Definition of bachelor degree

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.

On the personnel side, the Target Behavioral Response Laboratory (TBRL) has been created at ARDEC to obtain data on responses that can be elicited through a wide range of existing and new energy sources. A grant has been provided to the New Jersey Medical School, in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System, to use toward creating the Stress and Motivated Behavior Institute (SMBI). The main purpose of the SMBI will be studying target suppression.

While the AEASC and the TBRL study effects across the entire engagement spectrum, there are definitely many operational scenarios where NL applications would be effective. The potential effectiveness of such scalable systems within the full tactical spectrum has yet to be fully realized due to the lack of effects data.

The TBRL project is designed to work as follows:

* Determine the degree to which various types of energy inputs have the potential to produce target suppression.

* Demonstrate which programs are useful and should proceed.

* Conduct direct laboratory experimentation, collecting data and verifying that reliable, robust effects can be elicited.

* Experiment with prototype systems under realistic conditions (at the ARDEC lab), emulating operational situations and simulating weapon systems, thus demonstrating that useful effects can be achieved.

This experimentation is to verify that the overall effectiveness and user desires have been translated into proper system requirements. At such time, operational requirements documents can be prepared and ARDEC may build a small numbers of systems.

ARDEC has two ongoing programs--one for blunt-impact munitions and one for a flash-bang grenade with light and sound. Also, there are five pilot programs in which the possible effects of various forms of light, sound, microfog, and ultrasonics will be initiated (in combination and on their own) in fiscal year 2003. It is hoped that once information demonstrating that certain effects are possible is obtained, requirements and weapon proposals will follow.

All the components of this methodology are available to assist with programs in varying stages of development, particularly where efforts are being made to develop requirements documents for NL systems. Analyses of true user needs, when coupled with explanations of the behavioral responses possible, can be extremely useful in determining system requirements and avoiding requirements that are not testable.

The simple key to success is remembering that developers, assessors, and users must work together closely (particularly during the early stages of defining needs) to successfully enable NLWs systems development. This type of cooperative effort will ensure that user desires are properly identified and translated into reasonable requirements for tactically useful systems that can be economically built and widely used.

Mr. Yagrich is the coordinator for target effects and effectiveness for Advanced Energy Systems for the Quality Engineering Directorate at ARDEC. He has more than 30 years experience testing and evaluating a wide variety of conventional and nonconventional weapon systems. For the last ten years, he has concentrated on nonconventional incapacitating mechanisms and various NL systems. He holds a bachelor's in mechanical engineering from Lehigh University. He may be reached at kenneth.yagrich@us.army.mil.