"The other thing I learned is we are good at lethal effects; but in a counterinsurgency, non-lethal effects are as important as,

and, at times, more important than kinetic effects. We are very good at fighting and breaking things and teaching other people to do the same. But non-lethal effects are critical to winning the war in Iraq. So, if we're really serious about fighting an Insurgency, we have to change our culture and accept the importance, and sometimes preminence. of non-lethal effects."

Maj.Gen. Peter Chiarelli, US Army

Massimo Annati

Non-Lethal Weapons Revisited

Not so long ago, the effectiveness of a military operation was often measured in term of number of enemies killed - i.e., the more casualties were inflicted on the other side, the better. Today it Is not so, not anymore. For a whole variety of reasons it is important to keep the killing and the destruction at the lowest possible level, not out of compassion but just in order to better fulfil the task at hand.
The formulation of appropriate Rules Of Engagements (ROEs), whereby every soldier is made to know exactly when he/she can or can not use his weapon to kill an opponent, is an obvious prerequisite for the deployment of military units in Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTWs). However, even the most stringent and detailed ROEs are hardly enough. In fact, the real risk here in not that a soldier or a commanding officer would act in deliberate breach of the ROEs and use, or order the use of deadly force when they know very well it should not be used, but rather that they would fail to appreciate the real nature of the situation they are facing and the true intentions of the civilians around them. This possibility for tragic misunderstanding is particularly high, when the military personnel and the civilians belong to very different cultures with e.g. a totally different perception of the relationship between verbal abuse and physical violence or of the value of human life, which is increasingly the case. It should further be appreciated that the risk of using lethal force when it should not is accompanied and paralleied - although this tends to receive far less attention in the media by the opposite risk of failing to react to a threatening situation until it is too late. Here again, a failure to appreciate the real nature of the situation combined with the commendable desire to respect the letter and spirit of the ROEs may well lead to truly tragic consequences. While the ROEs often state something like "Do not fire until being fired upon", there is a serious risk that if own forces must wait until the opponents start using firearms, then at that point the situation has already degenerated and can no longer be brought back under controt. The troops must be given a viable alternative somewhere in between "shouting" and "shooting". And this is exactly where Non-Lethal Weapons fall in.

Origins and Definitions

The origins of the military interest for what have since come to the defined as Non-Lethal Weapons (NLWs) can be traced back to the experience of the humanitarian rescue Operation "Restore Hope" in Somalia, when UN troops were often under the fire of irregular combatants and reacted in kind. The final outcome was that some 200 UN troops were killed, while the Somali losses amounted to about 6,000-10,000 victims. Many of these were killed by indiscriminate reactions that, instead of taking out the snipers, struck the crowd they were hidden and intermingled with. The UN forces' reaction wasn't capable to discriminate between protesters (including those which threw stones or brandished sticks) and militiamen using firearms. Of course those indiscriminate reactions triggered a perverse spiral of further violence, retaliations, and so on, until eventually the entire mission was compromised. When in 1995 Operation "United Shield" was launched to protect the evacuation of the last UN forces from Somalia, by then a country totally out of control, the decision was taken to deploy some specific non-lethal equipment. Some of these were essentially military ordnance (flash-bang grenades, smoke grenades), other were traditional Police riot-control gears (tear gas, pepper spray, shields and truncheons), and other still were hi-tech gadgets
Military Technology MILTECH 3/2007

The so-called "CNN effect", i.e. the real-time amplification of news, can spell political disaster if "our" troops are caught In an unnecessary massacre. The presence of civilians intermingled with enemy combatants (who will often be irregular combatants, such as militias, insurgents, terrorists, etc.), the frequency of operations within urban areas, the need to maintain order and security in the aftermath of a conflict - all of these are good reasons to avoid wasting lives away whenever possible, including when these lives belong to the counterpart. In a more general framework, most contemporary military missions are aimed to restore peace and stability, and therefore require the use of means different from traditional weapons. The ultimate political goals of these missions are no longer to be achieved through the annihilation of the counterpart, and therefore rather demand that actions, that are liable to unnecessarily raise the tension to dangerous levels, shall be avoided.

82

The SILENT GUARDIAN direct energy areas denial system is now ready for deployment in both the vehicle-mounted version shown here, as well a shelterlsed configuration. (Ail photos: via Author)

Also, the NATO Defence Capabilities initiative caiied for non-iethai armament (Effective Engagement, item 2(i)).

General Considerations
in general terms. NLWs are designed to very quickly when not immediately disable, incapacitate or repel an opponent or a group of opponents, so obtaining very much the same practical results as bullets but without the latter's medium/long-term or indeed permanent consequences. This result can be obtained through a variety of physical and/or psychological mechanisms that either are incapacitating per se (e.g., inducing blindness, vertigo, spatial disorientation, etc.) or inflict an intolerable ievei of pain/discomfort and thus cause tine opponent(s) to desist from a threatening posture. in any case, the overriding requirements are not for the NLWs to cause a particuiariy severe physicai and/or psychoiogicai damage, but rather for this damage to resuit in nearly immediate incapacitation, and to be fuiiy recoverabie in a reasonabiy short period. By the same token. NLWs which work by infiicting pain or discomfort shouid be designed in such a way, that the pain is quickiy reileved as soon the opponent ceases to be a threat (typicaiiy by ieaving the scene). The above considerations refiect the notion of NLWs designed specificaily for anti-personnei use in a variety of MOOTW missions. However, the designation of NLWs is also applied to a range of compietely different anti-materiei/anti-infrastnjcture systems, which are intended for use in a conventional confiict or anyway in the framework of conventionai miiitary operations, whenever there is a need or desire to mimimise the risk of unnecessary casuaities (invoiving not oniy civiiians but aiso miiitary personnel) and/or reduce coiiaterai damage, or simply in order to obtain a given result without causing too much physical destruction. One of the prototype vehicles of "Project Sheriff" (a.k.a. Full Spectrum Effects Platform, FSEP) fitted with a Portable Active Denial System (ADS), a bright white light, a Mobile Multiband Jammer (MMBJ), a laser dazzler, a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) and the GUNSLINGER anti-sniper system.

not yet qualified (dazzling laser, adhesive foam). Some US Marine reservists, who were serving as policemen as their full time-job, provided the training for riot control and for lawenforcement style road-blocks (as opposed to the army style). The results were impressive, as the allied forces suffered no casualty during the entire operation. As a result of this experience, the Pentagon established the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Programme, vi/ith the intent to develop new solutions in this very specific field. The JNLW programme is tasked "to support and fund the research, development, testing, and evaluation of non-lethal weapons, concepts, and capabilities that have clear applications and unique contributions in support of the force protection, dominant maneuver, and precision engagement joint operating concepts. These efforts will work to improve existing non-lethal weapons, provide stand-off capability to deliver nonlethal capabilities beyond small arms range, and find transformational non-lethal technologies and concepts that offer advantages and solutions at all levels in the spectrum of threats and crises". US civil (DoD) and military authorities have stressed on repeated occasions that the introduction of NLWs into military affairs is not, and was never intended to repiace the conventional lethal weapon capability, but rather to provide the military commanders with greater flexibility to react and control a threat situation. In 1999 NATO gave its own definition of NLWs; "Non-Lethal Weapons are weapons which are explicitly designed and developed to incapacitate or repel personnel, with a low probabiiity of fatality or permanent injury, or to disable equipment, with minimal undesired damage or impact on the environment." Similar definitions were also developed by other national organisations, though the terms "NonLethal" and "Weapons" are not always used for obvious political and sociological reasons. For instance the US Department of Justice and the UK prefer "Less-Lethal Weapons", while France selected "Armaments a Effets Controies", Russia "Special Means with Non-Lethat Effect", Germany went for "Nichtletale Wirkmittel", etc. NATO also defined the policy for using NLWs. Non-Lethal Weapons should enhance the capability of NATO forces to achieve objectives such as (not necessarily in order of priority) to: - Accomplish military missions and tasks in situations and conditions where the use of lethal force, although not prohibited, may not be necessary or desired; - Discourage, delay, prevent or respond to hostile activities; - Limit or control escalation; - improve force protection; - Repel or temporarily Incapacitate personnei; - Disabie equipment or facilities; - Heip decrease the post-confiict costs of reconstruction.
Mililary Technology MILTECH 3/2007

Based on the above considerations, NLWs encompass a diverse array of individual or crew-served weapons that functions in three realms: - Counter-personnel objectives, which inciude controlling crowds, incapacitating individuals, denying areas to personnel, and clearing personnel from buiidings, structures or areas of operations; - Counter-materiei objectives, which inciude denying access or mobiiity to ground vehicies. vesseis and aircraft or disabiing/neutraiising these piatforms or their equipment; - Counter-capability objectives, which inciude disabiing or neutralising facilities and objectives.

Searching for Solutions

in the iast few years there were a large amount of studies and deveiopment efforts in the fieid of NLWs. Not ail of those, however, were successfui. There cieariy stiii is strong need for basic research, coupied with studies on human factors and effects. As a matter of fact, engineers and the military are pretty good at working on traditionai (lethal) anmaments, whereby the current inventory represents the benchmark of any further development. Any move towards NonLethal Weapons, however, represents a step into an uncharted worid, where nobody reaiiy knows the amount of active factor (kinetic energy, chemicai concentration, noise, voitage, etc.) that is required to be really effective, and at the same time the limits to be reaiiy safe. The vary first and fundamentai probiem is that there is very scarce knowiedge on the reai effects of non-iethai weapons on human beings. It is very difficuit to assess the ievei of kinetic energy required, for instance, to totaliy incapacitate an adversary (typicaiiy a stone thrower) without causing undesired permanent effects. Technoiogies such as chemicai agents, dazzling iasers. high-power microwaves, electricai shocks, overpressures and the iike are even more difficult to assess, because we have very limited knowledge on their effects on the human body. Experiments with voiunteers are carried out, but it is quite ciear that the ievei of motivation of these individuals (and thus their wiliingness/capabiiity to withstand the effect of a NLW and persist in their behaviour) is far

83

The X26 Taser attached under an M4 assautt carbine.

The Taser-based T-RAD "mine". The Claymore mine-style Crowd Control Munition. - NLW designs that would "sweep" tbe surrounding areas during convoy operations and incapacitate RPG gunners/IED operators without harming non-combatants; - Non-Lethal Weapons to stop suicide car/truck bombers at access control points. From a technology point of view (tbis magazine is appropriately named MILITARY TECHNOLOGY) there are different development areas being pursued by the various laboratories and industries worldwide involved in these studies.

lower than in the case of fanatics wtio may well be on a suicide mission. To make this problem even less tractable, human beings vary in physical structure; therefore, it is perfectly possible for the same weapon to be effective on some, deadly on others and not effective at all on others still. Moreover, we do know from Police experience tban alcohol and drugs can have a powerful effect in this regard. Many studies were carried out for years just to find out tbat the results lacked a sufficient degree of reliability, or just plain usefulness. Other solutions, apparently promising and pursued for years, were eventually abandoned because the resulting systems were deemed excessively dangerous. This is ttie case, for instance, of the adhesive ("sticky") foam, that a few years ago was the object of marjy enthusiastic presentations to the media, but had to be discarded because of the unpalatable evidence that a layer of adhesive foam on tbe face of a demonstrator would have had most severe consequences, while removing the foam from the bare skin (a normal occunrence duhng operations on warm countries) would have required toxic solvents. The list of failed programmes is really long and unfortunately it also includes a number of products and systems tbat were regarded as being already qualified by most of the non-specialised media, with the result of raising controversy among the general public, tbe opinionmakers and tbe law-makers - even tough the military themselves were still far away from planning their real use. On tbe other hand, some NLW developments bave successfully reached their maturity and are now being deployed on the field. At present the three greatest challenges faced by NLW developers are: - Effective NLW controls tbat will allow operators to separate ,_ -^^i. human sblelds and bystanders from legitimate targets in a -* crowd, with a standoff for the operators greater than 100m;

Kinetic Energy Kinetic energy is the first, tbough only apparently simplest, case. There are many biunttrauma projectiles, which can be fired from assault rifles, shotguns, grenade launchers, or even special dedicated guns. These projectiles are often incorrectly called "rubber bullets" and include a number of solutions witb names and features as different as baton rounds, bean bags, sting rounds, sponge grenades, paintballs, etc. In this specific case as in many other NLW technologies, it should be properly understood tbat "Non-Lethal" does not mean "harmless", and not even "will never cause death", but rather "witb a low probability of fatality or pennanent injury". For instance, during 25 years of Northern Ireland security commitment the British Army fired some 125,000 plastic/rubber bullets, causing 17 deatbs and hundreds of heavy casualties (permanent blindness in many cases). A combination of causes was identified: scarce precision (rubber bullets were often fired either on the group witbout aiming, or on the ground, with uncontrollable trajectory after ricochet), excess of energy (due to short range firing), and an overall lack of adequate training and accountability. This said, tbere are at least tbree very interesting examples of new products, with decisive improvements.

The British Army and tbe Royal Ulster Constabulary have caused no further unwanted casualties after the introduction of the new L21A1 Baton Round, much more precise than the previous ammunition and fired by tbe LI 04 Baton Round Gun, a specially modified H&K 40mm grenade launcher re-chambered for 37mm (this being a precaution to make sure that nobody could fire a letbal live round mistaking it for a non-lethal one). Further Improvements in precision and reduced lethality were achieved with the new follow-on L60A1 Attenuated Energy Round (AEP), witb a deformable bead. It is more precise (and tbe user can actually bit the intended target in the intended position when the range is appropriate), and tbe attenuated energy mecbanism ensure that tbe skull is not damaged even in case of an unfortunate direct hit at short range. The L60A1 is now issued to all the British riot control units, either Army or Police. The second innovative system was developed by the Italian company Beretta. This is a variable velocity shotgun, designed in order to ensure tbat the final energy on target is independent on the range, from 10m to 70m. The rangefinder controls also tbe amount of gas wbich propels the HDHSP round, achieving constant energy on target (roughly 100-110J). A technology demonstrator was developed under Italian MoD contract during a 2002-2005 study, and it is now waiting for a follow-on production decision. Tbe Belgian FN followed a different approach. The FN303 is an air rifle, firing small plastic fin-stabilised frangible rounds with a muzzle velocity of about 90m/sec, either for blunt trauMilitary Technology MILTECH 3/3007

The science-fiction looking prototype of the Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response (PHaSR) weapon.

84

ma impact or filled with a variety of components (visible and UV permanent markers, pepper powder). FN303 can be used as standalone weapon (typically for police riot-control duties) or attached under the barrel of an assault rifle, like the M203 grenade launcher. It IS a silent weapon (less suitable to raise concem among both rioters and troops about use of "real" firearms), with sufficient precision and range up to 50m. It was selected by the US forces as the Individual Serviceman Non-Lethai System (ISNLS), and is issued to troops deployed in Iraq and Kosovo, It Is also being used for convoy security: if a suspect vehicle is approaching the convoy a burst of paint balls is being fired on the windshield as clear and unmistakable warning to stop and drive away, f the driver continues the next reaction is unavoidably lethal. The US forces have a number of other standard-issued kinetic-blunt trauma ordnances. These include the Modular Crowd Controt Munition (a Claymore mine with rubber balls instead of deadly steel balls), M1012and M1013 cartridge rounds for 12-gauge shotguns. Ml 006 40mm sponge grenade, and M99 66mm grenade fired from the standard Vehicle Obscuration System (smoke grenade launchers). Crowd Control Crowd control and riot control are always an important task during Peace Support Operations. The Gennan Army found itself incapable to stop the severe ethnic riots in Kosovo in March 2004, for not having been issued with any form of riot control gear; the standard assault rifles were of no help, because the Rules of Engagement forbade their use against civilian unrest, and the local people knew it very well. As a result of this critical situation, the Bundestag eventually authorised German troops to deploy tear gas during UN peacekeeping operations. Irritating chemical agents are commonly used by law enforcement personnel for riot control, but some (restrictive) interpretations of the 1992 Chemical Warfare Treaty would exlude the use of tear gas not only in combat against regular troops, but aiso during peaceThe VENOM by Combined Systems, Inc. is a potential MPM/NLW system. platoon level. The German Army uses comparable size projectors called RSG-4 (small) and RSG-8 (medium). A different system is instead tieing tested by the German Army: a water cannon installed on a DURO wheeled vehicle, exploiting a combination of factors, both the mechanical pushaway and the irritant chemical added to the water. This is a variant of a fire-fighting airport vehicle modified to "fire" high-pressure impulses of water. A smaller back-pack version is also available. These traditional non-lethal equipments, together with riot control protective gears, truncheons, etc, are being issued to the deployed units, via the so-called NLCS (Non-Lethal Capability Set), each used for equipping one company within a battalion team. Taser Another equipment derived from the law enforcement world is the X26 Taser, which was recently added to the US Army NLCS. This well-known device fires two small darts at ranges up to 5-7m, then a high-voltage low-power creates a neuro-muscular disruption stopping any voluntary action until the current flows. Immediately after the subject is fully able again (unless if wounded when falling to the ground). The X26 Taser can be attached under the ban-el of a standard assault rifle, offering dual

keeping operations. During the Vietnam War there was a large use of tear gas (CS), either to secure the underground citadels built by the Vietcong, or to support advancing troop among the urban, or to suppress ground fire over large areas in event of a combat search and rescue operation. Today the US troops are trained to use tear gas only in this latter case. At a time CBU-15 and CBU-30 cluster bombs loaded with hundreds CS cartridges were typically used. Today there are different kinds of grenades loaded with tear gas, which are used both by police and armed forces. They are certainly no hi-tech devices, yet are reasonably effective (though far to be the perfect tool) to disperse/ harass people without excessive dangers. There is an increasing use of pepper spray, either under form of natural OC or synthetic PAVA. Military dispensers of different sizes are being deployed, mostly to Military Police units, but in some cases also to regular infantry. The US forces have three different models: M36 is the individual hand-held model, M37 is midsize (approx. the size of a common fire extinguisher) and sprays up to some 10m, and the M33A1 is larger, back-packed model used at

The LRAD 500 vehicle-mounted system is use during the emergency assistance operation after Hurricane "Katrina".

The FN Herstal FN303 air weapon attached under a standard M16 assault rifle.

Military Technology - MILTECH 3^007

85

A successful VLAD capture.

A prototype of the Portable ADS system.

purpose weapon, for iethai and non-iethai purposes, aiiowing the soidier to change its mean quickly and without even having to change his aim. The Taser is very usefui for many Miiitary Poiice appiications, though its inherent iack of keep-out range and its individuai targeting nature makes it virtuaiiy useiess for riot controi or security operations. Some new specific miiitary appiications are being deveioped, however, and shouid be avaiiabie by 2008. The Taser Remote Area Deniai (T-RAD) is essentiaiiy a sort of mine with muitipie taser shooting capabiiity. it can operate either autonomousiy (with iR motion sensors), or remoteiy controiied, with or without warning tones or recorded messages in case a trespasser is detected. Power autonomy shouid iast for up to 40 days. The Hand Emptaced Non-Lethai Munition is a network of T-RAD, used to cover a specific area, and inciuding remote command and controi. Acoustic Systems Acoustic weapons have been a subject of research for many years, and have even been deployed. Acoustic equipment were used by the British Army in Northern ireiand, by the israeii Defence Forces and by the US first in Panama (Operation "Just Cause") and now in iraq. Its prime scope is to create annoyance more than to ciear a space, and the US forces found it very usefui also to send ciear and unmistakable warnings over iong distances. The Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) is instaiied onboard many US vesseis to deter unauthorised approaches and to issue orders, as weii for convoy security in iraq. There are however some inherent iimlts to acoustic weapons. A high sound pressure is iikeiy to create permanent hearing damage, while the use of simpie protection means wouid be enough to reduce or biock any usefui effect. More exotic soiutions were affective oniy in laboratory, but failed on fieid tests (at ieast until now). Vehicle Barriers Another main security concern is related to stopping a vehicie approaching a check point, without necessariiy having to kill the driver and indeed ali of those onboard. The much too many unfortunate cases of US soidiers, fearfui of a suicide car attacks firing pre-emptiveiy and

kiiiing innocent Iraqis (as weii as an Itaiian Security Service chief) are a sobering reminder of the significance of this issue. Two soiutions were deveioped and are now being issued on small rate for further real-iife testing. The Generai Dynamics Ordnance & Tacticai Systems product is the Portabie Vehicie Arresting Barrier (PVAB). This system can be easiiy instaiied by a two-man team in one hour and aiiows nomiai transit untii is activated. Then two masts are pneumatically raised carrying an elastic barrier, somewhat simiiar to those used to stop aircraft during emergency iandings. A truck traveiiing at some 70km/h is brought to a fuil stop in just few meters and the vehicies doors are biocked by the barrier, preventing any escape attempt. This system is one of the first items fuiiy developed and quaiified under the US Joint NonLethai Weapons Programme. The British OinetiQ is proposing X-Net Vehicie Arresting System. This resembies a ciassic spike-net for Poiice use and is inherentiy inexpensive, man-portable, and easy to depioy across a roadway. Whiie the other traditionai "naii-based" systems aim to puncture the tyres and thus stop the vehicie. there aiways are

chances that the driver would loose controi (with possible unwanted consequences) or rather wouid be abie to keep the vehicle moving on fiat tyres for a certain distance. For this reason, X-Net works differently. When the spikes pierce the front tyres, a metal net envelops them and brings the vehicie to a forced stop. US troops are being using X-Net since 2004 under the name Vehicie Lightweight Arresting Device (VLAD|. Over 500 VLAD were procured and sent to Iraq, Another solution, though using different technology for different purposes, can be used to stop people and vehicles from transiting a given area. This Is the so-calied Mobiiity Deniai System, a slippery [very siippery) iiquid sprayed on the road surface, with permanence ranging from four to 24 hours, depending on the environmentai conditions. Direct Energy Weapons Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) are a major hope for future developments. The Vehicie Mounted Area Deniai System (VMADS), deveioped by Raytheon AET under a contract from the US Air Force Laboratory, is certainly the most exotic NLW equipment deveioped during these iast years. After tweive years of studies and thousands of tests on voiunteers, the VMADS is ready for fieid depioyment under the name of SiLENT GUARDiAN.

The DURO-mounted water cannon during tests.

86

Militaiy Technology MILTECH 3/2007

< The British L69A1 and L21A1 riot control grenades. The Beretta variable-velocity riot control shotgun.

The system looks like sort of a radar, operating in 95GHz band with a large antenna. It works by causing a temporary intolerable superficial heating effect, i.e. a painful intense burning feeling forcing the subject to move away quickly. Permanent damage would be caused only if the subject remained within tbe beam for about one minute, whicb is well beyond the tolerability. In reality the beam penetrates only for 0.4mm into the skin, stimulating the pain nerves yet without effectively heating the skin. As indicated by its name, SILENT GUARDIAN will be fielded mostly for protection of high-value facilities, as well as to conduct MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) typically fending the crowd masking gunners, or forcing snipers to leave their bide-outs. A smaller-size model, called the Portable ADS, is being studied by the US Department of Energy for protection of nuclear power stations. Incidentally, the controversy in certain circles following tbe public unveiling of SILENT GUARDIAN (which is prudently described by Raytheon as a "less letbal" rather than a "nonlethal" weapon) bas once again highlighted a persistent and possibly deliberate misunderstanding about the real nature and purpose of these devices, which in turn in not without consequences for tbeir operational use. Human Rights and other concerned organisations bave pointed at the risk of people in a crowd being unable to move away from the beam even if they wanted to, as well as rioters using innocent bystanders as human shields. All of which is certainly very true - but completely fails to understand that tbese are weapons, and the altemative to their use does not consist in a gentle verbal reprimand but rather in a hail of bullets. Tbe Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response, or PHaSR, (do you remember the weapon of choice of the "Star Trek" saga?), is a riflesized counter-personnel non-lethal laser weapon system. PHaSR achieves tbe desired degree of protection tbrough tbe synergistic application of two non-lethal laser wavelengths. The laser light temporarily impairs aggressors by "dazzling" them with one wavelength, wbile the second wavelength causes a repel effect that further discourages advancing aggressors, overtaking the possible presence of protective goggles. An eye-safe laser rangefinder is being added to the second prototype, in order to control the emitted power, maximizing both effectiveness and safety.
Military Technology MILTECH 3/2007

Other Direct Energy Weapons include the Higb-Power Microwave, an intense radiation capable to disrupt and possibly to damage permanently all kind of non-protected electric and electronic circuitry. Different studies are being carried-out worldwide to design suitable sources of high power (tbe so-called Flux Compression Generator and tbe Vircator), likely exploiting an high-expiosive pushing a piston within an intense electhcal field. The development, tbough certainly very appealing, is certainly not a short-term matter. For the moment, the only way to disrupt an electrical grid without physically destroying it is represented by the EPDM (Electric Power Distribution Munition) whicb was already used during strikes against Iraqi and Serbian targets. There are two variants: the first. TOMAHAWK TLAM-D Kit-2, releases a number of carbonfibre spools whicb unwound and caused massive short-circuit; tbe second is tbe CBU-94 "Black Out Bomb", delivered by aircraft and releasing some 200 submunitions (BLU-114B) with extremely thin carbon fibres. The tatter was used against a number of Yugoslav power stations and transformers, plunging nearly half of the Yugoslav territory into the darkness. The use of sucb weapons allows attacks even with poor targeting data (by reducing the severity of collateral damages) and slashes the rebuilding costs (a factor whicb is becoming increasingly important in present-day operations). A totally different of electronic equipment can provide a ultra-wide band jamming, capable to stop tbe correct operation of any cell-pbone, remote control, tactical radio, TV, and so on. Its value is evident in case of counter-terrorism as well as for force protection against lED.

The Call for Longer Range One of the most significant differences between military and law-enforcement requirements lies into the need for long-range effectors. The military call for longer range is never out, also including tbe NLW sector. The US Army is now approaching a family of modular Non-Letbal Mortar Munition (NLMM) fired by mortars (60-81-120mm) and even NLOS FIRES witb 155mm calibre. These ordnances are called Personnel Suppression Munitions, releasing mitigated kinetic-energy or chemical payloads. The air-burst technique is focal to these developments, and appropriate time- or proximity-fuzes are tbe key to achieve full success. Also the Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher is being equipped with nonletbal munition, providing an high rate of fire at either ranges between 10m-50m (sbort range witb multiple rubber balls) or between 50m1500m (long range, with air burst). All of these products have just entered the final phase of demonstration and full development should likely begin soon.

The BLU-114/B "blackout" bomblet.

The emissions of the SILENT GUARDIAN microwave system penetrate the human skin to a maximum depth of 1/64th of an inch, causing an intense burning feeling but inflicting no permanent damage.

"Project Sheriff" Sort of a summa of all the options provided by NL means, either for surveillance, deterrence and effect, is well represented by "Project Sheriff', a.k.a. the Full Spectnjm Effects Platform (FSEP). This is a heavily modified STRYKER 8x8 vehicle fitted with a Portable Active Denial System (ADS), a bright white light, a Mobile Multiband Jammer (MMBJ), a laser dazzler, a Long Range Acoustic Device (LFIAD), and the GUNSLINGER anti-sniper system. The latter incorporates an acoustic-thermal multisensor device capable to detect a bullet fired by a sniper, triangulate, determine the position and start the reaction, dazzling in the direction and, in case, firing with a machine gun. Three "Sheriff" vehicles bave already been ordered and furtber 14 are expected, to serve witb the US Army and Marines in Iraq.

87