Strategic Mobility, The Force Proejction Army, and the Ottawa Landmine Treaty: Can the Army Get There?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current and emerging United States Army doctrine places great emphasis on the concepts of strategic responsiveness and force projection to meet the National Security Strategy requirements. The use or potential use, of land mines significantly increases the lethality of the Army force during deterrence and combat operations, and enhances survivability. In essence, with the use of land mines, the U.S. Army achieves an economy of force that in effect increases the U.S. Army's agility, versatility and ability to deploy. Smaller more deployable Army forces such as the medium brigade and light units can generate more combat power by using the effects provided by land mines integrated with other combat systems. However, in order to use land mines worldwide, the U.S. must move, store, or reposition land mines in, through, or to the theater and area of operations prior to, concurrently, or in conjunction with the deploying Army force. Movement of forces, material, and equipment across international borders and into sovereign nations requires the permission of those nations, or a conscious decision to violate international laws and conventions regarding sovereignty. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and their Destruction also known as the Ottawa Landmine Treaty has the potential to place severe limits on the United States ability to deploy forces. This study examines the question: Does the Ottawa Landmine Treaty significantly affect the strategic responsiveness of the force projection Army? Beginning with a review and analysis of the treaty language, this study examines the United States policy on antipersonnel landmines and its origin, the concepts of force projection and strategic responsiveness, and two recent force projection operations involving United States Army forces. This review and assessment leads to two potential forms of the treaty in the future: status quo and restrictive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".