This monograph examines the ability of the United States Army to shape the battlefield without the use of conventional landmines. The United States must determine alternatives to conducting warfare without the use of landmines. The humanitarian crisis landmines create calls for this and current and future technologies make it possible. Weapons that cannot discriminate between combatant and non-combatant will lose their legitimacy in the future battlespace. This study traces the evolution of landmines and their purposes. It then reviews current American, British, and Canadian counter-mobility doctrine in order to establish a foundation to build upon. With this solid foundation of the past and present, the study then progresses to address how the United States can shape the future battlespace. This study offers alternatives to conventional landmines through technology, doctrine, and training. Through their evolution, landmines have become an effective force enabler in the conduct of land warfare, but in recent times their usefulness has diminished. Situational and scatterable landmines have increased importance in the changing environment. The evolution of the humanitarian crisis from their use supports a complete ban on the use of conventional landmines. The costs associated with landmine use are mind numbing. Medical and rehabilitation costs alone exceed $750 million. The effects of wars long past continue to plague ravished nations. With current de-mining efforts, the estimate by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (VVAF) to remove the existing landmines exceeds forty years. Based on this, the evidence supports a total ban on the use of conventional landmines, both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Reviewing modern doctrine reveals that countermobility operations are very similar amongst the United States, Great Britain, and Canada. The other common thread is offensive action and maintenance of the initiative. The biggest difference between these three nations is chiefly a difference in the American doctrine since it does not discuss the impacts of the Ottawa Treaty. Both Great Britain and Canada have addressed the treaty's impacts by including coordination with host nation agreements into obstacle integration. The United States does not address this factor in countermobility doctrine. The changing security environment also presents the potential necessity to shape the battlefield without conventional landmines. The Ottawa Treaty restricts the use of anti-personnel landmines and any nations have become signatories to it. The United States Army may have to employ the objective force in a nation or with a nation that is a signatory. Should that be the case, the force will be compelled to abide the articles of the Ottawa treaty and therefore be required to replicate that capability with existing systems/doctrine or develop them. This study concludes by offering recommendations to shaping the battlefield without conventional landmines. In many respects the Untied States Army currently shapes the battlefield without the use of landmines. Doctrine provides the means to shape enemy formations. Deception combined with long range fires, including air interdiction; shape the battlefield for the decisive operations. Increased technologies mainly in the intelligence arena allow precision deep fires to destroy enemy forces prior to ground contact. Non-lethal alternatives also exist to replace the function of landmines. Electromagnetic pulse weapons could revolutionize ground warfare and leave the battlefield safe to traverse following the conflict. The recommendations outlined in this paper are based on emerging doctrine and provide for humanitarian friendly alternatives to landmines. Future battlefields can become truly mineless.

ADA 403799 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)