In recent years, there has been an increasing awareness on the controversial issue of landmines.

Horrific stories and pictures from around the world show that it is mainly civilians who are the landmine casualties-and continue to be so years after the warring factions have left the battlefield.

Here's some stats about landmines:

110 million + landmines are scattered in 68 states around the world, with
160 million + stockpiled waiting to be planted.

Every month over 2000 people are killed or maimed by mine explosions. Most of the casualties are civilians who are killed or injured after hostilities have ended.

If no more mines were planted, it would take 1,100 years to clear those still in the ground.

The Ottawa Treaty was signed in 1997 for the ban on all anti-personnel mines, and the destruction of all those stockpiled.
Besides stopping the production and development of anti-personnel mines, a party to the Treaty must destroy all the anti-personnel mines in its possession within four years.Just a small amount are allowed to remain for training purposes.

To date 37 states are not party to the Convention.
The most important countries producing and stockpiling landmines that have NOT signed,

China
India
USA
Russia.

The US refuses to sign the Treaty because it does not offer a 'Korean Exception', as landmines are said to be a crucial component to the US military strategy in S.Korea.
According to the US Government, the 1 million mines along the DMZ help maintain the peace by deterring a North attack.

India has not signed the Treaty because landmines are deemed necessary to prevent infiltration of Islamic extremists into Jammu and Kashmir states.

Why would we sign? Restrictions should only apply to other nations. We're special. Jesus has picked the United States as the chosen land. All you other countries can go screw yourselves.

Amen to that comrade :)

You been watchen Fox again.

Why would we sign? Restrictions should only apply to other nations. We're special. Jesus has picked the United States as the chosen land. All you other countries can go screw yourselves.
:lolhit: Don't Mormons think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

Why would we sign? Restrictions should only apply to other nations. We're special. Jesus has picked the United States as the chosen land. All you other countries can go screw yourselves.
what would you rather see? land mines on the DMZ deterring North Korea's million man army or a draft to make up the man power difference?

:rolleyes:

:lolhit: Don't Mormons think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

Yes.

They also wear magical underwear.

But hey!.......they reely belieeeeeeeeeve it's true, so (as with other religious sects) we have to go along with them and treat them as if it all makes perfect sense.

:rolleyes:

It's a legit question. A lot more civilians will get maimed in an invasion by North Korea than will get maimed wandering around in a no-man's land they're not allowed to wander around in.

And when the stand-off is over?

No doubt the million odd landmines on the DMZ are in a defined space and of little threat to the public at present.

However, Korea will sometime in the future be re-united, then the massive problem of the mine will come into play for prehaps hundreds of years.

The United States is one of the few countries that removes its landmines once hostilities have ended. We don't just leave them lying around.

That may very well be, tho in respect to the DMZ god knows how long that would take, if and when the Korean people decide to re-unify the country.

As the US is one of the biggest manufacturers of, and exporters of landmines,
Im sure they have no control over how they are used and where.

Tho in Washingtons favour, DC donated the most funding to mine clearing in Vietnam last year, give credit where its due.

Tho in Washingtons favour, DC donated the most funding to mine clearing in Vietnam last year, give credit where its due.Interesting.

The war ended in 1975 and they're still clearing mines 33 years later?

WWII munitions are still being found in Europe, so it should be no surprise that in Vietnam they're still locating and clearing mines.

Yesterday a WW2 bomb was discovered up round the north coast, on a construction site, about 3-4 are found every year.

The main problem for residents of N.Ireland as regards munitions is the
Beaufort Dyke.

The Beaufort Dyke is a deep sea channel running roughly half way between Scotland and Ireland.

At the end of WW2, the British dumped all their excess munitions in it, alas
every year, due to weather conditions, or ocean currents, Im not sure,
flares wash up on the beaches of Co. Antrim, which when drying out, tend to ignite, phosphorus grenades to.

Some years ago, someone picked one up, and it ignited, I believe the victim incurred terrible burns.

Farmers in France still occasionally plow up mustard gas used in WWI.

oops old news eh.
It was friday-sorry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7246872.stm

Interesting.

The war ended in 1975 and they're still clearing mines 33 years later?
Sadly Vietnam is another nation which refuses to stop producing landmines.

http://www.icbl.org/lm/2003/vietnam.html

To date 37 states are not party to the Convention.
The most important countries producing and stockpiling landmines that have NOT signed,

China
India
USA
Russia.

The US refuses to sign the Treaty because it does not offer a 'Korean Exception', as landmines are said to be a crucial component to the US military strategy in S.Korea.
According to the US Government, the 1 million mines along the DMZ help maintain the peace by deterring a North attack.

India has not signed the Treaty because landmines are deemed necessary to prevent infiltration of Islamic extremists into Jammu and Kashmir states.
Of the countries that have signed, they have nothing to lose. It doesn't cost them anything (in dollars, objectives, or manpower), and here, they come across as having their shit smell sweeter than most for affixing their signature to it. Yeah, what a sacrifice they just made for "world peace". :rolleyes:

So your in favour of banning anti-personnel mines then.

No. I'm in favor of clearing the fields when the war is over.

Fair enough.

The Kennedy clan is required by their inheritance to support some sort of charity organization. You'll be happy to know Ethel Kennedy's side of the family supports the elimination of land mines and assisting people who've been injured by old mines with medical help and artificial limbs. Good to know some of that Kennedy money goes toward a worthy cause, eh?

;)
SMW

Yes it is good.

Its a pity the

Johnston clan
Nixon clan
Ford clan
Carter clan
Reagan clan
Bush clan
and Clinton clan didnt follow suit, and themselves with everyone else BAN these indiscriminate weapons.

Yes it is good.

Its a pity the

Johnston clan
Nixon clan
Ford clan
Carter clan
Reagan clan
Bush clan
and Clinton clan didnt follow suit, and themselves with everyone else BAN these indiscriminate weapons.

You give our presidents way too much power, Paul. Would be nice if a leader who can only serve 8 years could change the world for the better... but that's really not very practical. Besides, the Kennedy's are the only real 'clan' in American politics and the family's wealth gets credit for their longevity. No matter how much $$$$ they may have, they're not in a position to BAN anything.

I know. What I meant was its a pity the US and all the other non signers didnt ban anti personnel mines years ago.

Of the countries that have signed, they have nothing to lose. It doesn't cost them anything (in dollars, objectives, or manpower), and here, they come across as having their shit smell sweeter than most for affixing their signature to it. Yeah, what a sacrifice they just made for "world peace". :rolleyes:
They're also the ones who don't lay minefields. If only we could have been one of those countries.

I'll say this - if the Russians or the Chinese or someone are marching across the U.S. hell yeah I want some minefields if it will slow them down. The invaders will kill or maim more civilians than the minefields would. Inasmuch as most of the wars going on are of the civil war variety, it's hard to get behind the idea of using them. But if some nasty country were marching across Europe I think everyone's tune would change pretty quickly. In the meantime, I guess it's pretty easy to tell other people how to run things and then pat yourself on the back for being so damn wonderful and caring.

And yes, I realize the chances of Russia or China marching across the U.S. are nil.

I guess it's pretty easy to tell other people how to run things and then pat yourself on the back for being so damn wonderful and caring.
What a pathetic line of logic. Taken to heart, it would completely eliminate all government regulation on everything.

What a pathetic line of logic. Taken to heart, it would completely eliminate all government regulation on everything.

No, it would just eliminate people taking credit when, with no personal sacrifice whatsoever, they use the government to do something they deem worthy. If you want to increase taxes on the rich and give that money to the poor fine, but don't pretend that you're the one being generous and the people opposed are greedy. Likewise, if you want to ban landmines, fine, but inasmuch as it's doesn't affect your own security, don't pretend you're altruistic and the people that see them as necessary are bloodthirsty monsters.

I hate it when people decide the consequences of their own arguments from some arbitrary definition of what their words mean in their minds.

No, it would just eliminate people taking credit when, with no personal sacrifice whatsoever, they use the government to do something they deem worthy. If you want to increase taxes on the rich and give that money to the poor fine, but don't pretend that you're the one being generous and the people opposed are greedy. Likewise, if you want to ban landmines, fine, but inasmuch as it's doesn't affect your own security, don't pretend you're altruistic and the people that see them as necessary are bloodthirsty monsters.
Absolutely right, Lionel.

I hate it when people decide the consequences of their own arguments from some arbitrary definition of what their words mean in their minds.
What did you see as "arbitrary"? Will you elaborate on this?

I'll say this - if the Russians or the Chinese or someone are marching across the U.S. hell yeah I want some minefields if it will slow them down.

What if China and the U.S. had an agreement not to use minefiends during the war and China abided by their side of the agreement?

I mean, don't treaties not to use some form of inhumane or overly destructive weaponry have a place in the world, regardless of your sense of self-preservation?

I mean, don't treaties not to use some form of inhumane or overly destructive weaponry have a place in the world, regardless of your sense of self-preservation?
Uhh, in a word, no. I'd use them to wipe my ass if it came down to that.

Uhh, in a word, no. I'd use them to wipe my ass if it came down to that.

So you don't think there should be any rules of war?

Mines are not laid across the countryside indiscriminately. They are placed around perimeters of troop locations to keep them from being infiltrated. Mines are a defensive, not an offensive weapon.

There is nothing inherently wrong with land mines. What is wrong is not removing them once hostilities have ended.

Mines are not laid across the countryside indiscriminately. They are placed around perimeters of troop locations to keep them from being infiltrated. Mines are a defensive, not an offensive weapon.

There is nothing inherently wrong with land mines. What is wrong is not removing them once hostilities have ended.
My sentiments exactly.

So you don't think there should be any rules of war?
That's quite the quantum leap you just took there, Lep. :D I didn't say that. I was specifically referring to the issue of landmines and self-preservation. Self-preservation should always come first. To do anything else requires that you die for someone else's inherent lack of "nobility". Is that really worth it to you? I mean, are you really gonna send someone who's intent on your death a Gandhi-esque type "message" when they don't value life the same way you do?

That's quite the quantum leap you just took there, Lep. :D I didn't say that. I was specifically referring to the issue of landmines and self-preservation. Self-preservation should always come first. To do anything else requires that you die for someone else's inherent lack of "nobility". Is that really worth it to you? I mean, are you really gonna send someone who's intent on your death a Gandhi-esque type "message" when they don't value life the same way you do?

It wasn't a leap - note the question mark.

As I understood it, you were saying treaties outlawing certain types of weaponry should be relegated to the status of toilet paper when it comes to a matter of self-preservation. Since war is pretty much always a matter of self-preservation, it sounds like you think all treaties regarding the way war is conducted (e.g. rules of war) should be meaningless the moment war becomes a matter of self-preservation (pretty much from the start, I guess).

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or you feel the need to distinguish this further.

I guess where I'm headed with this is that I'm thinking what's so different between treaties banning nuclear weapons and treaties banning landmines?

If there is no real difference (besides the type of weaponry), I think you and Lionel are making an argument that would throw civilization back to pre-Geneva Convention sort of status, or even before the days when "waving the white flag" became an accepted custom.

Rules of war, including rules outlawing particularly destructive weaponry, have their place in modern civilization as far as I'm concerned.

Don't get me wrong, I don't propose a Ghandi-esque type of passiveness, but if two nations agree to some rules of war, then they should abide by those rules as long as the opposition abides by such rules.

It wasn't a leap - note the question mark.

As I understood it, you were saying treaties outlawing certain types of weaponry should be relegated to the status of toilet paper when it comes to a matter of self-preservation. Since war is pretty much always a matter of self-preservation, it sounds like you think all treaties regarding the way war is conducted (e.g. rules of war) should be meaningless the moment war becomes a matter of self-preservation (pretty much from the start, I guess).

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or you feel the need to distinguish this further.
I understand your point.
I guess where I'm headed with this is that I'm thinking what's so different between treaties banning nuclear weapons and treaties banning landmines?
Well, I'd differentiate them based on the fact that you're dealing with offensive weapons (meaning nuclear arms) in one scenario, and in the other, you're dealing with defensive weapons (meaning landmines). One weapon kills everyone within a 50-mile radius, and the other stops people from invading your country. Now, I don't know about you, but I think that draws a fairly clear line.
If there is no real difference (besides the type of weaponry), I think you and Lionel are making an argument that would throw civilization back to pre-Geneva Convention sort of status, or even before the days when "waving the white flag" became an accepted custom.
I think that's a stretch, and I believe the type of weaponry in question (and surely, what it's intended to accomplish) should certainly play a significant role in how treaty is viewed.
Rules of war, including rules outlawing particularly destructive weaponry, have their place in modern civilization as far as I'm concerned.
Now that I understand the point you were making initially, I'd agree.
Don't get me wrong, I don't propose a Ghandi-esque type of passiveness, but if two nations agree to some rules of war, then they should abide by those rules as long as the opposition abides by such rules.
I fully concur.

What if China and the U.S. had an agreement not to use minefiends during the war and China abided by their side of the agreement?

I mean, don't treaties not to use some form of inhumane or overly destructive weaponry have a place in the world, regardless of your sense of self-preservation?
what if the Chinese didn't execute poltical prisoners to sell their organs? then i might have some faith in their sense of honor.

what if the Chinese didn't execute poltical prisoners to sell their organs? then i might have some faith in their sense of honor.
Mihail, that has nothing to do with landmines.
Its not even landmines is the problem, its anti-personnel landmines we're talking about, none of the other type kill civilians.

Mihail, that has nothing to do with landmines.
Its not even landmines is the problem, its anti-personnel landmines we're talking about, none of the other type kill civilians.
no, but it has everything to do with my confidence in Red China living up to any treaty or standard of decency.

no, but it has everything to do with my confidence in Red China living up to any treaty or standard of decency.
I dont think America would need to plant Anti personnelsmines because of China now, Cmon Mike, get real.

I dont think America would need to plant Anti personnelsmines because of China now, Cmon Mike, get real.
we really don't need to plant any new ones right now, but there's still tomorrow, and the day after.

Uhh, in a word, no. I'd use them to wipe my ass if it came down to that.
I have this idea your tune would change real quick if your daughter found a landmine in your back yard, the hard way. It's just a hunch, though.

What did you see as "arbitrary"? Will you elaborate on this?
It's piss-poor wording backed up by vague rhetoric. It's so vague it could apply to almost any effort to force people to play nicely with one another. When pressed, he offers up more vague moralizing instead of clarity. It's this sort of language I absolutely hate.

I have this idea your tune would change real quick if your daughter found a landmine in your back yard, the hard way. It's just a hunch, though.


That's why it's important that land mines be removed once hostilities end.

You can't get them all Frogger, as was evidenced very early in the thread.

It's much better to find more effective forms of defense, anyway.

What if China and the U.S. had an agreement not to use minefiends during the war and China abided by their side of the agreement?

I see what you're getting at, but landmines don't really help the invading army as much as they do the defending army.

I mean, don't treaties not to use some form of inhumane or overly destructive weaponry have a place in the world, regardless of your sense of self-preservation?

Oh, absolutely. I just don't think landmines qualify as any more inhumane than any other sort of exploding weapon. Heck, even a plain old bullet can do incredibly gruesome damage. I guess I'm drawing the line over in the nasty biochemical area and not in the exploding things area. Anyway, the problem with landmines is that they maim and kill civilians. This is absolutely a huge problem. I just don't think banning their use by responsible (inasmuch as something like that can be used responsibly) parties is the answer.

If there is no real difference (besides the type of weaponry), I think you and Lionel are making an argument that would throw civilization back to pre-Geneva Convention sort of status, or even before the days when "waving the white flag" became an accepted custom.

I'm not suggesting anything that extreme. Just that landmines don't strike me as rising to the level of too nasty to be used.

I have this idea your tune would change real quick if your daughter found a landmine in your back yard, the hard way. It's just a hunch, though.

Landmines don't just show up in isolation - they show up in response to an incoming army. If I have to choose between the chance that one of my daughters has a chance of stepping on a leftover landmine over the next five years or near certainty that an invading army of hair-triggered, horny, been-away-from-home-too-long soldiers are going to be rolling through my neighborhood, I'll go with the landmines. What good is being safe from landmines if you're not around to enjoy the safety?

It's piss-poor wording backed up by vague rhetoric. It's so vague it could apply to almost any effort to force people to play nicely with one another. When pressed, he offers up more vague moralizing instead of clarity. It's this sort of language I absolutely hate.

There's certainly nothing to keep you from commenting on the arguments that have been brought forward and ignoring my vaguely off-topic rambling. All you've offered up is "I bet you'd feel bad if your daughter blew up." Certainly not up to your standards of debate.

I have this idea your tune would change real quick if your daughter found a landmine in your back yard, the hard way. It's just a hunch, though.
the day he needs land mines in his back yard, i bet he moves:lolhit:

Landmines don't just show up in isolation - they show up in response to an incoming army.
You seem to be forgetting the landmines on the DMZ in North Korea. Strange, considering they're the very topic of this discussion.

If I have to choose between the chance that one of my daughters has a chance of stepping on a leftover landmine over the next five years or near certainty that an invading army of hair-triggered, horny, been-away-from-home-too-long soldiers are going to be rolling through my neighborhood, I'll go with the landmines. What good is being safe from landmines if you're not around to enjoy the safety?
I have read that most uses of the Claymore AP mine are command detonated. I would agree with the use of such a weapon. Use of the Claymore mine in tripwire mode is uncivilized and uncouth of our nation to do so.

There's certainly nothing to keep you from commenting on the arguments that have been brought forward
I'm glad you recognize that.

You seem to be forgetting the landmines on the DMZ in North Korea. Strange, considering they're the very topic of this discussion.

OK, so amend that to "invading armies or the threat of an invading army." Seemed sort of obvious, but . . .

Well, I'd differentiate them based on the fact that you're dealing with offensive weapons (meaning nuclear arms) in one scenario, and in the other, you're dealing with defensive weapons (meaning landmines). One weapon kills everyone within a 50-mile radius, and the other stops people from invading your country. Now, I don't know about you, but I think that draws a fairly clear line.



I see what you're getting at, but landmines don't really help the invading army as much as they do the defending army.

Okay, from these responses, it seems you both distinguish weapons based on the fact that some weapons are defensive, such as landmines, and some are offensive, such as nukes or biochemical weapons.

Here's my problem with this distinction - Invading armies are not always the bad guys and defending armies are not always the good guys. I mean, for example, look at WWII, the U.S. used nukes to end the war with Japan but Japan had certainly asked for it, at least in most people's eyes. Without belaboring the point further, there are a number of similar historic examples and I could come up with an abundance of imagined scenarios where the invading army has just cause on its side. Therefore, the offensive vs. defensive weapon distinction doesn't hold water to me.

Then the question becomes why are certain weapons banned. Prae touches on one reason when he refers to nukes - they kill everyone over an unreasonable amount of area. What about biochemical weapons? They are inhumane? Possibly a reason. Personally, I think the main factors are the indiscriminate nature of the weaponry and long term effects of the weaponry after war has ended. Arguably mines have these characteristics.

You don't want weapons that are still blowing people up, causing diseases, or whatnot mayhem AFTER war has ended. Mines have that problem associated with them, at least in a historical context. The question I would want answered about landmine usage before deciding this issue is whether landmines are practically, consistently, and thoroughly removed after their dissemination.

If countries cannot practically, consistently, and thoroughly clean up minefields after laying them, then I would support a ban.


Oh, absolutely. I just don't think landmines qualify as any more inhumane than any other sort of exploding weapon. Heck, even a plain old bullet can do incredibly gruesome damage. I guess I'm drawing the line over in the nasty biochemical area and not in the exploding things area. Anyway, the problem with landmines is that they maim and kill civilians. This is absolutely a huge problem. I just don't think banning their use by responsible (inasmuch as something like that can be used responsibly) parties is the answer.

I agree that I wouldn't ban landmines based on an inhumane argument, except for their postwar civilian effects.

I'm not suggesting anything that extreme. Just that landmines don't strike me as rising to the level of too nasty to be used.

Again, what does it take to be "too nasty to be used?" I think the postwar effects are the effects to be concerned about.

Here's my problem with this distinction - Invading armies are not always the bad guys and defending armies are not always the good guys. I mean, for example, look at WWII, the U.S. used nukes to end the war with Japan but Japan had certainly asked for it, at least in most people's eyes.
A valid point, for sure.
Without belaboring the point further, there are a number of similar historic examples and I could come up with an abundance of imagined scenarios where the invading army has just cause on its side. Therefore, the offensive vs. defensive weapon distinction doesn't hold water to me.
In the grand scheme of things, I suppose you're right.
Then the question becomes why are certain weapons banned. Prae touches on one reason when he refers to nukes - they kill everyone over an unreasonable amount of area. What about biochemical weapons? They are inhumane? Possibly a reason. Personally, I think the main factors are the indiscriminate nature of the weaponry and long term effects of the weaponry after war has ended.
Once again, I'd agree.
Arguably mines have these characteristics.
Arguably, yes, using historical precedent, I suppose they do.
You don't want weapons that are still blowing people up, causing diseases, or whatnot mayhem AFTER war has ended. Mines have that problem associated with them, at least in a historical context.
Sure, with the operative words here being, "in a historical context".
The question I would want answered about landmine usage before deciding this issue is whether landmines are practically, consistently, and thoroughly removed after their dissemination.
I fully agree, and I believe that by using today's technology, they can be. Either that, or we could design them with a failsafe that renders them harmless after a specified period of time. My point is that it's not 1960 anymore. These weapons are VERY effective, and the last thing I'd wanna do is cut off our nose to spite our face.
If countries cannot practically, consistently, and thoroughly clean up minefields after laying them, then I would support a ban.
So would I, but I happen to believe we're capable of employing the technology to "practically, consistently, and thoroughly" clean up the minefields after the war is over.
I agree that I wouldn't ban landmines based on an inhumane argument, except for their postwar civilian effects.
That's certainly the issue here.

A lot of being posted is discussing the future of landmine technology, which is fine if your gonna keep producing them.

And all this 'turn them off' technology only comes into play if the forces who planted them come out as the actual victors in the war.

The main problem at present is the anti-personnel device, which lies in the ground at the present time, designed to be very difficult to detect, usually constructed of plastic components, and which can remain armed for decades.

These are the things that are killing and maiming people on a daily basis.

A lot of being posted is discussing the future of landmine technology, which is fine if your gonna keep producing them.

And all this 'turn them off' technology only comes into play if the forces who planted them come out as the actual victors in the war.

True, and I think it's incumbent on us to develop new safeties (or methods of extraction using coded GPS signals, etc.) owning to the fact that we're one of the largest producers and users of landmines. In regards to your point above, we certainly can't (nor can any treaty, for that matter) stop anyone else from building IED's out of PVC using low-grade C3 or Semtex with implanted metal shards (or "shipyard confetti" like they called it in Belfast back in the day), but at least we can be responsible about designing and producing them in 2008. I'd sign no such document if I were the US government. We're not the problem (or at least, I don't believe we will be in the future), and landmines are still very effective deterrents in warfare today. I mean, after all, it's not like we're talking about chemical/biological/nuclear weapons here.
These are the things that are killing and maiming people on a daily basis.
Sure, and believe it or not, by the end of 2007, they were responsible for approximately 40% of the coalition deaths in Iraq.

Now, don't get me wrong - I know you're talking about kids playing on the ex-battlefields of Europe and Southeast Asia, but I believe we can change the antiquated methods we once relied on 40 + years ago to manufacture these things, which would essentially render the biggest complaint against them null and void, would it not???

I never heard the term 'shipyard confetti' before.
Where did you dig that one up from.

Im thinking that anti personnel landmines have outlived their usefulness o the battlefields of today.
Warfare has changed, no more Armies sweeping like ants across the country,
simply because enough nations have the technology now to mow them down like cutting the grass on your lawn.

Anti personnel landmines have been used more to inhibit movement of enemy troops and the civilian population, this is were the problem arises.

Strategically placed in areas of human activity

I never heard the term 'shipyard confetti' before.
Where did you dig that one up from.
The No. 1 source for every pseudo-knowledgeable poster on the Internet: Wikipedia. :)

Hmm, Ive read that sometimes wikki get it wrong, guess so.

Must ask the boys next time Im out if they ever heard of it.

They'd be more your 'barrack buster' types tho.

Im thinking that anti personnel landmines have outlived their usefulness o the battlefields of today.
Warfare has changed, no more Armies sweeping like ants across the country,
simply because enough nations have the technology now to mow them down like cutting the grass on your lawn.
Sure, in advanced nations like ours, but we're the exception. I'd pity the country that wanted to attack us on our own soil, for I'm guessing we have (and I'd be willing to bet I'm not wrong here) roughly a thousand rounds for every Asian on the planet.
Anti personnel landmines have been used more to inhibit movement of enemy troops and the civilian population, this is were the problem arises.
And I'd agree, but I wouldn't limit OUR ability to use landmines because we've got rogue nations in North Africa and the Middle East that refuse to use them responsibly (Russia falls into that category, too). IOW, come hell or high water, I wouldn't sign an agreement that you and I both know isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The only thing that we, as Americans, can do is be responsible ourselves and clean up the fields we plant them in after the fact.

Hmm, Ive read that sometimes wikki get it wrong, guess so.
Well, the facts are usually verified, but it's an open page, nonetheless. You can edit it if you want, so sure...they're bound to have accuracy issues. For the most part, I've found them to be pretty good. That said, you can get lost on that site for hours (if you like to learn). :)

Im thinking that anti personnel landmines have outlived their usefulness o the battlefields of today.
Warfare has changed, no more Armies sweeping like ants across the country,
simply because enough nations have the technology now to mow them down like cutting the grass on your lawn.

Anti personnel landmines have been used more to inhibit movement of enemy troops and the civilian population, this is were the problem arises.



Strategically placed in areas of human activityPaul,

No matter how great the technological advancements it is still ground troops who win battles and wars.

Paul,

No matter how great the technological advancements it is still ground troops who win battles and wars.
I dont agree with that statement Frogger,here's why.

Take a weapons system like the Apache helicopter, can evade radar, select numorous weapons, has the firepower of 100 ground troops.

How about these new drone aircraft, send them out and forget about them,
ya know, the trooper is being replaced as we speak.

A drone cannot take and hold land, and it never will.

It doesn't have to take the land, it cant prevent the other side from taking it,
then simply have an armoured division move into the space, Im not sure if technically an armoured division would be considered a 'ground force'.

I think Prae pretty much covered it, except . . .

Again, what does it take to be "too nasty to be used?" I think the postwar effects are the effects to be concerned about.

"Too nasty to be used" is pretty much arbitrary - I readily admit that. My thinking is along the lines that things that explode, whether than fall from the sky, are shot at you, or pop up out of the ground are all pretty much equally nasty.

As for the postwar effects, I do agree that it's a major problem. But again, if it's possible that not using mines will make it so you won't survive the war, what's the point having a nice postwar environment? It's kind of like letting someone starve to death because you're worried he might get cancer from the food.

It's kind of like letting someone starve to death because you're worried he might get cancer from the food.
Nicely put, Lionel.

I think Prae pretty much covered it, except . . .



"Too nasty to be used" is pretty much arbitrary - I readily admit that. My thinking is along the lines that things that explode, whether than fall from the sky, are shot at you, or pop up out of the ground are all pretty much equally nasty.

As for the postwar effects, I do agree that it's a major problem. But again, if it's possible that not using mines will make it so you won't survive the war, what's the point having a nice postwar environment? It's kind of like letting someone starve to death because you're worried he might get cancer from the food.
Awful lot of talk about war going on, where exactly are these wars raging that would justify the use of anti-personnel landmines being planted?

Yeah, no kidding.

Awful lot of talk about war going on, where exactly are these wars raging that would justify the use of anti-personnel landmines being planted?

Nowhere, obviously. So do we just assume that there will never be another one?

Nowhere, obviously. So do we just assume that there will never be another one?
Why not, dont forget how much money is spent annualy assuming there will be one.
Ever since Korea, and possibly Vietnam,there has been no stand up Army that the US has dealt with face to face, technology has surpassed the need for the anti-personnel landmine.

I'm sure if they ever got truly obsolete, the US Army would indeed stop using them.

I'm sure if they ever got truly obsolete, the US Army would indeed stop using them.
Hmm, apart from Korea, I dont think the US Army does use them.
Unfortunately Ordnance manufacturers export them by the truck load.

And, that, my friend, is a crying shame.

Personally, I think an export ban on landmines would be a tremendous idea.

Personally, I think an export ban on landmines would be a tremendous idea.
I fully agree. That, I can deal with.

Personally, I think an export ban on landmines would be a tremendous idea.
I fully agree. That, I can deal with.Buncha commies.

Lol!