This section describes some of the general technologies that may be of use to OOTW operators; it then describes two technology areas of particular interest (mine clearing and NLW). A description of specific hardware implementations is followed by an attempt to anticipate some of the implications that adoption of OOTW technologies might have.
TECHNOLOGY TOOLS
Workshop discussions identified several generic technologies that appear to have wide application across representative OOTW. Figure 6 compares typical OOTW mission areas with generic technologies that could support the missions. Neither the missions listed nor the generic technologies are comprehensive; however, these were the areas highlighted in the discussions.
The generic technologies apply across almost all the listed missions to some degree, and many apply to warfighting capability as well. In the military context, most of the technologies require integral C2, or are them-selves a C2 application. Command and Control requirements for each new technology must be thoroughly analyzed and then should be developed as an integral part of each new technology or capability. Use of non-lethal weapons, for example, may demand rigid constraints, depending on the scenario. If responsive C2 is not available, the results may be ineffective or even pose possible danger to one's own forces. Each technology and its appropriate C2 requires extensive testing and should be gamed through various likely scenarios. Coalition partners, PVO/NGO, and others should participate, when appropriate.
Figure 7 displays the same OOTW mission areas (as Figure 6) versus technology applications that support each mission.
Note that there is again near-universal application across many mission areas. Further analysis of the matrices shows areas of high payoff for dual-use in both OOTW and warfighting missions. Anti-SAM, counter-sniper/mortar, and mine-clearing technologies are examples with strong dual-use correlation.
TWO TECHNOLOGIES OF PARTICULAR INTEREST
The world is now littered with an estimated 80 million to 110 million anti-personnel land mines in 64 countries. These hidden killers maim or kill an estimated 500 people every week, mostly innocent civilians. Further, they complicate and sometimes degrade the effectiveness of OOTW (as well as combat operations). A variety of technologies offer promise. However, the mine-field environment and terrain dictate what may work. Further, combat requirements may not coincide with PKO or OOTW needs. For example, a mine field may need only to be breached or marked during combat. In post-combat and OOTW, the mines must be cleared to protect innocents, to allow displaced people to migrate back to their homes, and to return the land to peaceful uses. Mine clearing can be accomplished by a wide range of technologies. Some low- technology solutions, such as explosive-sniffing dogs, have proven quite effective. Other technologies, such as mine field clearing vehicles, can be very high technology and very expensive. Promising work in this area was explored by the workshop.
Some of the applications shown in Figure 7 fit in the category of NLW. This class of weapons has generated considerable interest in the media and elsewhere; however, it is not a panacea and should be viewed as a two-edged sword. While NLW can add valuable options for the commander, they can also create some very real problems. First, the concept and use of NLW is widely misunderstood. The name itself is confusing and has created in the public and media expectations that cannot be delivered. Attempts to rename NLW in terms such as "disabling," "less-than-lethal," or "pre-lethal" fail to communicate the concept adequately. In some cases, the public has been outraged by law enforcement use of NLW like stun guns. Similarly, there has been widespread condemnation of blinding lasers. Moreover, non-lethal is neither a guarantee nor a promise, but rather a goal. The concept does not mean "no casualties" but rather an attempt to avoid fatalities.
Second, NLW are not replacements for lethal force and use of NLW should not preclude use of deadly force if needed. Ideally, NLW should add to the suite of options available to the commander. Properly employed as part of a system to buy time and space (to protect own forces for example), and backed up with lethal force, NLW can fill an important void in areas such as crowd control. Having denounced the use of chemical weapons for war, the U.S. needs a way to control crowds without the use of chemical riot agents. Finally, NLW further complicate the commander's life because they cause additional requirements for training, employment doctrine, logistics, and so on.
ROE for NLW may be complex particularly if they address the transition from NLW to deadly force. Command and Control to manage the ROE may be correspondingly complex. These requirements also compete for scarce resources, personnel, and training time. Notwithstanding all these complications, NLW do offer the promise of reduced casualties in many situations.
SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES
In addition to discussions of generic technologies and capabilities, the workshop discussed some specific technologies that are either being currently fielded or presently under development. Some of the applications reviewed include:
IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY
The use of advanced technologies in OOTW not only generates training requirements, but also can provide efficient training aids and methods. The complexities of OOTW coupled with the training required for the application of NLW could be so great as to be impractical. At the same time, technology applications, such as imbedded training systems, and virtual reality applications can make the task doable. In addition to individual and unit training is the requirement for training with coalitions and the non-military players likely to be present in any OOTW scenario.
Like training, doctrinal implications emerge from each of the areas discussed. These need to be carefully developed and analyzed prior to operations and the developed doctrine shared and gamed with potential participants. Doctrinal implications need analysis early in the requirements pro-cess and through each stage of development.
Given the complexity of many OOTW, the ROE may be correspondingly complex and require different actions as dictated by the situation. Political factors and media spotlight may exert influence on ROE interpretation. Different coalition partners may also interpret ROE in different ways. ROE interpretation must be addressed in these contexts as well as in the context of the latitude allowed to own forces.
Technologies that share intelligence (without compromising sources and methods), that train in several languages, that rationalize and coordinate logistics requirements would all be useful. In coalition OOTW the complete team of U.S. and UN forces, and civilian organizations need common, trusted sources and sharing to be effective.
COMBAT READINESS IMPLICATIONS
Several of the workshop participants were concerned about the impact of OOTW on combat readiness for warfighting missions. It is clear that OOTW divert resources that could otherwise be used for training and/or combat. These resources include both talent and equipment. Training for OOTW missions reduces the time to train for the primary combat missions. Consumption of assets from both within and out of theater further degrades readiness. One participant reported that during the Somalia OOTW some pre-positioned assets were heavily depleted. For example, all the pre-positioned AM-2 "Marston Matting" (linkable and flexible steel mats that are connected to make runways, aprons, and roads) in theater was consumed. Further, a significant amount of U.S. equipment was left in Somalia when the U.S. forces were withdrawn. The question was asked: "Do we really want to draw down stocks of important warfighting supplies for an OOTW?" The answer - only if and because it prevents wars or protects larger U.S. national interests - must (according to the workshop) be coupled with adequate resources to restore readiness promptly.