
space Power in Operations Other Than War; U.S. Air Force Headquarters Secu-
rity Forces overview of non-lethal weapons concepts, experimentation, and re-
quirements; Defense Threat Reduction Agency briefing on protecting U.S. Navy
ships in foreign ports; Potomac Institute for Policy Studies briefing on Center for
Emerging Threats and Opportunities; Mission Research Corporation briefing on
pulsed-energy projectile program; U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and
Preventive Medicine briefing on health hazard analyses; Walter Reed Institute
for Research briefing on interim total body model; and Science Applications
International Corporation briefing on loitering electronic warfare killer ACTD.
Also, in an effort to frame potential applications of NLWs for U.S. Navy opera-
tions (and the supporting technology options and system concepts to meet those
operational needs), the committee held a 1-day data-gathering session with repre-
sentatives from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Naval
Operations Strategic Studies Group, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate,
the Office of Naval Research, the Navy Warfare Development Command, the
Office of Naval Intelligence, the Naval Research Laboratory, the Naval Surface
Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Com-
mand, the U.S. Coast Guard Non-Lethal Weapons Center of Excellence, and the
Applied Research Laboratory/Pennsylvania State University.
· July 16-20, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Committee deliberations and
report drafting.
The months between the last meeting and publication of the report were
spent preparing the draft manuscript, reviewing and responding to the external
OCR for page R13
PREFACE
. . .
X111
review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review
necessary to produce an unclassified report.
Following completion of the security review a prepublication copy of the
report was released to the public on November 4, 2002. Subsequent to that
release, it became apparent that the Department of Defense and the Department
of State have differing legal interpretations of the Chemical Weapons Conven-
tion as it pertains to the development of chemical non-lethal weapons for military
purposes. As a consequence, and in recognition that it was not the mandate of the
committee to conduct a legal review of the permissibility of non-lethal weapons
as it relates to the Chemical Weapons Convention (and other national and inter-
national law and treaties), a brief discussion of legal considerations has been
excised from the final report. In doing so the committee recognizes that it is of
paramount importance that the Department of Defense and the Department of
State clarify the legal interpretations of the Chemical Weapons Convention so
that both the operational and technical communities can move forward under
consistent guidelines.
OCR for page R14
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
.,
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their
diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap-
proved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The
purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments
that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible
and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evi-
dence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Richard L. Garwin, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center,
Larry G. Lehowicz, USA (Ret.), Quantum Research International,
John (Ted) Parker, USN (Ret.), Annapolis, Maryland,
John E. Rhodes, USMC (Ret.), Balboa, California,
Charles F. Sham, McLean, Virginia, and
Peter R. Worch, Leonardtown, Maryland.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com-
ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom-
mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The
review of this report was overseen by John W. Rouse, Southern Research Insti-
tute. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for mak-
ing certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were care-
fully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely
with the authoring committee and the institution.
x~v
OCR for page R15
Contents
Prologue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
.,
1.1 Non-Lethal Weapons: Definition and Evolving Rationale 12
1.2 Roles of Non-Lethal Weapons for Naval Expeditionary Forces, 16
1.3 Desirable Characteristics of Non-Lethal Weapons for Naval
Expeditionary Forces, 21
2 THE CURRENT STATUS OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS
2.1 Non-Lethal Weapons Technologies, 23
2.2 Health Effects and Biosusceptibilities, 38
2.3 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 40
2.4 Non-Lethal Weapons, Future Naval Capabilities, and
Department of the Navy S&T, 47
2.5 Current Navy Programs Relevant to Development of Non-Lethal
Weapons Capability, 49
2.6 Current Marine Corps Programs and Experience Relevant to
Development of Non-Lethal Weapons Capability, 50
Other Military Operational Experience, 59
Programs in Other Services and Agencies, 63
Major Studies or Conferences Since 1996, 69
xv
. .
XV11
12
23
OCR for page R16
XVI
3 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
3.1 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 74
3.2 Advanced Non-Lethal Weapons Technologies for
Naval Expeditionary Forces, 79
3.3 Non-Lethal Weapons Systems Development, 85
3.4 Department of the Navy Organizational Interest in
Non-Lethal Weapons, 93
Summary of Findings, 96
4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 98
4.2 Non-Lethal Weapons and Naval Expeditionary Forces, 100
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, 101
Centers of Excellence, 104
Science and Technology, 106
Department of the Navy, 1 10
APPENDIXES
CONTENTS
73
98
101
A Non-Lethal Weapons in the Architecture for Force Protection, 115
B Non-Lethal Weapons Technology Table, 119
C Discussion of Health Effects of Non-Lethal Weapons, 148
D Biographies of Committee Members and Staff, 166
E Acronyms and Abbreviations, 174
OCR for page R17
Prologue
.,
September 11, 2001, was a defining day in the history of the United States of
America, if not the world. The unprecedented disasters in New York and Wash-
ington, D.C., have placed the nation on a wartime footing, and we have formally
acknowledged our battle against terrorism. The implications for warfighting and
law enforcement have yet to be fully understood, but most would agree that
profound shifts in emphasis and investment are likely to come. In rooting out
terrorism's infrastructure, there will be times when controlled application of
force will be essential and unconstrained violence counterproductive to our stra-
tegic goals. Moreover, punishing attacks that destroy the overt support system
for terrorists will not be sufficient to weed out well-hidden infrastructure, some of
which already resides on U.S. soil. As the immediate emotional circumstances
fade, the need to isolate a few individuals, both in the United States and abroad,
most likely in and amongst civilian populations, will remain critically important.
In that context, non-lethal weapons may play an even greater role in matters of
national security.
Of particular concern to the Navy will be yet greater emphasis on base
security and force protection as the links between the events of September 11
and the USS Cole incident begin to be made. This report addresses those
issues but could not fully appreciate the new complexities in which those
missions are likely to be executed. For the U.S. Marine Corps the focus on
Military Operations in Urban Terrain is likely to take on added importance,
with minimization of collateral casualties and damage being of the utmost
importance for maintaining fragile coalition relations with Middle Eastern
states in particular. This report emphasizes the role of non-lethal weapons
. .
XVI!
OCR for page R18
.
XVIII
PROLOGUE
for those missions, but the emerging political climate elevates to a strategic
level the importance of controlled use of force.
In this milieu, the development and deployment of more capable non-lethal
weapons should be given a higher priority. This report was in review on Septem-
ber 11. None of its recommendations have been altered by the events of that
day but the urgency in their acceptance and implementation has.
