Should landmines be banned?

[MacReady 0]

Sorry, Gollum1, I guess I just haven't yet realised that stupid people don't mainly come from america.

P.S.: And I have never met such uptight moderators in my life. And I've been banned more times than I can count.

[hellfish6 7]

Have a nice week's vacation, MacReady.

[MI_Fred 0]

My Psychiatrist told me to drop this (and I see I should, as this is a touchy subject, with someone coming combusting himself here, other denying the massive hypocrisy of his country...).

I would just like to see a world where the cowardly weapon wouldn't exist and you must look down the barrel of your gun to your neighboring nations citizen and justify to yourself he must die.

Is it the fear of such a situation into which no one wants to enter no more? Is the cost acceptable? No.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And I've been banned more times than I can count.

...and obviously didn´t learn his lesson from it.

Quote[/b] ]The US has mines that do that. Some of them you can even set to when they deactivate (self-destruct). Popular options are 4 and 24 hours.

Can you please explain the technical process of self destruction here. Are they disabled by blowing up or by disabling ignite mechanism. If second should be the case it´s stupid because explosive can be abused by people who find deactivated mine. If first should be the case it´s uncontrolable where and under wich circumstances they blow up.

Neither of both ways seems to be working for me.

Self-destruct times may be as short as four hours or as long as 15 days. The self-deactivating feature uses a battery in the electrical firing system of the mine. When the battery (reserve cell) no longer has enough energy to fire the electrical detonator, the mine becomes inoperable. Self-deactivation normally occurs about 60 days after the mine is armed.

No military in command is happy to provide explosives to the potential enemy. But that is what happens when self-deactivating mines are used . You claim about years is nonsense Dinger. Show me one type of US landmine that deactivates after years. Pretty stupid.

Right now the following methods of triggering for APL mines are in use:

Pressure can activate the device when a load is placed on it (e.g., contact by walking or driving directly over the mine).

The release of pressure can set off a mine (e.g., when a pressure-release antihandling firing device attached to the underside is lifted).

Seismic activity can activate the device when a sensor detects vibrations or movement within the search range.

Trip wires or break wires can activate a mine if they are disturbed. Trip wires may be either taut (which explode a mine when cut or pulled) or slack (which explode a mine only when pulled).

Command-detonated mines are activated by a person when he/she detects an enemy in the mine's lethal area. Radio or hard wire can send the signal to fire.

These are only basics as there are a lot of variations a like AT mines wich have an adjustable pressure counter that let´s say only detonates when the 3rd vehicle of a certain weight class moves over it. The list of variations is endless. Would burst the frame here.

Two types of kill mechanisms are used in APL, blast mechanisms and fragment mechanisms. Blast warheads, which achieve their effects as a result of the detonation of the explosive main charge, can cripple or destroy the foot or leg of a soldier who steps on the mine or burst the tires of a wheeled vehicle that passes over it. Fragmentation warheads disburse metal fragments from the casing or added materials. There are three variations of fragmentation warheads:

A bounding fragmentation mine projects a canister into the air; the canister explodes and scatters fragments through the lethal area.

A directional fragmentation mine uses an explosive charge to propel high- velocity fragments over a specific, concentrated area.

A stake fragmentation mine scatters fragments in a circular pattern.

The self deactivation feature is a lousy try to avoid signing the ban treaty. That´s it. It doesn´t change anything.

[Pipski 0]

P.S.: And I have never met such uptight moderators in my life.

in that case you must have been hanging around in some very juvenile forums debating some truly asinine topics in a very immature way.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

P.S.: And I have never met such uptight moderators in my life.

in that case you must have been hanging around in some very juvenile forums debating some truly asinine topics in a very immature way.

[Pipski 0]

P.S.: And I have never met such uptight moderators in my life.

in that case you must have been hanging around in some very juvenile forums debating some truly asinine topics in a very immature way.

What? Read it again Ex-R. (You're kinda treading on my point here!) :

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

P.S.: And I have never met such uptight moderators in my life.

in that case you must have been hanging around in some very juvenile forums debating some truly asinine topics in a very immature way.

What?  Read it again Ex-R.  (You're kinda treading on my point here!)   :  

He who is without sin cast the first stone...

Get the hint?

[Pipski 0]

No! Look :

if he's

Quote[/b] ]never met such uptight moderators in my life.

then that must be because he

Quote[/b] ]must have been hanging around in some very juvenile forums debating some truly asinine topics in a very immature way.

i.e. before arriving here? Jeez dude, I'm sticking up for you here!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

No!  Look :

if he's

Quote[/b] ]never met such uptight moderators in my life.

then that must be because he

Quote[/b] ]must have been hanging around in some very juvenile forums debating some truly asinine topics in a very immature way.

i.e. before arriving here?  Jeez dude, I'm sticking up for you here!

Well, having a go at him is no good way of sticking up for us

I do appreciate it, but it is against the rules, and it also doesn't reflect too positively on you either.

Thanks though, but in the future keep such praise for PMs please

[Pipski 0]

Point taken. Just gets my goat sometimes ... Nuff OT.

[dinger 1]

Okay, I was just reading manuals for scatterable mines.

Balschoiw, my understanding is that when the time was set at the moment you deployed them. When that time elapsed, my understanding is they do not deactivate, but self-destruct. No weapons in the hands of enemy, and nobody in the minefield.

Years was a rhetorical response to a query.  Yes, you can design a mine to stay active for years, then self destruct. No, I don't think years has any military application.

and MI Fred, if you don't get it, you should drop it

[brgnorway 0]

they do not deactivate, but self-destruct. No weapons in the hands of enemy, and nobody in the minefield.

Just being curious! How's this possible? Is there a canister or something inside the mine that pours a destroying liquid into the explosive's or does the explosive material vanish thruogh air like the wizard of Oz?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]When that time elapsed, my understanding is they do not deactivate, but self-destruct.

There are both mechanisms. I already posted that above.

Some deactivate as their battery runs dry and some just blow up after the desired time.

When the battery runs dry the mine´s explosive device is still useable.

Read it from my lips: Self destruct means Boooom

Quote[/b] ]Yes, you can design a mine to stay active for years

Regular mines ARE active for years, but there are none wich deactivate after years.

You´d need a battery big as a car battery to support such device.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]You´d need a battery big as a car battery to support such device.

I bet there's a cost issue why there isn't. After all, my father in law has a pacemaker - and it's years between he has to shift batterypack.

[Badgerboy 0]

Have a look at these evil little bastards. then....

There is a nuclear version as well....

[aj_addons 0]

yes but the problem is that unlike nuclear weapons they are far to esay to make and the knowledge on how to make them is very widespread so theres no real way you can ever stop them from being used

[Blake 0]

Voted no.

[sanctuary 19]

Oh , on the perfect theory paper , mines are usefull to stop or slow down an advancing enemy (enemy of the mines layers) army.

But on the reality , they kill innocent people or they cause mutilation to them in the process , a lot during the war and after the war.

So i hope that war will be banned , but that is very unlikely so, in the waiting for that impossible event yes i hope those damned things called mines will be banned.

All those guys that will or want or love to kill , as individual or as an army have already a lot more weapons at their disposal to make their things .

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I voted for 'no'.

I don't have the patience or the time (big paper due soon) to read the entire thread, and I'm sure what I am about to say has already been said. I'm just tossing my 2 cents worth in the discussion, FWIW.

The poll question should ask: "Should anti-personnel mines be banned" because Canada (the country that initiated the ban?) still uses anti-tank mines and command detonated AP mines, ala the M18 Claymore.

Anyways....

Banning AP landmines would do absolutely NOTHING to get rid of the land mines and UXO's that are already in the places that everyone is talking about, ie: the Balkans, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Africa. A bunch of UN rules won't do squat to stop people with an intense hatred of their enemies from doing all sorts of nasty things to each other in the future. That includes the use of land mines. If they can't buy them legally, they manufacture them themselves, if there's no industry to make them, they improvise. When war breaks out between or in a third world country the rule books (if there was any to begin with) get tossed out the window. If it's worth fighting for, it's worth fighting dirty for. At least from their perspective. For example, mass genocide has always been illegal but how many times did that happen in the 20th century?

As for the 'landmines are in-humane' argument; why is having your foot or leg blown off, your body cut in half, or peppered with shrapnell by an AP landmine any less humane than having the same things happen to you with any other weapon system? By that logic, all weapons should be banned and warfare made illegal, but that ain't gonna' happen, not in this lifetime or any other.

The only rules that should be made are ones that restrict the modes of deployment for AP landmines. Ie: no air dropping. Every single landmine and minefield must be plotted on a map using at least a ten-figure grid-reference, and the minefields should be marked off. This makes it easier for removal (or keeping innocent civilians out) when the war is over. The decision by an army to lay a minefield should also come from the highest chain of command and the army must be commited to removing the minefields it lays when there is no longer a need for them. Much like the policy was in the Canadian military before our benevolent liberal party overseers decided to get rid of them.

Oh well.

Tyler

[ralphwiggum 6]

I'm still wondering why you don't come to US and join republicans...

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Because Bush is an idiot.

[Harnu 0]

Because Bush is an idiot.  

That pretty much sums up all hundreds of pages of the three Iraq Threads

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]As for the 'landmines are in-humane' argument; why is having your foot or leg blown off, your body cut in half, or peppered with shrapnell by an AP landmine any less humane than having the same things happen to you with any other weapon system? By that logic, all weapons should be banned and warfare made illegal, but that ain't gonna' happen, not in this lifetime or any other.

Because most other weaponsystems dont do this to people 5 years after the war is over when they are tending their fields?

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Banning AP landmines would do absolutely NOTHING to get rid of the land mines and UXO's that are already in the places that everyone is talking about, ie: the Balkans, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and Africa. A bunch of UN rules won't do squat to stop people with an intense hatred of their enemies from doing all sorts of nasty things to each other in the future. That includes the use of land mines. If they can't buy them legally, they manufacture them themselves, if there's no industry to make them, they improvise. When war breaks out between or in a third world country the rule books (if there was any to begin with) get tossed out the window. If it's worth fighting for, it's worth fighting dirty for. At least from their perspective. For example, mass genocide has always been illegal but how many times did that happen in the 20th century?

Surely that's basically saying because banning landmines now, won't clean up all the mines laid in the past we shouldnt bother? If people can't buy them legally thats one more obstacle in the way of their being used. Thats a pretty good reason to ban em if you ask me. Sure if someone wants them badly enough, they could build their own. But why make it easy?