<<previous | index | next>> Development and Production of New LandminesThe Bush administrations landmine policy states, The United States will continue to develop non-persistent anti-personnel and anti-tank landmines.21 According to budget documents released in February 2005, the Pentagon is requesting $688 million for research on and $1.08 billion for the production of new landmine systems between fiscal years 2006 and 2011.22 New U.S. landmines will have a variety of ways of being initiated, both command-detonation (that is, when a soldier decides when to explode the mine, sometimes called man-in-the-loop) and traditional victim-activation. As noted above, a mine that is designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person (i.e., victim-activation) is prohibited under the Mine Ban Treaty.
U.S. officials have noted that self-destruct features will limit the time that these mines will be able to remain in a victim-activated mode and that enhancements to the current technology will continue to be researched and developed.23 Additionally, future tactical barriers may include a new generation of landmines or alternative systems.24 MatrixMatrix is a new landmine system designed to allow an operator equipped with a laptop computer to remotely detonate lethal and non-lethal Claymore mines by radio signal from a distance. The Pentagon has not made public what this distance is.25 Matrix is an adaptation of the technology developed under the Spider program (see below), in order to get it into the field rapidly. According to a State Department official, Matrix is a command and control system, and not a landmine.26 A total of twenty-five Matrix systems were reportedly to be sent to Iraq for use by units of the Armys Stryker Brigade by May 2005.27 The Pentagon and State Department have not responded to requests from Human Rights Watch for confirmation if this deployment has taken place. In late February 2005, Human Rights Watch raised questions about the potential harm these mines could pose to civilians.28 One question related to how a soldier would be able to make a positive identification of his target from great distances. A second question was whether civilians themselves could inadvertently detonate the mines, rather than a soldier operating the system. The original technology behind Matrix was designed with a feature, sometimes called a battlefield override switch, that substituted activation by a victim for detonation by command. The U.S. Army Program Manager responsible for Matrix subsequently told Human Rights Watch that the system relies on [unspecified] types of electro-optical and infrared sensors to detect intrusion, and on visual target identification; no tripwires are used.29 However, the operating distance for Matrix remains unknown, and thus concerns about visual identification remain. Moreover, it remains unknown if the Matrix system contains a battlefield override feature, and the Pentagon has not given concrete assurances that civilians cannot accidentally detonate Matrix controlled Claymore mines. SpiderSpider is the result of the Non-Self-Destruct Alternative (NSD-A) program. The Spider system consists of a control unit capable of monitoring up to eighty-four hand-emplaced unattended munitions that deploy a web of tripwires across an area. Once a tripwire is touched by the enemy, a man-in-the-loop control system allows the operator to activate either lethal or non-lethal effects.30 Spider contains the aforementioned battlefield override feature that removes the man-in-the-loop and allows for activation by the target (or victim). In the words of the Pentagon, Other operating modes allow Spider munitions to function autonomously without Man-in-the-Loop control (i.e. target activation), if necessary, to respond to the combat environment; the operator can regain control of the munitions at any time.31 In an earlier report to Congress, the Pentagon stated, Target Activation is a software feature that allows the man-in-the-loop to change the capability of a munition from requiring action by an operator prior to being detonated, to a munition that will be detonated by a target. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Chiefs, using best military judgment, feel that the man-in-the-loop system without this feature would be insufficient to meet tactical operational conditions and electronic countermeasures.32 A decision whether to produce Spider will be taken in December 2005 and the first units are scheduled to be produced in March 2007. The U.S. Army spent $135 million between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 to develop Spider and another $11 million has been requested to complete research and development. A total of $390 million is budgeted to produce 1,620 Spider systems and 186,300 munitions.33 Textron Systems Corporation in Wilmington, Massachusetts and Alliant Techsystems in Plymouth, Minnesota are jointly developing Spider. Day and Zimmerman in Parsons, Kansas and General Dynamics in Taunton, Massachusetts are primary subcontractors. Intelligent Munitions SystemThe Intelligent Munitions System (IMS) is a new program combining three landmine alternatives programsthe Self Healing Minefield, Mixed Systems Alternative, and Antipersonnel Landmine-Alternative (APL-A) programsinto one research and development program.34 A total of $172 million of research and development funding was spent on those three programs between fiscal years 1999 and 2004. A total of $1.3 billion has been requested for IMS development and production activities between fiscal years 2005 and 2011. IMS prototypes are being developed by General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Bloomington, Minnesota and Textron Systems Corporation in Wilmington, Massachusetts. The decision to produce IMS is scheduled to be taken in 2008 and the first units produced in 2009. According to budget documentation, the IMS is an integrated system of effects (lethal, non-lethal, anti-vehicle, anti-personnel, demolitions), software, sensors/seekers, and communications that may be emplaced by multiple means and is capable of unattended employment for the detection, classification, identification, tracking and engagement of selected targets. The Pentagon further states, IMS utilizes sensors linked to effects and is controlled over robust communications in either an autonomous mode or via Man-in-the-Loop control.35 The terms unattended employment and autonomous mode appear to be synonymous with victim-activation, and like Spider, would make this system incompatible with the Mine Ban Treaty. Language contained in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 defense appropriations bill attempts to rectify this: The conferees direct that the Army clearly define the requirements for a next generation intelligent minefield and ensure compliance with the Ottawa Convention, and report back to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees with detailed plans for such a system.36 Volcano Antivehicle MinesA total of 191,000 M87A1 Volcano antivehicle mines were produced in the United States between 1996 and 2004. An additional 2,000 canisters, each containing six antivehicle mines, are currently being produced at the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant in Texarkana, Texas, which is a government-owned facility operated by the Day and Zimmerman Company.37 The M87A1 Volcano was ordered by the United Kingdom in 1996, with a contract value exceeding $100 million, and it entered service with the Royal Engineers in 2001 as the L35A1 Shielder.38 In April 2002, the U.S. State Department notified Congress of a pending direct commercial sale of M87A1 Volcano systems to Israel under a contract valued at $50 million or more.39 Previously, Volcano was produced only as a mixed system with both antipersonnel and antivehicle mines packaged together. This antivehicle mine-only version was part of the Pentagon's response to the one-year antipersonnel landmine use moratorium scheduled to take effect in February 1999, but which was subsequently nullified. The program also involved upgrades for the system such as modifications to the safe and arm mechanism and the dispenser control unit. This was an example of the U.S. quickly developing, producing, and even exporting an alternative to an existing system containing antipersonnel mines. Claymore MinesClaymore-type mines, also known as directional fragmentation munitions, are among the most common mines in the world. The United States first produced Claymore mines in 1960 and has since produced 7.8 million of them for a cost of $122 million.40 When used in command-detonated mode, Claymores are permissible under the Mine Ban Treaty. When used in victim-activated mode, usually with a tripwire, they are prohibited.
As noted above, the Matrix system uses Claymore mines command-detonated by radio signal, but it is unknown if a victim-activated option is also available. Moreover, the current U.S. policy regarding use of Claymores with tripwires is unclear. Under Clinton administration policy, and according to existing Army field manuals, use of Claymores with tripwires is restricted to Korea. But, Pentagon and State Department officials have not responded to Human Rights Watchs questions as to whether this continues to be the case under the new landmine policy. In February 2004, the Pentagon requested $20.2 million to produce 40,000 M18A1E1 Claymore mines. Mohawk Electrical Systems, Inc (Milford, Delaware) is scheduled to produce the munitions between June 2005 and March 2006.41 The M18A1E1 will incorporate a new triggering system that does not rely on either the victim-activated mechanical tripwire fuze or the command-detonated electrical initiation provided with the M18A1. Instead, the Claymores will be commanddetonated by a new generation of modernized demolition initiators that use explosives to trigger the mine.42 [21] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Fact Sheet: New U.S. Policy on Landmines, February 27, 2004. [22] The totals for fiscal years 2005 to 2011 are compiled from: Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Army Appropriation, Budget Activities 4 and 5, February 2005, pp. 939-947, 957-962; Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2006/2007 Budget Submission, Procurement of Ammunition, Army, February 2005, pp. 418-422, 425-428. [23] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Fact Sheet: New U.S. Policy on Landmines, February 27, 2004. [24] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Fact Sheet: Landmine Policy White Paper, February 27, 2004. [25] Claymore mines normally propel lethal fragments from 40 to 60 meters across a 60-degree arc. However, U.S. Army tests indicate that the actual hazard range for these types of mines can be as high as 300 meters. Headquarters, U.S. Department of the Army, Technical Manual 43-0001-36, Army Ammunition Data Sheets for Landmines (FSC 1345), September 1, 1994, pp. 3-13 and 3-14. [26] Open Letter to U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines from Richard Kidd, Director, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, June 24, 2005. The full quote reads: Furthermore, neither the Matrix command and control system (Matrix is not a landmine) nor the Spider self-destructing/self-deactivating short-duration landmine contributes now, or will contribute, to the global landmine problem. [27] Michael Peck, Stryker Brigade in Iraq Will Protect Bases with Remote-Controlled Mines, National Defense Magazine, March 2005. [28] Human Rights Watch Press Release, U.S.: New Landmines for Iraq Raise Fears of Civilian Risk, February 28, 2005. [29] Remarks by the U.S. Army Program Manager for Close Combat Systems to Human Rights Watch, Geneva, Switzerland, March 7, 2005. An official from the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy was also present. The Program Manager also confirmed that only existing lethal and non-lethal Claymore mines are being used and no new munitions are being deployed with Matrix. [30] Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Army Appropriation, Budget Activities 4 and 5, February 2004, pp. 1,096-1,101; Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2005 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammunition, Army, February 2004, pp. 406-411. [31] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Annual Progress Report: U.S. Department of Defense Removal and Destruction of Persistent Landmines and Development of Landmine Alternatives, December 2004, p. 7. [32] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Progress on Landmine Alternatives, Report to Congress, April 1, 2001, p. 11. [33] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Annual Progress Report: U.S. Department of Defense Removal and Destruction of Persistent Landmines and Development of Landmine Alternatives, December 2004, p. 8. [34] Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Descriptive Summaries of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Army Appropriation, Budget Activities 4 and 5, February 2005, pp. 939-947; Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2006/2007 Budget Submission, Procurement of Ammunition, Army, February 2005, pp. 425-428. [35] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Annual Progress Report: U.S. Department of Defense Removal and Destruction of Persistent Landmines and Development of Landmine Alternatives, December 2004, p. 8. [36] U.S. House of Representatives, Report 107-732, Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2003, and for Other Purposes: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 5010, October 9, 2002, p. 256. [37] Department of the Army, Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2005 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammunition, Army, February 2004, pp. 393-394. [38] Alliant Techsystems Press Release, ATK Shielder Anti-Tank Barrier System Enters Service with UK Royal Engineers, September 6, 2001. [39] Letter from Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, to J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, April 12, 2002. Such notifications are required by Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act. [40] Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2005 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammunition, Army, February 2004, p. 388. [41] Office of the Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, FY 2005 Budget Estimates, Procurement of Ammunition, Army, February 2004, pp. 386-392. This procurement includes $16 million in supplemental funding from the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003. [42] U.S. Army Field Support Command, Sources SoughtAmendment: M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mine; M18A1E1 Claymore Antipersonnel Mines, a Variant that uses a Non-Electrical Initiation System; its Trainer (MM68E1); and the M5 Modular Crowd Control Munition (MCCM), May 12, 2004.
|