Anti-frogman Techniques - Scenarios and Considerations

Scenarios and Considerations

Following World War II, the increasing popularity in recreational diving introduced a new complexity to underwater security. Divers must not only be detected, but evaluated as to their purpose or intentions for swimming in monitored areas. Steps to protect against threat or harm from divers must take into account possible reasons why they would be swimming in monitored areas. The divers may be:

1. Recreational swimmers without harmful intent, or
2. Poachers removing sea life or valuable objects from the sea bed illegally, or
3. Threats intent on sabotage or intelligence gathering involving sensitive water targets

Swimmers can approach from the surface or underneath the waters, the two presenting their own detection and deterrence challenges. And the interception and apprehension of intruders detected in bodies of water pose unique safety risks.

There are various types of places of operation:

a) Underwater.

b) On the surface of water.

These two scenarios are discussed by nlsn.

c) In small boats (e.g. RIBs) being used by unauthorized or suspect divers.

d) In larger boats being used by unauthorized or suspect divers.

e) Arresting suspect divers onshore, before or after they dive.

There are these likely theaters of operation:

a) In an enclosed security area, e.g. a harbor.

b) In open water to protect submerged valuables (usually undersea archaeological sites).

c) In open water (often on a frontier) to prevent underwater smuggling.

d) In open water to protect sea life. (This, on a small scale, may be defined to include various known unofficial actions by inshore fishermen to protect their shellfish stocks.)

e) To prevent unofficial divers from getting in the way of other water or shore users.

In most scenarios nowadays #1 or perhaps #2 is likelier, but in war or semi-war conditions or where there is a risk of terrorism #3 may be likelier than usual.

A police-type technique that is reasonably safe on land may be risky to a scuba diver.

The document nlsn leans strongly towards #1, and discusses only non-lethal weapons. But in war and semi-war situations there is more risk of #3 and the choice may be for lethal weapons.