ALTERNATIVES TO ANTIPERSONNEL MINES²⁹

In May 1996, the U.S. began a search for alternatives to antipersonnel landmines so that the military could completely eliminate their use "as soon as possible." A little more than a year later, a target date of 2006 was established for fielding alternatives. From 1996 to 1998 a reluctant and unenthusiastic Pentagon made little progress. Though a serious effort appears underway today, it seems unlikely that the Pentagon will succeed in identifying alternatives for all antipersonnel mines, especially those in mixed systems, before 2006, let alone fielding the alternatives into the combat forces by then.

Of even greater concern, the Mine Ban Treaty would clearly prohibit some alternatives under consideration. What can only be characterized as disturbing interpretations have apparently been made inside the Pentagon during the bureaucratic process to implement the President's policy. For example, the deputy secretary of defense, in a March 1999 memorandum setting out the program objectives for one of the alternatives programs stated that the effort should "provide a range of system activation and target discrimination capabilities."³⁰ It did not rule our target (victim) activated systems or explicitly instruct compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty.

The Defense Authorization Act for FY 1999 required the secretary of defense to submit to Congress an annual report describing the progress made in identifying technologies and concepts for landmine alternatives.³¹ The first report was submitted by April 1, 2000.

While there have apparently been numerous internal Pentagon studies on landmine alternatives concepts, there has yet to be an independent evaluation of the available technologies and solutions for replacing antipersonnel mines on the modern battlefield. Section 248 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1999 requires that the Pentagon enter into two contracts with appropriate scientific organizations, to study existing and new technologies and concepts that could serve as landmine alternatives.³² The National Academy of Sciences is currently conducting one of the studies. Their report is due by the end of 2000. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory are conducting the second study. The date for the submission of their report is not known.

The Pentagon is focused on material solutions as landmine alternatives. Each of the three "tracks" it is pursuing seems destined to have the Pentagon acquire a new weapon. But, alternatives to antipersonnel mines can take many forms. Not all of the solutions would necessarily require a material solution such as the procurement of a new or modified weapon. Non-material solutions to compensate for the removal of antipersonnel landmines from the U.S. inventory could include changing tactics and doctrine, increasing the number of other weapons systems, or retro-fitting existing mine systems to remove the antipersonnel mine component.

Numerous retired military leaders have stated that existing U.S. weapons and capabilities can compensate for the removal of antipersonnel mines from the U.S. inventory. Perhaps best known is the April 1996 open letter to President Clinton from fifteen retired U.S. military commanders, including a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former commander of U.S. forces in Korea, and a former commander of U.S. forces in Europe.³³

The Pentagon's figures for current plans through FY 2005 indicate that more than $300 million will be spent on research and development, and more than $500 million on procurement of mine alternatives. The funding requests contained in President Clinton's budget for research, development, test, and evaluation and procurement categories for each track of the antipersonnel landmine alternatives program are presented below.³⁴

Track 1
Track 1 consists of two separate programs, RADAM and NSD-A.

RADAM
RADAM combines seven antitank mines from the Remote Anti-Armor Mine System (RAAMS) with five antipersonnel mines from the Area Denial Antipersonnel Munition (ADAM) into one projectile.³⁶ The Department of Defense is pursuing this program because the use of ADAM antipersonnel mines alone will be prohibited in 2003, but use of this new mixed system (and all other mixed systems) will still be permitted by U.S. policy.

The Pentagon has conceded that RADAM "does not technically comply" with the Mine Ban Treaty.³⁷ RADAM as such is a wasteful stopgap that could no longer be used as early as 2006 if current policy remains in effect. The U.S. would then have to spend considerable sums to destroy RADAM or reconvert back to RAAMS.

Last year, the Pentagon asked for $48.25 million for RADAM, but Congress reduced the amount to $8 million, for pre-production engineering and manufacturing development activities only.³⁸ This year, the Army has requested $47.7 million for RADAM procurement in its FY 2001 budget request.³⁹ The total program cost for RADAM is estimated to be $150 million for 337,000 munitions through FY 2004.⁴⁰ An acquisition decision for RADAM may occur as early as the first quarter of FY 2001 and deployment as early as the first quarter of 2002.⁴¹

NSD-A and the battlefield override system
The non-self-destruct (antipersonnel mine) alternative (NSD-A) program will result in a "hand emplaced munition developed to meet the mission requirements formerly accomplished by M14 and M16 non self-destruct antipersonnel mines."⁴² The NSD-A system consists of a munition (apparently an existing antipersonnel mine like the M16) with a modified sensor/fuze package, a signal repeater unit, and a control unit to activate the munition once the target has been confirmed as a combatant by a U.S. soldier ("man-in-the-loop"). The Army awarded contracts totaling nearly $70 million to Alliant Techsystems (Hopkins, Minnesota) and Textron Defense Systems Corporation (Wilmington, Massachusetts) on December 3, 1998 for prototype development of the NSD-A.⁴³ NSD-A underwent accelerated prototype assessment testing in October 1999 at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The Pentagon plans to eventually procure 523,000 munition systems between FY 2002 and FY 2005.⁴⁴ The production decision for NSD-A is scheduled for the fourth quarter of FY 2002.⁴⁵ DoD is currently developing a sole source justification for combining the contract for a joint award to Alliant and Textron for engineering support and qualification testing.⁴⁶ Alliant and Textron announced on June 22, 2000 an agreement to jointly develop and produce NSD-A.⁴⁷

The prototype NSD-A has a feature that allows the munition to function in a target (victim) activated mode. The U.S. soldier would no longer be "in the loop." The munition would become an indiscriminate mine, ready to explode at the footstep of a person, be it soldier or civilian. It would thus be prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty. In a presentation during a public session of the National Academy of Sciences committee on landmine alternatives, Pentagon acquisition officials discussed this feature as a "battlefield override system." This has also been referred to as a "command fire" and "command activation" feature-confusing names since the munition would no longer be command-detonated, that is, a soldier would no longer decide whether or not to explode the weapon, but it instead would be triggered by the contact of a person.⁴⁸

Officials from the Department of Defense have stated that this feature is an option separate from the basic man-in-the-loop operation and is merely being explored in the engineering and manufacturing development of the NSD-A. On February 28, 2000, Senator Leahy wrote a letter to the Deputy Defense Secretary to express concern about the battlefield override system. In response, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Walter Slocombe stated that "exploring this [battlefield override] feature may provide as-of-yet-unforeseen insights in developing suitable alternatives."⁴⁹ Senator Leahy wrote back that he was "perplexed" by that statement, since "it is clear to me that the feature is being included because some field commanders have never accepted the Administration's 1997 policy to accede to the Ottawa Convention." He further stated that his continued support for the NSD-A program is dependent on the omission of the battlefield override feature.⁵⁰ A final decision regarding incorporation of a target-actuated feature into the final NSD-A munition will occur prior to the final production decision.⁵¹

Track 2
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is responsible for Track 2 of the landmine alternatives program, which was initiated in October 1997. The first research and development procurement under Track 2 was released by DARPA on June 14, 1999 for proposals for a "self-healing minefield" wherein surface laid antitank mines have the ability to move to close breaches in antitank minefields made by enemy forces. DARPA awarded the first contract to Alliant Techsystems on April 19, 2000 for $5 million.⁵² Another $6.5 million contract was awarded to Science Applications International Corporation (San Diego, California) on June 6, 2000.⁵³ Another project being undertaken by DARPA is to use microelectronic tags to identify targets for direct and indirect fire systems, typically minimally guided munitions.⁵⁴ Apparently, these small tagging devices would act as "thistles" and attach themselves to persons entering an area sown with them.

Track 3
Track 3 of the antipersonnel landmine alternatives program, the search for alternatives to mixed mine systems, originated in PDD 64. Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre signed a directive authorizing concept exploration on March 23, 1999 and it is anticipated that the Pentagon will spend $170 million through FY 2005. The U.S. Army released a broad agency announcement (BAA) soliciting concepts for Track 3 in August 1999. This solicitation was withdrawn on September 8, 1999 for unspecified reasons. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in conjunction with the Communications and Electronics Command issued a BAA on March 27, 2000 to solicit submissions for component technology that may provide or enhance near, mid, and far term solutions to the Track 3 program.

The Army released another BAA on February 1, 2000 for systems and operational concepts for the Rapid Tactical Terrain Limiter (RATTLER) which apparently replaced the August 1999 solicitation. In this BAA is the statement that the "U.S. Government desires to be in a position to be considered compliant with the Ottawa Convention by 2006."⁵⁵ Additionally, the definition of antipersonnel mine in Appendix J of the solicitation is the definition used in the Mine Ban Treaty.⁵⁶ The Army awarded a total of $800,000 to eight contractors for concept exploration studies for RATTLER on May 4, 2000.

29 See Human Rights Watch Backgrounder, "U.S. Programs to Develop Alternatives to Antipersonnel Mines," April 2000.

30 Deputy Secretary of Defense, "Memorandum: Landmine Alternatives," March 23, 1999 obtained by Human Rights Watch in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, May 16, 2000.

31 Public Law 105-261, p. 112 STAT. 1958.

32 Ibid.

33 Full-page open letter to President Clinton, New York Times, April 3, 1996. Paid for by Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

34 All data extracted from DoD-wide and Army FY 2000 and FY 2001 Research and Development Descriptive Summary (RDDS) for Program Element (PE) 0604808A and PE 0602702E, February 1999, February 2000.

35 DARPA Track 2 project costs for FY 2002-2005 are not separately broken out in its budget justification documents and are not reported here. They likely amount to tens of millions of dollars.

36 "Anti-Personnel Landmine Alternatives (APL-A)" a briefing by Major Ted Jennings, Office of the Project Manager for Mines, Countermine and Demolitions presented at the National Defense Industrial Association's International Infantry and Small Arms Symposium and Exhibition, June 21-24, 1999, slide 19. Hereafter cited as "Jennings APL-A Briefing."

37 Department of Defense, "Landmines Information Paper," March 3, 1999, p. 8.

38 These activities will be carried out at Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, a government owned facility in Texarkana, Texas operated by Day and Zimmerman (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). RADAM will undergo testing at Yuma Proving Ground (Yuma, Arizona).

39 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), "National Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2001, Procurement Programs (P-1)," February 2000, p. A-14.

40 Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, "Appropriation: 2034 Procurement of Army Ammunition, FYDP Procurement Annex," February 14, 2000, p. 26. The 337,000 RADAM systems would include 1,685,000 ADAM antipersonnel mines and 2,359,000 RAAM antitank mines.

41 Department of the Army, "RDDS, PE 0604808A: Landmine Warfare," February 2000, p. 1069.

42 Dresen APL-A Briefing, slide 10.

43 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Procurement Award Notices DAAE30-99-C-1010 and DAAE30-99-C-1011, December 3, 1998.

44 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Solicitation Notice DAAE30-99-R-0108, February 29, 2000.

45 Department of the Army, RDDS, PE 0604808A, February 2000, p. 1069.

46 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Solicitation Notice DAAE30-99-R-0108, February 29, 2000.

47 Alliant Integrated Defense Company, Press Release, June 22, 2000.

48 "Strategic and Tactical Landmine Usage Overview," a briefing presented to the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Examine Alternative Technologies to Replace Anti-Personnel Landmines, December 9-11, 1999, Arlington, Virginia by Greg Bornhoft (BRTRC Technology Research Corporation), representing the U.S. Army Engineer School.

49 Letter to Senator Leahy from Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Walter Slocombe, April 25, 2000.

50 Letter to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Walter Slocombe from Senator Leahy, May 10, 2000.

51 DoD interviews, May 10, 2000.

52 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Procurement Award Notice DAAE30-00-C-1047, April 19, 2000.

53 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Procurement Award Notice DAAE30-00-C-1055, June 6, 2000.

54 DARPA, RDDS, PE 0602702E, February 2000, p. 93.

55 U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC, Rapid Tactical Terrain Limiter (RATTLER) solicitation package DAAE30-00-BAA-0100, February 1, 2000, p. 1.

56 RATTLER BAA, p. 19.