|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2010. 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
Page i
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO REPLACE ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES
Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
Office of International Affairs
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
Page ii
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20418
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/Grant No. V101(93)P-1637, TO#16 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. 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:
0-309-07349-9
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number:
2001088182
Limited copies of this report are available from:
Division of Military Science and Technology
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Additional copies are available from
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285,
Washington, D.C.
20055;
(800) 624-6242
or
(202) 334-3313
(in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet,
http://www.nap.edu
Copyright
2001
by the
National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Page iii
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
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. William 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R4
Page iv
COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO REPLACE ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO (NAE),
chair,
Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York
H. NORMAN ABRAMSON (NAE),
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
THOMAS F. HAFER,
Science and Technology Associates, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
J. JEROME HOLTON,
Defense Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
LEE M. HUNT,
Consultant,
Alexandria, Virginia
RICHARD H. JOHNSON,
U.S. Army (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
K. SHARVAN KUMAR,
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
RONALD F. LEHMAN II,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
LARRY G. LEHOWICZ,
U.S. Army (retired), Quantum Research, International, Arlington, Virginia
ALAN M. LOVELACE (NAE),
General Dynamics Corporation (retired), La Jolla, California
HARVEY M. SAPOLSKY,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
DANIEL R. SCHROEDER,
U.S. Army (retired), Vass, North Carolina
MARION W. SCOTT,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
K. ANNE STREET,
Riverside Consulting Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
PATRICK H. WINSTON,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
National Research Council Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN,
Director,
Division of Military Science and Technology
JO L. HUSBANDS,
Senior Staff Officer,
Office of International Affairs
MARGARET N. NOVACK,
Study Director
LOIS E. PETERSON,
Program Officer
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL,
Administrative Coordinator
CHRISTINA B. MAIERS,
Program Specialist (until August 2000)
GWEN ROBY,
Senior Project Assistant
Liaisons
Board on Army Science and Technology
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III,
Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
Air Force Science and Technology Board
ANTHONY J. BURSHNICK,
U.S. Air Force (retired),
Consultant,
Springfield, Virginia
OCR for page R5
Page v
COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
W. DALE COMPTON (NAE)
chair,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
ELEANOR BAUM,
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, New York, New York
RUTH M. DAVIS (NAE),
Pymatuning Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
HENRY J. HATCH (NAE),
U.S. Army (retired), Reston, Virginia
STUART L. KNOOP,
Oudens and Knoop,
Architects,
PC, Chevy Chase, Maryland
NANCY G. LEVESON (NAE),
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
CORA B. MARRETT,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
ROBERT M. NEREM (NAE),
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
LAWRENCE T. PAPAY (NAE),
Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia
BRADFORD W. PARKINSON (NAE),
Stanford University, Stanford, California
BARRY M. TROST (NAS),
Stanford University, Stanford, California
JAMES C. WILLIAMS (NAE),
GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio
RONALD W. YATES,
U.S. Air Force (retired), Monument, Colorado
Staff
DOUGLAS BAUER,
Executive Director
DENNIS CHAMOT,
Deputy Executive Director
SYLVIA GILBERT,
Administrative Associate
CARLA PAGE,
Administrative Assistant
SHARON SEGAL,
Financial Officer
CAROL R. ARENBERG,
Editor
NOTE: This study was initiated under the auspices of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, which was subsumed in January 2001 by the newly established Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences.
OCR for page R6
Page vi
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
F. SHERWOOD ROWLAND (NAS, IOM),
chair OIA,
co-chair IAB,
University of California, Irvine; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Sciences
HAROLD K. FORSEN (NAE),
co-chair IAB,
Bechtel Corporation (retired); Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering
FRANCISCO J. AYALA (NAS),
University of California, Irvine
JOHN D. BALDESCHWIELER (NAS),
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NICOLE BALL,
University of Maryland, College Park
DAVID R. CHALLONER (IOM),
University of Florida, Gainesville; Foreign Secretary, Institute of Medicine
ELLEN FROST,
Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.
JOHN H. GIBBONS (NAE),
Consultant,
The Plains, Virginia
DAVID A. HAMBURG (NAS, IOM),
Carnegie Corporation of New York (emeritus), New York
RICHARD R. HARWOOD,
Michigan State University, East Lansing
DONALD A. HENDERSON (NAS, IOM),
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
JULIA MARTON-LEFEVRE,
Leadership
for
Environment and Development International, Inc., London, United Kingdom
LEAL ANNE MERTES,
University of California, Santa Barbara
HENRY METZGER (NAS),
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland
DIANA S. NATALICIO,
University of Texas at E1 Paso
JAMES W. POIROT (NAE),
CH2M Hill, Inc. (retired), Denver, Colorado
ERNEST J. WILSON III,
University of Maryland, College Park
Staff
JOHN BORIGHT,
Executive Director
CAROL PICARD,
Associate Executive Director
JOANNA K. ROSENBERGER,
Administrative and Financial Officer
EFFIE BENTSI-ADOTEYE,
Administrative Assistant
OCR for page R7
Page vii
Preface
This National Research Council (NRC) study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in response to a mandate from Congress, addresses the question of whether there are alternatives to antipersonnel landmines (APL)—including technologies, tactics, and operational concepts. The study was conducted at an interesting historical juncture, when the United States is at peace and, at the same time, the number of new technologies rich in military possibilities is unprecedented. The convergence of these two factors presents the U.S. Armed Forces with a unique window of opportunity to develop new systems and concepts to address future challenges.
This is also a moment of heightened international concern about the thousands of civilian casualties that occur every year when APL that have been left in the field after a conflict explode automatically on contact. When military operations are conducted in the midst of a civilian population, the problem is compounded because today's mines cannot discriminate between friend and foe, belligerent and civilian. It is important to note, however, that APL fielded by U.S. forces, except for APL in storage in Korea, are designed to self-destruct or self-deactivate at a preset time. Therefore, they do not remain a danger indefinitely.
No simple device today can provide capabilities comparable to those of APL, both as self-standing devices and as a part of other systems. Devices currently under development include mine-like devices that do not explode automatically on contact and nonlethal devices that could complement lethal devices and systems. Thus, the functions of today's APL could be performed by a combination of devices, carefully planned tactics, and appropriate operational procedures. In some circumstances, however, replacing APL could lead to higher casualties to our ground forces and/or could reduce our military capabilities.
The committee believes strongly that the development of new systems with decoupled sensing, communication, and explosive functions and the creation of networks of technologically sophisticated tactical sensors would greatly increase the situational awareness and power of war fighters and help meet the goal of ensuring the information superiority of U.S. forces. These systems would also respond to the humanitarian principle manifested in the Ottawa Convention of eliminating antipersonnel devices that explode on contact. Although these new systems are bound to have vulnerabilities different from those of APL, these vulnerabilities could be greatly reduced by the application of appropriate technologies. Therefore, DOD should move rapidly to support pertinent research and development to create fieldable systems.
The NRC committee that produced this report worked diligently in the limited time available to respond to DOD's request. The report draws on presentations to the committee in both public and closed sessions by representatives of government, industry, and nongovernmental organizations, interviews, research by committee members, and their expertise and judgment.
The committee is grateful to everyone who contributed to the study, particularly Margaret Novack, study director, and Lois Peterson, program officer, who worked tirelessly to see the study through to completion.
George Bugliarello, Chair
Committee on Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines
OCR for page R8
Page viii
OCR for page R9
Page ix
Acknowledgments
The study was conducted under the codirectorship of two National Research Council commission-level offices: the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS) and the Office of International Affairs (OIA). An oversight group was formed to ensure unity of effort and to provide an internal review of this report. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the oversight group:
Henry J. Hatch (NAE), chair, U.S. Army (retired)
John Baldeschwieler (NAE), California Institute of Technology
Nicole Ball, University of Maryland
Ruth M. Davis (NAE), Pymatuning Group, Inc.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC'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, evidence, 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:
Arden L. Bement (NAE), Purdue University
John Christie, Logistics Management Institute
Stephen D. Goose, Human Rights Watch
Jerome H. Granrud, U.S. Army (retired)
Thomas McNaugher, RAND Corporation
Hyla Napadensky (NAE), Napadensky Energetics
Richard I. Neal, U.S. Marine Corps (retired)
Francis B. Paca, VSE Corporation
William C. Schneck, U.S. Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate
Sarah Sewall, Carr Center for Human Rights
John F. Troxell, U.S. Army War College
Gerold Yonas, Sandia National Laboratories
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lewis M. Branscomb, NAE, Harvard University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R10
Page x
OCR for page R11
Page xi
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
INTRODUCTION
10
Definitions,
10
History of Mines,
11
Residual Hazards of Mines,
13
International Instruments,
13
The U.S. Position,
15
Committee Process,
17
Report Road Map,
18
2
NATIONAL SECURITY ENVIRONMENTS AND THE CONTEXT FOR LANDMINES
19
National Security Strategies,
19
Benefits and Vulnerabilities of New Technologies,
22
3
CURRENT USES OF ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES
25
Doctrinal Guidance for Using Landmines,
25
Role of Landmines in Warfare,
26
Capabilities of Antipersonnel Landmines,
26
Technologies in Antipersonnel Landmines,
27
4
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
30
Methodology,
30
Baseline Systems,
30
Criteria,
30
5
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TODAY
35
Overview,
35
Nonmateriel Alternatives,
35
Materiel Alternatives,
36
Committee Assessments,
41
6
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE BY 2006
45
Overview,
45
Nonmateriel Alternatives,
45
Materiel Alternatives,
45
Committee Assessments,
55
OCR for page R12
Page xii
7
ALTERNATIVES POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE AFTER 2006
60
Overview,
60
Materiel Alternatives,
63
Committee Assessments,
73
8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
77
Introduction,
77
Alternatives Available by 2006,
77
Alternatives Potentially Available After 2006,
78
Self-Destructing, Self-Deactivating Fuzes,
79
REFERENCES
80
APPENDIXES
A
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
85
B
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
88
C
CURRENT TYPES OF U.S. LANDMINES
92
D
VALUE OF ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES IN UNPROTECTED MIXED MINEFIELDS
99
E
THE OTTAWA CONVENTION AND AMENDED PROTOCOL II OF THE CONVENTION ON CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS
101
F
SIGNATORIES TO THE OTTAWA CONVENTION AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES TO LANDMINES
115
G
MISSION NEED STATEMENTS
118
OCR for page R13
Page xiii
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
ES-1
Current and Potential Systems Considered in This Report,
4
1-1
Current and Projected Funding for Tracks I, II, and III,
17
5-1
Alternatives Available Today,
37
5-2
Score Sheet for Alternatives Available Today,
42
6-1
Alternatives Available by 2006,
46
6-2
Score Sheet for Alternatives Available by 2006,
58
7-1
Alternatives Potentially Available After 2006,
64
7-2
Score Sheet for Alternatives Potentially Available After 2006,
75
C-1
Current U.S. Mines,
93
FIGURES
3-1
Mine components,
27
5-1
Military effectiveness of currently available alternatives based on qualitative scoring by the committee,
43
6-1
Military effectiveness of alternatives available by 2006 based on qualitative scoring by the committee,
59
7-1
Military effectiveness of alternatives potentially available after 2006 based on qualitative scoring by the committee,
76
C-1
Landmine systems on the battlefield,
93
C-2
M14,
94
C-3
M16,
94
C-4
Pursuit denial munition,
94
C-5
M18 Claymore,
95
C-6
ADAM mine projectile,
95
C-7
Hornet/WAM,
96
C-8
RAAMS projectile,
96
OCR for page R14
Page xiv
C-9
GEMSS system,
97
C-10
MOPMS,
97
C-11
Gator projectile,
97
C-12
Volcano delivery system,
98
BOXES
1-1
Definitions of Antipersonnel Landmines,
11
3-1
Barriers, Obstacles, and Mines,
25
3-2
Capabilities of Antipersonnel Landmines,
27
3-3
Unexploded Ordnance Hazards,
28
6-1
Track 1 Nonself-destructing Alternative (NSD-A),
55
6-2
Remote Area-Denial Artillery Munition (RADAM),
57
D-1
Fundamentals of U.S. Breaching Operations,
100
OCR for page R15
Page xv
Acronyms
ADAM
Area-Denial Artillery Munition
APL
antipersonnel landmines
AT
antitank (mine)
BAT
Brilliant Antiarmor Submunition
BATAAM
BAT Antiarmor Munition
BNLM
Bounding Nonlethal Munition
C4ISR
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
CCW
Convention on Conventional Weapons
CFC
Combined Forces Command
CINC
Commander in Chief
CJCS
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
CLADS
Canister-Launched Area-Denial System
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DOD
U.S. Department of Defense
DPICM
Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munition
DWSC
Distributed Web Sensor Complex
EWSS
Early Warning Subsystem
FASCAM
Family of Scatterable Mines
FCS
Future Combat System
FM
field manual
GEMSS
Ground-Emplaced Mine-Scattering System
GPS
Global Positioning System
HESF
Hand-Emplaced Sensor Field
HMMWV
High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
JSTARS
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
LADAR
laser radar
LDMG
LADAR-directed machine gun
MEMS
microelectromechanical system
MLRS
Multiple-Launch Rocket System
MOPMS
Modular-Pack Mine System
MOSAIC
multifunctional, on-the-move, secure, adaptive, integrated communication
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NSD-A
nonself-destructing (antipersonnel landmine) alternative
ORD
Operational Requirements Document
PIP
Product Improvement Program
RAAMS
Remote Antiarmor Mine System
RAAMS-NL
Remote Antiarmor Mine System-Nonlethal
RADAM
Remote Area-Denial Artillery Munition
RD-Sensor
RAAMS enhanced with telemetry and sensor package
RD-Telemetry
RAAMS enhanced with telemetry
RD-WAM
Remotely Delivered Wide Area Munition
RRASMS
Radio/Radar Sensor Munition System
SADARM
Sense and Destroy Armor Munition
SSDMS
Small Short-Duration Mine System
SFW
Sensor Fuzed Weapon
SINCGARS
Single-Channel Ground-to-Air Radio System
TACMS
Tactical Missile System
UNC
United Nations Command
URAS
Unmanned Remote Ambush System
WAM
Wide Area Munition
OCR for page R16
Page xvi
