humanitarian concerns by reducing residual explosive hazards. However, landmines are not the only ordnance that can leave residual unexploded devices on the battlefield. Box 3-3 describes a possible solution to the more widespread problem of unexploded ordnance.
Recommendation. Any nonrecoverable, explosive alternative to antipersonnel landmines should have self-destructing and self-deactivating fuzes to meet operational requirements, address humanitarian concerns, and reduce fratricide among friendly troops. The U.S. government should consider equipping all nonrecoverable explosive munitions with similar technologies.
Because the world is so politically unstable, small-scale contingencies and operations other than war may become more common in the future. This type of warfare is likely to occur in areas with significant noncombatant populations where local enemy forces move among noncombatants. Indeed, on occasion, the enemy may use noncombatants as human shields. The United States and its allies will certainly take all prudent steps to avoid causing noncombatant casualties while taking action to eliminate the enemy. Engagements of this nature require a scaled response, which nonlethal weapons can provide.
The United States is experimenting with several types of nonlethal weapons (Fenton, 1999). Nonlethal alternatives to APL would generally replace the fragmentation and blast effects of APL with other capabilities, such as explosively propelled rubber balls, rapidly deployable nets, and electrical charges. Although nonlethal variants by themselves cannot replace APL, they would be useful in certain military operations. With nonlethal variants, U.S. forces could mount a graduated response in situations where the threat were unclear, such as in peace operations, or if large noncombatant populations were in the immediate tactical area. Nonlethal weapons have several advantages: they can be used in a broad variety of circumstances; they can be triggered automatically; and they do not require man-in-the-loop operation to be Ottawa compliant, which can improve the timeliness of a response and lessen the burden on the soldier/ operator.
The mission need statements (provided in Appendix G) that describe the military requirements for alternatives to pure APL include nonlethal capabilities as acceptable alternatives. Although the mission need statements for mixed systems did not include nonlethal attributes, the committee decided to include them in the study. Early designs for the Track I NSD-A entailed some nonlethal options, such as nets. Although nonlethal variants by themselves cannot replace APL, for certain military operations they might be useful in support of APL alternatives.