EiZei 0 Posted February 28, 2004 United States, China and Russia are the most formidable nations that have not ratified the ban: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3491826.stm Quote[/b] ]US promises 'safer' landmines The Bush administration has announced a new policy on the use of landmines to minimise the risk to civilians. Assistant Secretary of State Lincoln Bloomfield said the US would make all its landmines detectable and scrap those not timed to self-destruct. But Mr Bloomfield confirmed that the US did not intend to sign the international treaty banning mines. Finland is the only EU-country that has not ratified the landmine ban: http://ww2.yle.fi/pls/show/page?id=242497 Quote[/b] ]Halonen Calls for Phase-Out of Land Mines President Tarja Halonen has called for a decision on phasing out land mines this year. She said that the use of anti-personnel mines was hypocritical and had damaged the country's credibility abroad. Halonen said the government should decide on a replacement system as part of this year's defense report, and end the use of mines within the next few years. Mines are used along Finland's 1300-kilometre border with Russia. The last report said that Finland should sign the Ottawa treaty on land mines by the year 2006 and phase out their use by 2010. Do you think the problem is exaggarated or are the concerns valid? Should the landmines be banned even by small countries which really need them to defend against enemies both superior in numbers and firepower? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Frenchman 0 Posted February 28, 2004 Even if they are banned, they will still end up in the hands of those who we might not want them in. (Er...yeah. ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted February 28, 2004 It´s a tricky issue. Landmines are a pain in the a**. That´s for sure. If you look to africa or former Yugoslavia it hinders the population from daily work and regular life. African farmers can´t cultivate a lot of land because of the mines. They are deployed in a secnond and take years to be cleaned especialy if no plans are available. Even if there are plans about the mines they are most of the time very inaccurate and incomplete. In Africa especially the mines wander with sand dunes and pop up somewhere else. We had big problems with landmines killing/injuring locals in the following countries: - Ethiopia - Somalia - Ruanda - Congo (only border parts) - Afghanistan - ex Yugoslavia It is a seriouse issue and at least western nation with no imment defense reasons should sign the treaty. A war on US soilk is very unlikely so they should ban them. But they already switched to bomblets with high failure rate that can and are seen as landmines. It is an intentional defect they bare. It´s like the US using no napalm officially but using MK-77 wich is basically the same but has a different name. They used it in Baghdad. I hate mines and I hate what they do to locals. The ones who deploy them should be forced to remove them when major military actions are over. I have no problem in using them as passive border defense measurs for countries with high invasion risk, but those borderlines are usually heavy fortified and everyone knows that landmines are on the border strip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 28, 2004 A solid yes from me. Even if you have illegal trade of them, if htey are generally treated as unacceptable there will eventually be less of those suckers to harm innocent people. I mean just think of living somewhere where you can't even go most places because htey are not cleared... and then if you forget... or kids... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MI_Fred 0 Posted February 28, 2004 As the basic purpose of AP mines are to tie up manpower to handle the wounded, it is an atrocity, as not only the wounded are in torment, but also the ones tied up. According to tactics those tied up are easier prey... disgusting. It is a psychological weapon. Quick death is easier to come by. Although an effective barrage blasting bodyparts across fields is no scenary easily overcome. I think AP mines go with guerilla tactics, they can be manufactured from scrap just like in 'Nam. They are a relic. Altho if they'd be clearly visible/detectable then they'd be a deterrent forcing the enemy to change route, for whatever tactical reason. But still, a respectable defence is the best deterrent. I did vote for a ban, but that would mean a reduction in one area of defence. Disarmament here we come. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted February 28, 2004 Very much yes. The military advantage can't be justified by the pollution they create. I also am against them because they are unusually cruel weapons. Sweden signed the ban treaty about the same time I did my military service or something like that, because they were phasing them out at the time. I remember how my CO at the time explained how "humane" the Swedish "hockey-puck" mines were, because they were specifically designed to take the leg off right beneath the knee. I never figured out why that would be more humane, but he made a big point about it. I suppose it has to do with the amount of bleeding or if you can put a prostethic leg in place more easily.. Anyway, it sounded very morbid. Anyway, AP land mines have very limited use today with fast moving fronts. Plant a mine field and you'll likely be removing it the next day because you have to pass. They do have some limited use as static defenses of borders, but it's very limited. A possible alternatsive would be to make "smarter" mines. Mines that you can deactivate through an encrypted radio command. But as always deactivation systems on weapons can backfire, if the enemy figures out how to do it. If you have good mine field maps, then handling them is not much of a problem, but unfortunately in most cases, they are placed with little care. In ex-Yugo for instance it was quite common to use mortars to scatter mines. Good luck with cleaning them up. There is an almost equally big problem - also something that should be banned - casette bombs (cluster munition). The bomblets often don't explode and create problems for years to come. Also unfortunately most victims there are children that pick up the bomblets. In Afghanistan, to make things even worse, they use the same color on the bomblets as standard air-dropped food rations. Go figure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted February 28, 2004 The Region of my hometown (Ypres) has been a major battlefield center in WWI. Up to this date ,yearly a number of farmers die because the plow over some shell still left from WWI. Makes you wonder though ,while modern landmines kill a lot of people ,old shell roaming in the ground from previous wars on historical battlefields kill to.Now in America i doubt that they have much shell's in the ground as not many modern battle's have been waged on American soil ,But big Part's of Europe are full of it ,and i'm sure that most of the country's that have seen WW2 or WW1 warfare on their ground still have a yearly death toll of people that have accidentill set it off. The point is was wanting to make is that most probably you will find those landmines on the same places that youll find such shell's ,namely places where battle's have been found.Any place that have seen major battle's will as such always be a hazzard for farmers who plow trough ground that can contain anny form of ecplosive.And not only afterwards ,such places are obviously also a hazard for civilians when the battle's are on-going. So given the incentive for such a ban ,i would rather propose that from now on any modern battle is fought on some unimportant uninhabited (desert) island where the army's can fire away as much as they like rather than in inhabited places ,it may be much more effective in preventing civilian war casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milkman 1 Posted February 28, 2004 Do you honestly believe landmines would be banned, let alone be made safer? Even if the super powers stopped using them, the 3rd world coulndn't care less about regulations and laws, and I highly doubt the UN or any other organization would do anything about nations using banned landmines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 28, 2004 Anyway, AP land mines have very limited use today with fast moving fronts. Plant a mine field and you'll likely be removing it the next day because you have to pass. They do have some limited use as static defenses of borders, but it's very limited. A possible alternatsive would be to make "smarter" mines. Mines that you can deactivate through an encrypted radio command. But as always deactivation systems on weapons can backfire, if the enemy figures out how to do it. Well smart mines were one of the proposals US has been making AFAIk. I think they need to be treated just the same=banned. Why? You just will never be sure some electronically disarmed mine really was. That is, danger will still be there as you can't trust much. I would say if you make em smart then ok, at least make them blow up after a preprogrammed date. I think blowing up on a preset/known date is a LOT better than never and being hidden. Who's going to invest in this crap.... what do you get in return for not cripling some child who has a net worth of $5 USD? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 28, 2004 Do you honestly believe landmines would be banned, let alone be made safer? Even if the super powers stopped using them, the 3rd world coulndn't care less about regulations and laws, and I highly doubt the UN or any other organization would do anything about nations using banned landmines. Let me quote myself Quote[/b] ]A solid yes from me. Even if you have illegal trade of them, if they are generally treated as unacceptable there will eventually be less of those suckers to harm innocent people. I mean just think of living somewhere where you can't even go most places because they are not cleared... and then if you forget... or kids... typos fixed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crashdome 3 Posted February 28, 2004 Do you honestly believe landmines would be banned, let alone be made safer? Even if the super powers stopped using them, the 3rd world coulndn't care less about regulations and laws, and I highly doubt the UN or any other organization would do anything about nations using banned landmines. So your saying that we should allow several large nations to develop, produce, and distribute land-mines because some nutty dictator in some backwater country doesn't care about laws? Thats like saying we should allow murder because serial killers don't abide by laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milkman 1 Posted February 28, 2004 Do you honestly believe landmines would be banned, let alone be made safer? Even if the super powers stopped using them, the 3rd world coulndn't care less about regulations and laws, and I highly doubt the UN or any other organization would do anything about nations using banned landmines. So your saying that we should allow several large nations to develop, produce, and distribute land-mines because some nutty dictator in some backwater country doesn't care about laws? Thats like saying we should allow murder because serial killers don't abide by laws. Erm, no its not. I am saying even if you stopped production there would be almost no change in their use since there are so many already out there on the market (illegal or not). If you ban them, then the nutty dictator(S) will make their own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killagee 0 Posted February 28, 2004 Landmines should definately be banned! Here is a poem I presented to the NZ Army team that returned from mine clearance duties in cambidodia last year Copyright C.M.Gee 2003 Illustration by Melissa Clifton Just incase you cant read it (quality reduced for posting)... Gods flowers in the Devils garden Once your enemy now your brother united he lay this garden ploughed through this soil planted in the wake of his armour A garden for the blind A walk to leave you legless Arab instructions in French letters on Swedish metal an English idea perfected by Germans bought with American money to stop Africans crawling Tread careful Mother father choose your steps boy this is no toy mans work to leave women weeping metal petal sensing your weight magnets of death plastic plates an explosive crop This is the devils minefield planted in the name of God Each day 250 cambodians lose a limb and 15 die. The most common ones there now are the mines dropped by US aircraft along the old supply lines into vietnam... Some links: Humanitarian cost of landmines ICBL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ozanzac 0 Posted February 28, 2004 I ain't the arty type, but nice poem and presentation Killagee. I also favour a ban of mines, especially when they are placed in 'random areas', where they really don't have an advantage for anyone during times of war, let alone in peace. The devestation they cause to innocents is too great to justify there use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turms 0 Posted February 28, 2004 Nice Killagee! As for the landmine issue, im not in for a total ban of landmines, you just have to do proper maps for every minefield, but i guess its not so simple is it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted February 28, 2004 this is a thorny issue and personally, I prefer ban on them. However, there are several areas where mines maybe used, if feasible. It is understandable that PRC is not going to ratify this. their practice is superiority through large numbers. and if they get in to such scenario, mines are a viable option. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted February 28, 2004 That was a pretty good poem Killagee. Apollo, many shells and munitions from WW2 are still found here in Finland every year. Dozens, even? I voted no because I trust the FDF to be responsible with their landmines, and considering the geographical environment we are in IMO we need every weapon we can get. Altough you lot do make good points to the contrary, I'm not so firm in my belief. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted February 28, 2004 Nah, the FDF doesn't need landmines, just more Molotovs! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted February 28, 2004 They do more damage on civilians then soldiers. Even the countries that don't want to harm civilians produce those type of weapons. How stupid is that? EDIT: Of course it would be fun if thay had more mines on OPF2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killagee 0 Posted February 28, 2004 I read an article by a US general that said the minefields they laid always caused more problems for themselves than the enemy. Gonna try and hunt it down to post it here... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MEDICUS 0 Posted February 28, 2004 Only two words: For sure! Yes, landmines should be banned. There is nothing which makes more problems after a conflict has ended. They make no differance between soldiers and civilians. In fact most victims of landmines are children and farmers. It costs millions of dollars to replace them (if any cares about that ... i think you can't even count how much mines there are spred over big parts of africa) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted February 28, 2004 I voted yes, no brainer, if 2 armies want to kill each other there are plenty of other weapons they can use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted February 28, 2004 AP mines are a disgrace. In how many cases are they successful? Any country pushing forward AP mine technology are in my eyes cold blooded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Koolkid101 0 Posted February 28, 2004 What kind of mines are claymores? And what about mines in the DMZ in korea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted February 28, 2004 What kind of mines are claymores? And what about mines in the DMZ in korea. Ottawa treaty defines landmines as follows: Quote[/b] ]"Anti-personnel mine" means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons. Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped. "Mine" means a munition designed to be placed under, on or near the ground or other surface area and to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person or a vehicle. "Anti-handling device" means a device intended to protect a mine and which is part of, linked to, attached to or placed under the mine and which activates when an attempt is made to tamper with or otherwise intentionally disturb the mine. "Mined area" means an area which is dangerous due to the presence or suspected presence of mines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
