Future War by John B. Alexander Ph.D

Author:John B. Alexander, Ph.D.
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: St. Martin's Press
Published: 2011-03-17T16:00:00+00:00

While this account is fictitious, it is a realistic portrayal of the predicaments peacekeepers may face. Though they are undertaken with the best of intentions, sometimes peace support operations lead to unintended consequences. Many of the technologies employed were discussed in the NATO-AGARD study to determine methods by which collateral casualties could be limited during PSOs.1 That study was based on NATO experience in Bosnia. To assist the study group members in conceptualizing the problems associated with limiting collateral damage in these difficult situations, a number of real-world targets were picked for neutralization.

Three categories of targets were selected: personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. For each, a situation that had been encountered during peacekeeping operations in Bosnia was developed. Examples of the target situations include the following: neutralize a mortar crew for at least twelve hours; halt an aggressive crowd; prevent missiles from being fired; prevent a tank from firing the main gun; deny use of a bridge for twenty-four hours; and many others. Of course, the situations were modified to be more difficult than attacking an isolated target. For instance, suppose the missile launcher just happened to be placed next to a hospital, while the bridge was built in antiquity by the Romans and of great historic value and the tank was intentionally hidden in a farmer’s barn.

For each scenario, solutions were developed, some with non-lethal weapons, others with low-collateral-damage techniques such as using precision-guided weapons with inert warheads. While they produced a hard kill of the target, without the high-explosive warhead little fragmentation occurred that might dismember unfortunate bystanders. The study concluded that there were no silver bullets, no perfect weapons that could be employed in every situation. However, it did show that while it was difficult to attack targets contiguous to sensitive civilian sites such as schools, houses, hospitals, or religious buildings, using precision-guidance systems, several special warheads could be employed to limit the use of enemy equipment or facilities. For instance, adhesive foams would be effective in inhibiting use of the Roman bridge without causing any structural damage, and foams could be sprayed on sophisticated equipment requiring extensive maintenance prior to renewed use. Olfactory insults could be used to keep people out of specified areas, and they would be safe in case direct contact was made with the substances.

The concepts and doctrine for peace support operations are still emerging and even the vocabulary is not yet established. However, it is clear that a wide range of missions are included under the rubric of PSOs. Peacekeeping is the maintenance of a diplomatically established termination of conflict but one in which renewed fighting could take place. Normally, peacekeepers are invited into the area by all parties.2 Peace enforcement includes the use of external forces to quell outbreaks of violence by parties who have agreed to cease fighting. Mutual consent may not be a part of peace making, and there is an increased likelihood of armed interventions. Preventive diplomacy includes actions taken in advance when a crisis is predictable.3 Peace-building missions

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.