Army Chemical Review presents professional information about Chemical Corps functions related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, smoke, flame, and civil support operations.
Issue link: https://chemical.epubxp.com/i/759309
Winter 2016 9 procurement of new weapons and associated capabilities on the other. In future all sides will have advanced capabilities and they will be able to efficiently employ those capabilities to their best advantage. This places a premium upon the capacity to achieve the highest capability from each system. To succeed, we need a well-trained force. The Army will face an increasingly difficult challenge in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. Recruits must successfully learn complex subjects with limited time avail- able. Unlike with many civilian jobs, there is a very narrow margin for failure in the Army. Approaches to Army training have changed signifi- cantly over the years. Following the end of World War II, Army training was highly structured and Service-unique. At the end of the Vietnam War, the Army concentrated on mass exercises such as the Return of Forces to Germany (REFORGER), where large numbers of troops deployed to training areas inside and outside of the United States and participated in force-on-force exercises. In the 1980s, instru- mented training tools were introduced. An example is the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), which when mounted upon weapons and used with blank ammunition, allows realistic, yet safe, force-on-force mock battles with the capability for casualty assess- ment. In the post-Desert Storm era, decentral- ized multimedia simulation and wargaming became possible with the integration of joint forces. While always desirable, live exercises are increasingly difficult and expensive to con- duct. The challenge is to train and educate the force to operate in the more complex and chal- lenging operational environment of 2025. While the Army has trained the conven- tional force well, the focus has shifted over the past few years from one critical area: weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As we review future force requirements and the pos- sibility of a full range of potential we are forced to consider that we may engage peer or near-peer competitors on the 2025 battlefield. Those competitors and smaller antagonists will seek to overcome our ad- vantages and will have the capability to use WMD against our forces in an effort to gain advantage. It is no longer necessary to amass delivery systems or stockpile huge quantities of ammunition. Delivery systems have become more agile and more accurate, with a longer range than those of only a few years ago. The nature of modern infor- mation and technology exchange means that sophisticated, highly technical tools will be available for use by threats against our forces and our homeland. Yet, over the past 20 years, more than a dozen investigations, studies, and analyses (from various sources, including the General Ac- counting Office and the Department of Defense) have identified serious deficiencies in the chemical, biological, ra- diological, and nuclear (CBRN) readiness of the force. These assessments have cited missing or improperly maintained equipment; a lack of leadership; the atrophy of common CBRN skills; and the inability to train in a realistic, mean- ingful environment. Candid comments from seasoned non- commissioned officers have reinforced those observations. Title 50, War and National Defense, U.S. Code, Chap- ter 32, , Section 1522, , specifies that "The Secretary of Defense shall consolidate all chemical and biological warfare defense training activities of the Department of Defense at the United States Army Chemical, [Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear] School [USACBRNS]." 3 Initial and advanced training is conducted at USACBRNS, but institutional training is only a small component of Army readiness. Once Soldiers leave the school environment, the tasks that they learned must be sustained. As depicted in Figure 1, the way the Army trains has changed dramatically over the years. Large live exer- cises involving thousands of Soldiers are mostly a thing of the past. While live training is still important, other tools have been introduced. Furthermore, training technology improves constantly. The advent of the Internet-enabled smartphone has introduced an entirely new dimension to learning, making information readily available worldwide. A variety of training tools and methods will be needed to train and sustain Soldiers and leaders in the 21st century. These tools must be live, virtual, and constructive in design to train in a resource-constrained environment. According to TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-7, ". . . researchers predict con- tinuing difficulty with a recruit-age population lacking basic skills (mathematics, reading, and writing at or below the Figure 1. How Army training has changed