Removing Wars Lethal Legacy Technological Solutions to the Enduring Global Landmine Problem Jacqueline A. MacDonald

1. Removing War's Lethal Legacy Technological Solutions to the Enduring Global Landmine ProblemJacqueline A. MacDonaldCarnegie Mellon UniversityThe RAND Corporation

2. Landmines Inflict More Casualtiesthan Terrorism 15,000-20,000 landmine victims per year By comparison, average of 700 annual deaths and 2,200 injuries due to terrorism over past decade Note that survivors require two months� of hospitalization, on average, and multiple surgeries. Note that one in ten victims is under age 15, on average. Note that the data on victim death rate, occupation, age are from a survey in just four countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique NoteNote that survivors require two months� of hospitalization, on average, and multiple surgeries. Note that one in ten victims is under age 15, on average. Note that the data on victim death rate, occupation, age are from a survey in just four countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique Note

3. Point out that we include UXO with landmines here.Point out that we include UXO with landmines here.

4. Mines Continue to Harm CiviliansLong After Conflict Ceases 70% of victims are civilians One-third die Others lose limbs and/or vision 2 months� hospitalization and multiple surgeries required, on average Many victims are children Note that the data on victim death rate, age are from a survey in just four countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique. Photo is from Kabul, Afghanistan. Note that in Afghanistan, 25% of victims are under age 15 (mostly boys). Note that the data on victim death rate, age are from a survey in just four countries: Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia and Mozambique. Photo is from Kabul, Afghanistan. Note that in Afghanistan, 25% of victims are under age 15 (mostly boys).

5. Solving the Problem: Good News and Bad News Good news: 100,000 mines cleared each year Bad news: Clearing the 50 million existing mines will take 500 years and $14-50 billion Despite global ban, 1 million new mines are laid annually Thus, problem is getting worse: 10 times more mines are laid than cleared each year Potential good news: Innovative mine detection technologies could significantly accelerate demining and decrease costs

6. RAND Study Evaluated Technological Solutions to the Problem Identify antipersonnel mine detection technologies currently in the R&D stage Evaluate the potential for each to improve mine detection and clearance capability Recommend research strategy for improving mine detection

7. Outline Current state of landmine detection technology Innovative detection technologies Concept for an advanced landmine detection system

8. Mines Have Become Widely Available Since World War II Note that original mines, dating to end of World War I, were rigged hand grenades.Note that original mines, dating to end of World War I, were rigged hand grenades.

9. . . . But Mine Detection Technology Has Not Improved Mine Detection Tool Kit Metal detector Pointed stick

10. Metal Detectors Do Not Find All Mines Note that soil type heavily influences performance of the detector. A detector that works well in one location won�t necessarily perform equally well in other settings. Results of international field test of all commercially available mine detectors show that not all mines are found. Bar at far left shows perfect detector performance. Best detector in this field test found only 40 of 56 mines. Manufacturers of mine detection equipment are located in Australia, Ausria, Germany, U.K., U.S., South Korea, and South Africa. Most popular detectors among deminers are manufactured by Minelab (Austria, MICM and MIMI), Schiebel (Austria, SCAN, SCAT, SCMI), Ebinger (Germany, EB42, EB 53), Vallon (Germany, VaVMa, VA16), and Foerster (Germany, FOMI). Worst performers were Giat (France), and Adams (U.K.).Note that soil type heavily influences performance of the detector. A detector that works well in one location won�t necessarily perform equally well in other settings. Results of international field test of all commercially available mine detectors show that not all mines are found. Bar at far left shows perfect detector performance. Best detector in this field test found only 40 of 56 mines. Manufacturers of mine detection equipment are located in Australia, Ausria, Germany, U.K., U.S., South Korea, and South Africa. Most popular detectors among deminers are manufactured by Minelab (Austria, MICM and MIMI), Schiebel (Austria, SCAN, SCAT, SCMI), Ebinger (Germany, EB42, EB 53), Vallon (Germany, VaVMa, VA16), and Foerster (Germany, FOMI). Worst performers were Giat (France), and Adams (U.K.).

11. False Alarm Rate Is High  Note that UXO is not as hazardous as mines because is not designed to be triggered by small amount of pressure from above but still needs to be removed because can explode if disturbed.Note that UXO is not as hazardous as mines because is not designed to be triggered by small amount of pressure from above but still needs to be removed because can explode if disturbed.

12. Majority of Time Is Spent on Scrap

13. Poor Detection Equipment Accounts for 72% of Mine Clearance Casualties DA: Will the technologies you explore deal with the removal problem? Would be helpful to explain how DA: Will the technologies you explore deal with the removal problem? Would be helpful to explain how

14. Outline Current state of landmine detection technology Innovative detection technologies Concept for an advanced landmine detection system

15. How RAND Approached the Problem Review literature Identify innovative technologies Request background papers on each technology (23 papers total) Appoint independent expert panel to help assess technology potential Bullet six could be interpreted as �we talked to 2 researchers total�. Maybe change previous bullet to �Identify TWO lead researchers��, and eliminate �two� from the next bullet. Maybe also put �received 23 papers in total� in parentheses in bullet six to emphasize. Maybe also Add a final bullet of �Worked with task force over a period of months refining evaluations and recommendations�Bullet six could be interpreted as �we talked to 2 researchers total�. Maybe change previous bullet to �Identify TWO lead researchers��, and eliminate �two� from the next bullet. Maybe also put �received 23 papers in total� in parentheses in bullet six to emphasize. Maybe also Add a final bullet of �Worked with task force over a period of months refining evaluations and recommendations�

16. Mine Detection Task Force

17. Four Categories of Innovative Technologies Electromagnetic methods Acoustic/seismic methods Chemical vapor detection methods Bulk explosives detection methods

18. Electromagnetic Methods

19. Electromagnetic Methods

20. Electromagnetic Methods

21. Electromagnetic Methods

22. Electromagnetic Methods

23. Mine Response to Ground-Penetrating Radar

24. Acoustic Methods

25. Mine Response to Sound Waves

26. Explosive Vapor Detection Methods

27. Explosive Vapor Detection Methods

28. Explosive Vapor Detection Methods

29. Explosive Vapor Detection Methods

30. Explosive Vapor Detection Methods

31. Requirements for Explosive Vapor Detectors

32. Requirements for Explosive Vapor Detectors

33. Well-Trained Dogs Are Most Sensitive Vapor Sensors (10-16 g/ml)

34. Fluorescent Polymer Sensors Are Less Sensitive Than Dogs (10-15 g/ml)

35. Engineered, Fluorescing Bacteria: Detection Sensitivity Unknown

36. Bulk Explosives Detection Methods

37. Bulk Explosives Detection Methods

38. Bulk Explosives Detection Methods

39. NQR Prototype Note NQR uses RF pulse that flips the nuclear spin of N14, which in turn induces a weak voltage that can be received by an RF coil. Time is required.Note NQR uses RF pulse that flips the nuclear spin of N14, which in turn induces a weak voltage that can be received by an RF coil. Time is required.

40. Briefing Outline Current state of landmine detection technology Innovative detection technologies Concept for an advanced landmine detection system

41. There�s No Silver Bullet: All Detectors Have False Alarms

42. . . . And None Can Detect All Mines Signal from TNT is weak and is in AM frequency rangeSignal from TNT is weak and is in AM frequency range

43. RAND Study Conclusion: Multi-Sensor System Is Needed Each innovative technology has false alarms and false negatives Combining sensors would decrease false alarms and false negatives Combined sensor system could employ recent advances in signal processing capability

44. Multi-Sensor System Would Be Robust Across Mine Types and Environments

45. Research Challenges for a Multi-Sensor System Complete basic and field research on sensor elements that could complement metal detectors and GPR. Develop algorithms to combine signals. Research questions include: Combine raw signal data or processed signals? If combine processed signals, how much weight should be given to positive response from one sensor if others give negative response?

46. An Effective Detection System Would Save Lives and Money Save up to two-thirds of $14-50 billion mine clearance price tag Prevent millions of casualties among civilians and deminers Create potential spin-off benefits airline explosive detection signal processing underground imaging medical imaging If could save 60-300%, then total cost range would be reduced from $14-50 billion to $4.7-$17 billionIf could save 60-300%, then total cost range would be reduced from $14-50 billion to $4.7-$17 billion

47. Summary: Technological Approachesto Global Landmine Problem Landmines represent global humanitarian and security crisis Existing detection technologies (metal detectors) yield many false alarms and fail to find all mines Innovations focus on sensing mine features other than metal content Multi-sensor system is theoretically feasible Key research areas are which sensors to include and how to combine signals