Future options for nonlethal artillery

FA Journal, March-April, 2003 by Kenneth L. Black

Gone is the Berlin Wall.-Gone is the Soviet Union. Gone also is the clearly defined enemy of the past. In its place is an amorphous, loosely knit network of terrorist cells and other hostile forces that do not wage war by the "old rules." The Global War on Terrorism now dominates the daily headlines. Much of what we knew about war has changed dramatically in the past few years.

Americans have grown more intolerant of war casualties. The public expects more sterile battles as precise weaponry demonstrates ever-increasing capabilities. Meanwhile, network television beams real-time war footage worldwide, allowing global audiences to scrutinize battlefield activities.

While Americans and our allies place a high value on life, many of our enemies do not. This growing ethical divide has given the enemy a new tool to use. For example, the Iraqi regime would not hesitate to put anti-aircraft weapons or radar systems in a schoolyard or next to a hospital.

The enemy knows we are reluctant to bomb these installations because of the potential for the loss of innocent lives. The result could be a propaganda dividend for the enemy, rallying anti-American sentiment abroad and criticism at home. This is called the "CNN Effect."

Such circumstances have created a growing need for nonlethal alternatives. We can not only save the lives of both combatants and non-combatants, but also reduce the collateral damage to structures and the environment.

The use of nonlethal weaponry is not new, but the level of interest has grown dramatically in recent years. The term "nonlethal artillery" might seem like an oxymoron to some, but as a concept, it must be pursued if the Field Artillery is to maintain relevance in all aspects of the future spectrum of combat. In fact, the Field Artillery has been firing nonlethal smoke and illumination for many years.

"Less lethal" and "scalable effects" are terms often used interchangeably with nonlethal. While the intent of nonlethal technologies is to avoid lethality, unintentional casualties could result from such things as falling debris or the loss of electrical power in a hospital.

This article reviews a few alternatives that could be considered for artillery delivery. It is not intended to be comprehensive in its description of all possible technologies.

Many excellent reviews of this nature have already been published. One such study is "An Assessment of Nonlethal Weapons Science and Technology" (2002) by the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council. (The reader can access the study online at the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu.books/0309082889/ html/.)

Between the concept and reality of artillery-delivered nonlethal munitions lie many implementation challenges and questions we must address.

The first set is political. We need a paradigm shift to address the mental inertia that defines artillery only in terms of high explosives. We must consider the Chemical Weapons Convention and other treaty limitations. Technology substance must be separated from hype with funding provided to develop the weapons. We also need to consider the implications of proliferation.

Next we need to address design challenges. Can we apply the technology both reliably and predictably? Can we deliver it with sufficient accuracy? How do we disperse the payload and control the distribution or concentration levels of the material? Are volume limits too restrictive, and can the technology be weaponized and survive the launch environments?

Finally we must consider operational issues. How useful and long lasting are the effects? Do they create a problem for friendly forces? What are the countermeasures? Will the terrain, wind or other weather conditions significantly affect the technology? What are the effects of aging and environmental exposure? Are training and logistics requirements reasonable? Do the benefits justify the artillery's not firing lethal rounds--justify storing nonlethal rounds in place of lethal rounds on board? Are there more effective ways of achieving the same results? Is it safe for the user?

All these questions must be answered as potential nonlethal technologies are considered. Here are several with potential for delivery by artillery.

Carbon Fibers. Electrically conductive carbon fibers have disabled power grids in Serbia and Iraq. Thousands of thin filaments are dispensed over electrical facilities, such as substations, transmission lines or generating stations. Floating down like a cloud, they short the electrical circuits and disrupt the enemy's ability to access power. Depending on the target, damage can be slight or extensive, localized or widespread.

Adversaries might implement countermeasures, such as covering substations or switching off circuit breakers, but doing so might invite a more destructive response.

The delivery of the carbon fibers might be accomplished by low-altitude, precisely timed, rapid expulsion. Perhaps more likely would be to extract the payload at a higher altitude, then guide it to a precise location and altitude before dispensing the fibers.