Nonlethal weapons requirements definition—a difficult task requires a true team effort

Military Police, April, 2003 by Kenneth P. Yagrich

Nonlethal weapons (NLWs) seem to be the ideal solution to many of the difficult problems confronting U.S. forces in a wide variety of engagements throughout the world. They offer the promise of accomplishing a mission while exercising maximum restraint; however, they have not come close to their true potential because we simply do not know enough about them. We all know that the current blunt-impact or kinetic-energy weapons represent mature technology, but how close are we to having "phasers set to stun"?

We talk about incapacitating the bad guys, but does that mean "quiet" them down or "put" them down? What are the possible situations in which NLWs might be useful in tactical situations? Much is written about acoustics and other advanced energy weapons, but why have we yet to see these new, potentially useful technologies? These are complex questions that are comprehensively addressed in a soon-to-be-released report by the National Research Council. For this discussion, let us concentrate on one major NLWs issue--effects and effectiveness.

No matter what the circumstance, when using any NLW, the bottom line is that we want the person or persons being targeted to stop what they are doing and instead do what we want them to do. There are scores of scenarios and numerous terms--such as delay, deny, distract, and dissuade--used to describe these requested behavior changes. To accurately assess if NLWs can accomplish behavior change, three actions are necessary:

* Experiments must be conducted with objective data collected to support any judgments regarding the effects of any nonlethal (NL) device or system.

* Experiments must take human response into account, since human behavior under these circumstances (those in which NLWs might be used) involves unique characteristics that cannot be determined through animal responses.

* Desired behavior change must be stated in simple, measurable terms such as stop, go away, or stay away.

The basics of scientific experimentation (problem definition, data collection, and problem examination) determine if behavior changes address the initial problem and if the experiment has been adequately completed. To date, this has not been adequately performed for NLWs systems.

This is, of course, a highly simplified representation of the situation and is presented only to make a point. In reality, NL device and system users are confronted with a wide variety of specialized environments and circumstances that normally fall under the general categories of counterpersonnel, countermateriel, and countercapability. Users need to know exactly what the NLWs will do under varying circumstances and with multiple uses.

It must also be known how NLWs will affect the users, if their use can be varied to suit different situations, and if they are simply useful enough to be operationally significant and cost effective. The range of use is so wide that without some knowledge of the potential capabilities of various NLWs, it is impossible to write meaningful requirements for those systems. It is suggested that without more knowledge of what is possible, it is more appropriate to think of user needs in terms of "desirements" rather than rigid requirements, permitting enough flexibility to deal with the problem. This is hardly adequate to proceed with weapon systems development and procurement.

The solution to this problem can be achieved through the analogy of a three-legged stool (see figure). One of the legs represents a wide array of technical capabilities (such as energy-on-target) provided by the developers. A second leg represents the effects (behavioral responses) developed through specific experimentation. The third leg represents utility; that is, that useful response that can be achieved as recognized by the user. All three are needed to support the seat of the stool which represents the requirement for a NLWs system. If one leg is missing, the stool topples.

[FIGURE OMITTED]

It follows that information on all three is needed to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the proposed device. Much experimentation is being done to quantify pain, but the true measure is the behavioral response elicited in the targeted individual or individuals through whatever pain has been generated. By using this approach, individual differences in pain tolerance are mitigated and performance metrics (such as "stop" and "go away") can be applied. The tools and capabilities to implement this methodology are represented by a new initiative within the Advanced Energy Armaments Systems Center (AEASC) at the Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

The AEASC's role is to seek out, understand, and implement new types of weapons systems that create "scalable effects," ranging from very mild to near lethal, without permanently damaging or injuring materiel or personnel targets. A principal element of the AEASC is the target-effects group that will identify and characterize all types of effects and perform experiments to verify those effects.