Should landmines be banned?

[ran 0]

the prob with landmines is that you can't go MICLIC on large minefields and mine-removal vehicles are unaffordable for most armies or aren't on their to priority lists ......

I hate mines, the creators of such death toys weren't conscious of the perverted use and consequences of these devices, no more needs to be said.

Mines=Evil, the reasons for this have been stated multiple times before.

[bonko the sane 2]

Im vote Yes, never even consider another option  

A friend of mine went back to his families old lands in Angola, and the well, pinapple fields and everything else are all there since 1974 and no one dares to cultivate even if they are starving, because every good field is mined...

Any country that didnt ratify the treaty should be tried for crimes against humanity IMO, of course that wont happen

[Tamme 0]

AP mines are cruel weapons, yes. But I voted no because I was thinking about it from Finland's point of view. Land mines are one of our best defenses against an invasion (Russia). If we had no mines anyone could just walz in here. No matter how hard we'd fight. Mines would at least slow them down and give us a better chance.

[Pathy 0]

Yes to a ban, except for ....ermm what are they called....the remote control ones.....i dont think they blow up on pressure, they blow up by radio, but cant think what the hell they are called......they are quite common in Military use whatever they are.....

<edit, ahh yeh looked above, Claymore mines should be allowed methinks.>

[miles teg 1]

I agree on a ban. If soldiers REALLY need them it's not that hard to make improvised land mines. Plus I don't believe the ban includes command-detonated mines like claymores.

Having been trained as an engineer in the US Army had having had to learn how to sweep minefields, I HATE landmines with a passion. They are indeed incredibly cruel weapons. I met a range cadre NCO at a demo range at Ft. Leanordwood once who had a huge section of one arm missing and who lost parts of his ribs due to an accident with a M16A2 "bouncing betty" landmine. He was outside the kill-radius. He said the two guys next to the mine were killed instantly despite having flack vests. These mines bounce up into the air and then explode in the air creating a deadly distribution of shrapnel at chest level. Those without body armor like civilians, suffer horrific chest and abdominal wounds.

Also even the little "toe-poppers" are horrific because what you don't hear much is that such mines often not only blow feet and legs off but also tend to blow off the genetilia of a man. In other words these little mines can blow off your balls and schlong or at a minimum, send up a bunch of shrapnels into your groin area. This is why they make kevlar underwear for combat engineers and EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) soldiers.

So yeah I agree....they should be banned with the exception of command detonated land mines unless someone comes up with a dependable way to detonate landmines once their usefulness is over.

But to be honest the problem is not so much that America, Russia, China, ect... is making them... but that they are SELLING them all around the world.

This is the main reason why we have such a huge problem with landmines in conflicts all over the world.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Doc. Zaius 0]

I voted no.

Certainly, mines are nasty, but I trust professional western armies with their usage.

Future (devastating) usage of land mines will be by third world armies (quite possibly) serving tin-pot dictatorships. Why would they care about civilian casualties or international condemnation?

[Balschoiw 0]

No I don´t trust them.

On March 1st 1999, the landmark Ottawa Treaty - a comprehensive ban on the production, use, export and stockpiling of mines - entered into force as international law. The 'breakaway' treaty, organised by the Canadian government and anti-personnel mine pressure groups, successfully achieved a comprehensive ban where three previous UN conferences failed. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines' hard work was recognised when they were awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. But there is still a long way to go. Worryingly, a number of big players (notably the US, Russia and China) still refuse to sign the ban - and their lack of co-operation is a major obstacle to ridding civilian communities of the landmines plague once and for all.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq is severely affected by mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) as a result of the 1991 Gulf War, the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War, two decades of internal conflict, and even World War Two. Landmines and UXO pose a problem in the north, along the Iran-Iraq border, and throughout the central and southern regions of the country. The number of mines planted in Iraq is not known.

The greatest concentration of mines in northern Iraq is located along the Iran-Iraq border, specifically in the districts of Penjwin, Sharbazher, and Qaladiza. A recently completed Landmine Impact Survey confirmed that all twenty-five districts in the three provinces (governorates) comprising northern Iraq are mine-affected, and 3,444 distinct areas suspected of mine and/or UXO contamination affect over 148,000 families (more than one in five) living in 1,096 mine-affected communities.

Very little is known about the impact of uncleared mines and UXO on local communities in the rest of Iraq. In one of the only surveys conducted on the problem in the rest of the country, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 2001 identified cluster bombs and other UXO as the main threat to communities living in southern Iraq.

Did the United States use mines in Iraq in 1991?

The U.S. used 117,634 landmines in Iraq and Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. Of these, 27,967 were antipersonnel mines and 89,667 were antivehicle mines. U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft used Gator cluster bomb units to deliver these mines, while the Marine Corps used a small number of artillery-delivered mines. A recently study by the U.S. General Accounting Office cited reluctance among some U.S. commanders to use mines because of their impact on mobility, fratricide potential, and safety concerns.

Quote[/b] ]While the U.S. has not joined the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, nearly all of its military allies and NATO partners have done so including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Qatar, and the United Kingdom. These countries would reject any orders to use antipersonnel mines and place limitations on their forces so as not to violate their treaty commitments during these joint operations. Human Rights Watch views participation in joint operations with an armed force that uses antipersonnel mines as being clearly against the spirit of the Mine Ban Treaty, and possibly a violation of the treaty obligation not to assist in any way with the use of antipersonnel mines by anyone else. Human Rights Watch calls on Mine Ban Treaty States Parties to insist that non-signatories like the U.S. do not use antipersonnel mines and to refuse to take part in any joint operations if antipersonnel mines are actually used.

There are not much western nations left who use landmines.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Certainly, mines are nasty, but I trust professional western armies with their usage.

The ones that bomb canadians, the red cross, lots of civilians and lie all the time?

[MI_Fred 0]

The U.S. used 117,634 landmines in Iraq and Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. Of these, 27,967 were antipersonnel mines and 89,667 were antivehicle mines. U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft used Gator cluster bomb units to deliver these mines, while the Marine Corps used a small number of artillery-delivered mines. A recently study by the U.S. General Accounting Office cited reluctance among some U.S. commanders to use mines because of their impact on mobility, fratricide potential, and safety concerns.

Fratricide, no shit   I wonder what an advancing force does with them anyway if not dropped from air.

It's quite remarcable that a friend of mine who was trained  medic, and did good, is against a ban on landmines. He if anyone should see that his ass will sweat a lil because of them. Or then the sees his work come from them. Or then he's just cold-blooded, hardened by the unlikely invasion... I mean some just need to wake up, who ever said the world is more unstable now than it was pre-ww2, hasn't taken his medicin. There are better things to be paranoid about and defend your beliefs due to them than this which costs men their balls and whatnot.

[bmgarcangel 0]

yes they should

but

you can also make it so gps locators go with them or you mark them on maps and make sure they dont get fricken lost

[MEDICUS 0]

I voted no.

Certainly, mines are nasty, but I trust professional western armies with their usage.

Really? The american army even produced Anti-Person mines out of plastic, so you won't be able to detect them with a "metal-detector" (Is that the right word for that thing   ) and replace them if they aren't "needed" anymore.

Mfg MEDICUS

Edit: spelling

[MI_Fred 0]

you can also make it so gps locators go with them or you mark them on maps and make sure they dont get fricken lost  

Yes, go find a needle in a haystack. There's no telling where things end up via poor logistics, leading and enemy interveining. The last time they found ww2 era material here, (west Finland (yes on a local paper, findings are quite frequent)), was the 27th. It was just a grenade in a shack, but the area around it had turned into a playing ground for children over the years. Luckily most findings are blown up safely by the military.

colossus made a good point about OFP2 and landmines. It would indeed be fun, as now we don't have build in ones. This is where I get hypocritical, as I've expected them.

EDIT: kids are not blown up... findings are x)

[turms 0]

I voted no.

Certainly, mines are nasty, but I trust professional western armies with their usage.

Really? The american army even produced Anti-Person mines out of plastic, so you won't be able to detect them with a "metal-detector" (Is that the right word for that thing   ) and replace them if they aren't "needed" anymore.

Mfg MEDICUS

Edit: spelling

Well there are other "western" armys than US...

[Tovarish 0]

I'm definitely for a ban. As far as weapons go, you can't get more indiscriminate.

[MEDICUS 0]

Well there are other "western" armys than US...

Yes, sure. But the US-Army is as big or even bigger than all other western armys together ... and they are the ones who spent as much money on there military as for example The Netherlands have in there "gross natianal product".

Mfg MEDICUS

[bmgarcangel 0]

Mines won't be used alot by countries like us, the united states, except for smaller operations and such, we will be using them, set them in a road or on a trail to hurt the enemy a little bit, but these days, setting them up in massive area's is just not needed anymore. For some it might be, and it might benefit them, but you have to know where you set them, and you can't forget that little bit of information. People forget or splash on there memory over time and they bassically change without knowing it where they are actually putting the shit. And over time, after the wars that made those people set those mines down in the dirt and people start to move back again and live normal lives without war, people start getting blown up because there military forgot about the mines.

Thats why when you go set up a mine field this day, most of the time, we will mark the position or position near it with gps so that we will know the locations, we're smart enough to think first and know where they are instead of making the mistakes that others have made before us.

In turn, if we can think this way, if we can be smart enough to do this and realize what we are doing wrong, then other countries can do so too. But the problem is they don't do it. I don't know why they don't but they don't just don't.

Other times the militaries might have just slagged it off, thinking hell why should we go and fix this mess up, it will cost big bucks and be a waste of time, but since they put it there, they always will have the responsibility to clean them up so that there people may live in peace.

Then the other side. The side that wins over the side that set the mines up. They don't know where the mines are. So in turn, something bad sometimes has to happen before they can figure out that there is more fields then they might have thought.

~Bmgarcangel

[MI_Fred 0]

Then the other side.  The side that wins over the side that set the mines up.  They don't know where the mines are.  So in turn, something bad sometimes has to happen before they can figure out that there is more fields then they might have thought.

Isn't there such things as treatys signed that include sections on sharing this kind of information in the good of both sides among other things the lost side has to give in on.

Reading those numbers up there which Balschoiw gave, you can't call the US mine usage minimal. Your thinking home soil now, that might include temporary minefields. But just try to imagine a full blown war out there... nah you can't, it's unthincable. You'd think the US would wan't to ban the mines just for an easier entry to the countries it overtakes.

The reason why 3rd world countries do not mark their minefields simply is that they might not have technology like GPS available.

[bmgarcangel 0]

we don't want to ban fucking mines for easier entry! thats ludicris dude! complete and utter ludicris.  We can already role through with the mine plows, with the rocket mine clearing devices, we already have trouble with them but hell it doesn't matter if it slows us down or not.  Thats never the point.  Mines are dangerous no matter what and to ban them completely would have consequences in warfare strategies in for the USA too.

But hell, reason they would be banned in the first place in mainly because of the people who set them up in the first place in all different types of places and then leave and sometimes forget to clean them up before people start living near by.  Thats the damned reason.

We're all human beings.  Generals in the United states military are human beings.  They understand the reason to ban wouldn't be to get them here to there faster.  It would be set in place to save the damned lives of people who already suffer from the countless numbers of mine fields all over the world that ain't been treated yet.

This law, banning mines anyway, most countries won't abided about it anyways.  The US military probably won't.  Other militaries probably won't.  Its just not there.

~Bmgarcangel

Not to mention, The United States Military uses mine in a wide variety unknown, majority unknown to us in must circumstances. We use them to trash enemy airfields so that they don't take off and start some shit. We use them for troops traveling on roads still. We use them on trails. We use them everywhere hell i've even heard a story about during the 1990 war a plane flyin in, droping a canister bomb full of them little mines into a base full of sleeping iraqies, iraqies woke up and found something nice to walk around in.

[DracoPaladore 0]

hell i've even heard a story about during the 1990 war a plane flyin in, droping a canister bomb full of them little mines into a base full of sleeping iraqies, iraqies woke up and found something nice to walk around in.

One of those lovable stories that you heard from a friend of a friends brother who just so happened to know a US air crew men who loaded mines onto a plane and heard the pilots chatting?  

No offense meant of course, it's just one of those "I heard.." things.

Personally? I'm not overly sure. The tactical advantage of having a minefield around your base and for protection is great. Denies the enemy of running through and over you, gives you warnings, and all sorts of things like that. Not only that, its great for ambushes, etc..

But that is near equal to the amount of suffering and torture civilians and peace personall have to deal with after the conflict or when it's winding down. Sure, its nice to have a mine field near the front, but what chance is there of an armoured spear head driving in from the south four hundred miles away? The pain and suffering these things cause is numerous, and the fact that many country's are still suffering from it is horrible. Civilians losing legs, arms, or their lives from the leavings of their current rulers.

It'd be nice if every soldier kept track of the position of every mine he lays down, but that itself would require many many man hours or time that, frankly, the army probobly wouldn't give a rats ass about.

So..sure, ban them. The amount of pain and anguish it causes after a conflict outways the issue. Unless civilians start adding large amounts of armor plates to their trucks and start spending up for large indestructible dozer blades, I think all they do is cause suffering. While the idea of war is to win your objectives, destroy or have the enemy surrender, and try and make sure they don't try again, the fact that these mines are causing more agony to the civilians than the enemy is harsh.

Anyways, if the person who lays them down in the first place wins the "war", guess who'll have to clean it up? Would you really want to risk the lives of a man and his squad to pick up mines that were never useful  in the first place?

Oh, and camel, can you try and clear up those sentances? I don't want to be rude, but I have trouble understanding some of them. I find them poory structured and fractured to actually get a meaning from them.

[Gollum1 0]

We're all human beings. Generals in the United states military are human beings. They understand the reason to ban wouldn't be to get them here to there faster. It would be set in place to save the damned lives of people who already suffer from the countless numbers of mine fields all over the world that ain't been treated yet.

I'd like you to meet a human being named Adolf Hitler.

[MacReady 0]

Only killers, profiteers and retards voted no. They shall burn in hell.

[miles teg 1]

The U.S. used 117,634 landmines in Iraq and Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. Of these, 27,967 were antipersonnel mines and 89,667 were antivehicle mines. U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft used Gator cluster bomb units to deliver these mines, while the Marine Corps used a small number of artillery-delivered mines. A recently study by the U.S. General Accounting Office cited reluctance among some U.S. commanders to use mines because of their impact on mobility, fratricide potential, and safety concerns.

Fratricide, no shit   I wonder what an advancing force does with them anyway if not dropped from air.

It's quite remarcable that a friend of mine who was trained  medic, and did good, is against a ban on landmines. He if anyone should see that his ass will sweat a lil because of them. Or then the sees his work come from them. Or then he's just cold-blooded, hardened by the unlikely invasion... I mean some just need to wake up, who ever said the world is more unstable now than it was pre-ww2, hasn't taken his medicin. There are better things to be paranoid about and defend your beliefs due to them than this which costs men their balls and whatnot.

Fratricide by your own landmines is a bit rare so your medic friend is not likely to worry about them.  He may be more concerned about using them for defensive purposes (which is what they are normally used for).  But of coarse he has to deal with casualties caused by his men stepping on the ones layed by the enemy.  Perhaps he has never had to deal with a land mine injury.  I haven't either but at Ft. Leanordwood we saw some EXTREMELY graphic videos on what landmines do to soldiers and I met someone bearing the scars from landmines.  

I also had to learn to clear and disarm those bastards and it is one of the worst duties a soldier has to do if he doesn't have some tanks with mine rollers or some combat engineers with explosive lines to clear a lane.  

I can also tell you that MANY in the US Army are for a ban on landmines because generally they are not the ones planting them but rather the ones who are on the receiving end of landmines by stepping on them or rolling over them.

Yes the world is not anymore unstable then before WWII, however landmines since WWII have multiplied in their numbers and types and are used as much as ever these days and they have more sinister designs.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Goeth 0]

Voted no. If someone can quarantee that our eastern neigbour won´t attack us then i would say yes to ban them.

[Sam Samson 0]

instead of just plain banning them, how about making them smarter?

wouldn't it be great if they would just deactivate by themselves after a set time period? I imagine that wouldn't be too difficult to set up in the age of 1.000.000 $ smart bombs.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Only killers, profiteers and retards voted no. They shall burn in hell.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion without getting flamed for it.

This behaviour is uncalled for and not acceptable on these forums.

Don't do it again please.