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.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
Page viii

OCR for page R1
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 R1
Page x

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1
Page xvi