JP 3-60, page 44

Chapter II II-14 JP 3-60 (b) Capabilities Assignment. Once a target’s vulnerabilities are known, appropriate target engagement capabilities are assigned. Target engagement capabilities may be either lethal or nonlethal weapons or capabilities. All target engagement types must be accounted for in capabilities analysis. Weaponeering is accomplished in this step for all lethal capabilities and some nonlethal capabilities from other mission areas (i.e., technical capabilities such as space, electronic warfare, and cyberspace). Once capabilities are assigned to vulnerabilities, a list of these asset target interactions (ATIs) is created and evaluated in the next step. (c) Feasibility Assessment. Each of the ATIs must be evaluated for feasibility. For example, a lethal weapon might be able to neutralize a particular target’s function, but because the target is located in a country for which we have no (and would not receive approval for) lethal authorities, this ATI would be “unfeasible.” (d) Effects Estimate. Each feasible ATI should have first, second, and higher order effects identified. Sometimes this is done by a command’s red team. Collateral damage is a second order effect. Collateral damage estimation (CDE) is a process normally performed by trained and certified personnel at various echelons. CDE is intended to characterize the level and extent of collateral damage risk for a commander. Higher order effects may include such actions as diplomatic and public relations consequences arising from collateral damage or the potential for post-hostility economic costs to restore damaged adversary infrastructure. Attrition calculations may be included in this step. These effects estimates are essential in gaining the JFC’s approval in phase 4, commander’s decision and force assignment. (2) Capabilities analysis focuses at the target element level on matching specific capabilities against identified target vulnerabilities and estimating the effects. This process builds upon the analysis performed in target development, both for information that characterizes the physical, functional, and behavioral vulnerability of the target and for a connecting thread of logic to the JFC’s objectives and guidance. During the capabilities analysis phase, the weaponeer estimates the most likely outcome resulting from employing selected capabilities against a specific target element to create a specific effect. Its purpose is to weigh the relative efficacy of the available forces and systems or processes and agents. These estimates may be generated using probabilistic mathematical models (e.g., Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual [JMEM]) that take into account the target’s critical vulnerabilities, performance data on the assets considered for application against the target, and means of delivery. Capabilities analysis may also inform the JFC’s choice of COA and other decision-making processes. The weaponeer focuses on the target’s physical, functional, cognitive, and environmental characteristics to determine how to leverage vulnerabilities. This analysis should consider nonlethal capabilities. Effects estimates should also take into account estimated repair and recuperation times when matching capabilities with vulnerabilities and account for reuse and reconstruction during later plan phases to avoid negatively affecting the end state. The IC and federated partners provide TM, which include estimative analyses essential to assessing how a specific method can affect the target. Any intelligence gaps highlighted during this phase will also refine collection requirements.