Effectiveness testing of non-lethal weapons

Abstract

Non-lethal weapons (NLWs) provide the warfighter with tools to effectively wage full spectrum operations, particularly in counterinsurgency, stability and support, and peace operations. However, it is widely recognized that evaluation of a NLW's performance and effectiveness is problematic. The principal difficulty is that a NLW must be evaluated as both a non-lethal device (based on clinical testing methods of life science) and as a weapon (based on US Department of Defense (DoD) evaluation and testing methods of engineering and physics). This paper argues that live-virtualconstructive (LVC) methods constitute a critical component of a comprehensive research program on NLW effectiveness. In support of this contention, the article has three parts. Section 2 reviews briefly NLW effectiveness testing. This section will then present general LVC methods and the advantages they have over typical methods of evaluating NLW effects. Following this introduction, and in line with the intent of the special issue, an overview will be given on LVC methods as employed in NLW testing by the US Army's Target Behavioral Response Laboratory (TBRL). Since its inception in 2004, the TBRL at Picatinny Arsenal has conducted comprehensive LVC studies on NLW effectiveness. These experiments examine NLW effectiveness against intended targets under controlled laboratory experimentation. A third component presents empirical quantitative results from LVC experimentation with NLW effectiveness in a crowd scenario. The article concludes with a brief summary of the use and particular benefits of LVC methods on NLW effectiveness testing.

LVC Allocator: Aligning training value with scenario design for envisioned LVC training of fast-jet pilots

“…12 Given the promises that LVC presents to training and the research challenges that have been identified, the Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation published a special issue devoted to the ''Art and Science of Live, Virtual and Constructive Simulation and Intelligent Agents to Support Defense and Homeland Security Testing and Analysis''. 13 In the issue, the examples of the use of LVC span a wide range of topics and application areas, e.g., the challenges that are met when using LVC simulation for test and evaluation purposes 4 , the testing of non-lethal weapons in an LVC setting, 14 and challenges with attaining sufficient realism in the results of LVC simulations. 4 More recently, Mansikka et al presented and demonstrated a comprehensive LVC framework for development of air combat tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP).…”

The Relationship of The Penny Beliefs Weapons Scale to Robotic Peacekeeper Compliance and Trust

“…However, the psychological effects of NLW use are less clear and more variable. To date, the psychological research that has been conducted is based mostly on crowd and riot populations (Bliss, 2004;Mezzacappa 2014). For example, Mezzacappa (2014) has organized crowd simulations to further understand the emotional and cognitive processes involved in NLW use and its effects.…”

“…For example, Mezzacappa (2014) has organized crowd simulations to further understand the emotional and cognitive processes involved in NLW use and its effects. Non-lethal weapon use shows evidence of crowds being controlled, crowd members remaining in place, crowds being more hesitant in approaching law enforcement officials, and crowds spending less time in the line of fire near off limit areas (Mezzacappa, 2014).…”

“…Of these, one of the most difficult is predicting the level of trust that civilians will display toward robotic entities tasked with peacekeeping (Meyer, 2016;Salem et al, 2015). Complicating the task even further is the idea that human peacekeepers have routinely been given the power to enforce their will when situations escalate (Mezzacappa, 2014). In situations where robotic peacekeepers have the capability to use weapons, the trust that a human might harbor toward an automated peacekeeper must be considered conjointly with the human's attitude toward weapon use.…”

Content analysis to classify and compare Live, Virtual, Constructive simulations and System of Systems

“…LVC involves live people role playing with a live instructor (live), live people interacting with simulated entities (virtual), or simulated entities interacting with one another in a simulated environment (constructive). The use of LVC in the military domain has been the subset of a special issue in JDMS and the approach has been shown to be useful in testing and analysis, 15,16 training, 17 verification, 18 and modeling counter-insurgency. 19 The key assumption, when considering LVC as a viable form for designing and using SoS, is that the interactions between the live, virtual, and constructive components may account for the human/social aspect of SoS.…”