The Most Dangerous Weapon Aimed at U.S. Troops Isn't What You Think

When people think about which weapons the U.S. military should fear the most, they tend to think about improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and AK-47 rifles—tools of modern insurgency. Others look at bigger threats (and least in terms of range and power), such as missiles that are aimed at ships or long-range ballistic missiles. That's why many an eyebrow rose recently when Alan Shaffer, head the development and testing operation and the future chief scientist for NATO, identified not IEDs or ICBMs as the biggest threat to troops abroad, but rather shoulder-fired surface-to-air-missiles.

For years now we've been covering the threat of Man Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) weapons, and their proliferation in particular, as this dangerous tech has shown up in Yemen,Iraq, Libya, and other hotspots. So we asked Matt Schroeder, senior researcher with the Small Arms Survey who spends lots of time thinking about MANPADS, whether he was surprised these weapons ranked so high in Shaffer's estimation

Historically, MANPADS have caused far fewer US casualties than IEDs, firearms, and other weapons," he tells PM. "That said, the threat from MANPADS is very real. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, insurgents brought down several coalition helicopters with MANPADS, at least some of which were older, first-generation systems. The acquisition of recent generation Russian and Chinese systems by armed groups in Syria and Iraq is therefore worrisome."

"THE THREAT FROM MANPADS IS VERY REAL."

Shaffer cited the threat to helicopters as a major reason why these systems are so dangerous, and that rationale makes sense. Helicopters and tilt-rotor V-22 aircraft are vital links in American power projection. The Marine Corps and U.S. Army both rely on helicopters to be more mobile than an enemy and quickly position troops and artillery in places that an enemy wouldn't expect. Casualty evacuation and special operations missions also rely on vertical lift aircraft. But it's these aircraft that make prime targets for MANPAD weapons.

Shoulder-fired missiles also pose serious risks to military transports and civilian aircraft during takeoff and landing. In one recent example from 2007, a Belarusian cargo plane that had just finished delivering supplies to Ugandan peacekeepers was struck by an anti-aircraft missile fired by the Islamic Courts Union shortly after taking off from Mogadishu airport. All 11 people on board were killed.

These new weapons have longer ranges, and better infrared seekers in the rockets. Plus, cadres of fighters in Eastern Europe and the Middle East now have real-world experience using them. That's a lethal combination. (Here's plenty more about where these weapons came from.)

Shaffer is well known for spearheading the deployment of using more heavily armored vehicles in Iraq in response to the IED attacks. As he heads to NATO, he's clearly focused on avoiding playing catch-up in a similar cat-and-mouse game, this one in the air. So what can be done about it?

"MILITARY AIRCRAFT REPORTEDLY EQUIPPED WITH COUNTERMEASURES WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY MANPADS IN IRAQ."

"Many militaries have deployed plane-mounted anti-missile systems on at least some of their aircraft for decades," Schroeder says. "They are not a panacea, however. Military aircraft reportedly equipped with countermeasures were brought down by MANPADS in Iraq."

But mitigating this threat will require a multifaceted approach that goes beyond just equipping aircraft with countermeasures. Strengthening export controls, securing missile stocks, disposing of surplus missiles, and dismantling arms trafficking networks are all crucial steps to make sure these weapons don't proliferate any more than they already have.