As recent history illustrates, future maintenance of world order and stability will require peace operations on a rather regular basis. The United States, reigning world superpower, will probably absorb its fair share of these missions. However, nations, subnational groups or terrorist organizations hostile to the United States or its interests may attempt to fuel instability or stop a peace process. Employment of an asymmetrical threat such as weapons of mass destruction would certainly impede a peace operation. This monograph examines the unique missions of peacekeeping and peace enforcement and assesses whether or not current United States nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) defense doctrine is applicable in peace operations. The monograph begins by documenting the relevant facts of the history of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), identifying the threat and examining possible relationships to peace operations. Although the employment of WMD during peace operations has not yet been confirmed, its potential use under these conditions should be seriously considered. Therefore, the monograph examined two case studies in which the potential for WMD employment was a possibility. The case studies include an overview of each operation, an analysis of the relevant WMD threat, and an identification of likely NBC defense requirements for a peace operation conducted in a NBC environment. Lastly, NBC defense doctrine is analyzed using the requirements identified in the case studies. The doctrinal functions of avoid, protect and restore were evaluated as to their applicability in peace operations. Specifically, does the doctrine satisfy the requirements of the tactical commander? The analysis identified a shortfall in NBC defense support to refugees and civilians involved in peace operations. The monograph closes with recommendations for mitigating the shortfall.

ADA 366252 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.)