[angaq0k]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3491826.stm

Thank M. Bush for this initiative, Land Mines will not be murderous as long as they were before.

Quote:

(...)Mr Bloomfield confirmed that the US did not intend to sign the international treaty banning mines.

(...)

the Pentagon view is understood to be that at the moment no other technology will do the job, our correspondent says.


Can't stop progress I guess...

Discuss at will.

[djohnson]

Hmm land mines = not good. I dont like them now will I ever like them.

[chris v]

I'd say it looks like more expensive, high-tech land mines. What do they cost each, compared to good ol' Claymores? Pork-barrel?

CV

[SimeyTheLimey]

Note: this paragraph is flat out wrong:

President Bill Clinton had wanted the US to consider signing the international treaty

The Clinton Administration refused to sign the antipersonnel land mine treaty and considered it deeply flawed. All the Bush Administration is doing is continuing the Clinton Administration's policy of not using land mines outside of Korea, halting any exports, and phasing out non-self-destructing mines.

Strangely enough, the BBC had the Clinton Administration's position correct when the Ottawa treaty was signed. See here.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Note: this paragraph is flat out wrong:



The Clinton Administration refused to sign the antipersonnel land mine treaty and considered it deeply flawed. All the Bush Administration is doing is continuing the Clinton Administration's policy of not using land mines outside of Korea, halting any exports, and phasing out non-self-destructing mines.

Strangely enough, the BBC had the Clinton Administration's position correct when the Ottawa treaty was signed. See here.

Clinton or Bush, I do not care.

I care more for the kids with missing limbs while playing freely in nature. Or for the farmers make a "wrong step" at the "wrong time".

But then it is war and as long as a war is legal it is OK to kill people or even better, ruin an economy by crippling its future.

Allow me this sarcasm: it is very promising for future diplomatic and economic relations.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Clinton or Bush, I do not care.

I care more for the kids with missing limbs while playing freely in nature. Or for the farmers make a "wrong step" at the "wrong time".

But then it is war and as long as a war is legal it is OK to kill people or even better, ruin an economy by crippling its future.

Allow me this sarcasm: it is very promising for future diplomatic and economic relations.

Smart mines self destruct. Such mines are designed not to pose a continuing threat.

You might also be interested in knowing that the US spends more on international humanitarian demining than any other country.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Smart mines self destruct. Such mines are designed not to pose a continuing threat.

You might also be interested in knowing that the US spends more on international humanitarian demining than any other country.

Sort of like cluster-bombs all explode on impact? Just wondering......

[eklipse]

How does one make a 'safe' land-mine?

What's next? - 'Healthy' nukes? - 'Good' bio-weapons? - 'Nice' chemical-weapons?.........

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
How does one make a 'safe' land-mine?

What's next? - 'Healthy' nukes? - 'Good' bio-weapons? - 'Nice' chemical-weapons?.........

Safe against going off years after the war when some child steps on it. That's the main problem with land mines. They are indiscriminate. [anecdote] When I was a small child in England a kid in a neighboring village found a WW-II butterfly bomb (a type of antipersonnel mine) and was killed by it. This was 30 years after the war. [/anecdote]

However, smart mines won't do that. They are programmed to self-destruct either after a period of time, or upon remote command. Therefore, they aren't "safe" for the enemy (they are weapons after all), but they aren't the same kind of danger to innocents.

Also, mines are supposed to be only placed in marked minefields (the US scrupulously abides by this). However, not all countries abide by that and guerilla armies are particularly notorious for doing things like mining wells and so forth. But whether or not the US signs a treaty won't change that.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Smart mines self destruct. Such mines are designed not to pose a continuing threat.

You might also be interested in knowing that the US spends more on international humanitarian demining than any other country.

Them bomb are so smart, they choose their victim! I tellya!

They see a kid? No problem.
They see a chick? No problem.
They see a man? They'll check for weapons or for the Evil Eye before blowing the sucka back to the Hell he comes from!

They see a man with a gun? They won't blowup coz it's one of our guys!!!!!!

I'm glad that the U.S. spends so much money on "international humanitarian demining".

As for smart weapons, I am not sure that any of those so called "smart" devices have worked up to satisfaction...

First of all, they (U.S. based corporations) are likely to be the greatest producer of them devices!

Second of all there's nothing like a good cleanup AFTERWARDS...

That makes for good marketing.

Reminds me of these governments that manage casinos and liquor stores (see Canada), and use PART of the profits for gambling addiction treatment and prevention programs.

I like the business spirit!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Them bomb are so smart, they choose their victim! I tellya!

They see a kid? No problem.
They see a chick? No problem.
They see a man? They'll check for weapons or for the Evil Eye before blowing the sucka back to the Hell he comes from!

They see a man with a gun? They won't blowup coz it's one of our guys!!!!!!

I'm glad that the U.S. spends so much money on "international humanitarian demining".

As for smart weapons, I am not sure that any of those so called "smart" devices have worked up to satisfaction...

First of all, they (U.S. based corporations) are likely to be the greatest producer of them devices!

Second of all there's nothing like a good cleanup AFTERWARDS...

That makes for good marketing.

Reminds me of these governments that manage casinos and liquor stores (see Canada), and use PART of the profits for gambling addiction treatment and prevention programs.

I like the business spirit!

Sigh.

Re: humanitarian demining. That's going out and cleaning up the mess that wars (mostly civil wars, mostly without any US involvement) have created. Yes, you should be glad that the US, the UN, and others are doing this. If they don't, nobody will. You should be applauding this, unless your concern for innocent victims is just a pose for bashing the US, of course.

And of course, it goes without saying that demining is incredibly dangerous and the people who do it are incredibly brave. But we don't give a damn, right? It's much easier to think that a piece of paper will magic millions of mines out of the ground.

Re: the track record of smart mines. There really is no track record. It's new technology. So how are you making your skeptical comments on how they have "worked up to satisfaction"? Beats me. But then again, who said opinions have to be based on knowledge?

Re: smart weapons choosing the victim: No, of course they don't. That's not the claim. The soldiers who plant them are responsible for emplacing them in marked minefields. They are also responsible for removing them afterwards. Historically, that has been difficult even when the army concerned is responsible enough to try (as the US is). Smart mines will certainly help where the US is involved. They won't help with the vast majority of mines produced and used, however, because the major culprit is not the US. However, this will not stop idiots ignoring reality and pointing the finger exclusively at the US for the sin of ignoring another useless and ineffective piece of international paper.

Re: who will produce the mines? The US has a moratorium on the international sale of mines. Of course, the mines going to the US Armed Forces will be American made. And those mines will stay in American hands. They aren't going to be an export item. But again, don't let facts get in the way of a good ideological rant.

re: the "it's all about business" line. Very cute, very trendy, very devoid of intelligent thought. That's a pity because this is a serious subject.

[docbud]

Hey angaq0k

Did you read the second paragraph in your link?

Assistant Secretary of State Lincoln Bloomfield said the US would make all its landmines detectable and scrap those not timed to self-destruct.

( bold my emphasis)
It was right before the 3rd paragraph you quoted.
doc

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sigh.

Re: humanitarian demining. That's going out and cleaning up the mess that wars (mostly civil wars, mostly without any US involvement) have created. Yes, you should be glad that the US, the UN, and others are doing this. If they don't, nobody will. You should be applauding this, unless your concern for innocent victims is just a pose for bashing the US, of course.

And of course, it goes without saying that demining is incredibly dangerous and the people who do it are incredibly brave. But we don't give a damn, right? It's much easier to think that a piece of paper will magic millions of mines out of the ground.

Re: the track record of smart mines. There really is no track record. It's new technology. So how are you making your skeptical comments on how they have "worked up to satisfaction"? Beats me. But then again, who said opinions have to be based on knowledge?

Re: smart weapons choosing the victim: No, of course they don't. That's not the claim. The soldiers who plant them are responsible for emplacing them in marked minefields. They are also responsible for removing them afterwards. Historically, that has been difficult even when the army concerned is responsible enough to try (as the US is). Smart mines will certainly help where the US is involved. They won't help with the vast majority of mines produced and used, however, because the major culprit is not the US. However, this will not stop idiots ignoring reality and pointing the finger exclusively at the US for the sin of ignoring another useless and ineffective piece of international paper.

Re: who will produce the mines? The US has a moratorium on the international sale of mines. Of course, the mines going to the US Armed Forces will be American made. And those mines will stay in American hands. They aren't going to be an export item. But again, don't let facts get in the way of a good ideological rant.

re: the "it's all about business" line. Very cute, very trendy, very devoid of intelligent thought. That's a pity because this is a serious subject.

Here is some knowledge for you:

http://www.worldvision.org/worldvisi...ics_production

Quote:

The Arms Project of Human Rights Watch, which compiled the database, readily acknowledges its incompleteness. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch suggests that given the available evidence, China, Italy, and the former Soviet Union have probably been the largest producers and exporters of conventional anti-personnel land mines (measured in number of units) in recent years, though not necessarily in that order. The United States likely does not fall too far behind these countries, keeping company with other larger anti-personnel mine producers, including:

Western Europe: Belgium, and possibly also Austria, France, Greece, and Sweden;
Eastern Europe: former Czechoslovakia, former East Germany, and former Yugoslavia;
the developing world: Egypt, India, Israel, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, and possibly also Chile, Iran, Iraq, South Korea, and North Korea.22


Researchers at the Congressional Research Service have used an alternate approach to analyze land mine production by looking at the number of models of anti-personnel mines produced in a given country. This approach highlights the leading developers of anti-personnel land mines as:

United States (37 models)
Italy (36 models)
the former Soviet Union (31 models)
Sweden (21 models)
Vietnam (18 models)
Germany [former East and West combined] (18 models)
Austria (16 models)
former Yugoslavia (15 models)
France (14 models)
China (12 models)
United Kingdom (9 models)23

While this methodology does not necessarily reflect volume of production, it does give a sense of the depth of the land mine industries in some of the major producer countries.

http://www.globaled.org/globalLitera...andout02A.html

Quote:

The only effective way to stop trade in mines is to halt production.__Where do these mines come from?__The question is not so easy to answer.__The trade in mines, like all aspects of the arms trade, is cloaked in secrecy.__More than 50 countries are thought to produce between 500,000 and one million mines each year.__Of these countries, 35 are known exporters (including the United States, and other major industrialized nations.)__Increasingly, the less developed, poorer nations are producing mines locally and regionally.__Currently several hundred types of mines are in production by approximately 100 companies worldwide.__The exact numbers cannot be determined because simple devices are easily produced without being registered, licensed or declared; even sophisticated mines can be copied and produced in secret.__When the export of mines from one country to another is banned, producers often deal through intermediaries to get around the laws.

http://www.mobrien.com/twr/landmines.html

Quote:

Anti-personnel mines are not indispensable military tools. According to a 1996 Red Cross study, military experts examining 26 wars where anti-personnel mines were used concluded that mines did not lead to a strategic advantage in war. The reality is that mines do more to create fear and cause suffering in civilian populations than they do to deter the movement of soldiers. According to the United Nations, landmines are at least 10 times more likely to kill or injure a civilian after a conflict than a combatant during hostilities. Once mines have been laid, they are completely indiscriminate in their action._ Unless cleared, they continue to have the potential to kill and maim long after the actual fighting has ceased.

That one you will like:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/27/usint7678.htm

Quote:
When was the last time the U.S. used landmines? _
_
The U.S. last used landmines in the 1991 Gulf War by scattering 117,634 landmines in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. U.S. forces in recent combat operations in Afghanistan or Iraq did not use landmines. _
_
Protective minefields from the Soviet era are incorporated into the perimeter defense scheme at locations U.S. forces currently occupy in Afghanistan. Military advantage is derived from these minefields and the U.S. is obligated to comply with 1996 Amended Protocol II of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to mark and monitor these minefields to ensure the effective exclusion of civilians. The US failed to report measures it has taken to protect civilians from the effects of these landmines in its annual national reports for this treaty submitted in December 2002 and November 2003.

But...

Do “smart” mines still pose a humanitarian threat? _
_
The time when the mines are armed and when they self-destruct or fully self-deactivate can be as long as nineteen weeks. In theoretically perfect conditions all of these mines should destroy themselves. However, mines are damaged during delivery, two-to-five percent of self-destruct mechanisms fail, and up to ten percent of the mines fail to arm properly. This means that a proportion of these U.S. mines would always remain intact on the surface of the ground without any indication whether the mine is live or not. Since aircraft or artillery remotely deliver these mines in large numbers, they are not required to be marked, fenced, or monitored to exclude civilians. From a deminer’s perspective, all mines encountered must be treated as though they are live. The mines must be cleared one-at-a-time using the same procedures used to clear all mines. The humanitarian impact is still present regardless of whether the mine has a self-destruct mechanism.

And...

How reliable are U.S. landmines that self-destruct? _
_
Assurances that U.S. landmines are unquestionably reliable are inconsistent with the cautions contained in Army field manuals, the findings of ammunition surveillance testing data, and experiences in the 1991 Gulf War. The Pentagon provided the U.S. General Accounting Office in 2002 with test records that documented reliability problems with eight of its self-destruct landmine systems; among other problems, some landmines did not self-destruct as intended. The reports cited by the GAO indicated at least one test produced hazardous dud mines. A U.S. demining contractor working in Kuwait in 1991-1992 reported finding substantially more U.S. landmine duds than would be expected if dud rates were as low as documents and briefings stated. _
_
And there is a .pdf available as well:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/27/7681_txt.pdf

Quote:

Although few people are aware or recall it today, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a major joint international initiative in late 1994 that was aimed precisely at promoting smart mines. It was called the US-UK Export Control Regime and was intended to convince nations to give up or at least reduce the number of dumb mines in their arsenals and replace them with smart mines. It gained stunningly little support from anywhere, much hostility from many quarters, and the initiative died in a matter of months. Shortly after that, in 1996, we witnessed the failure of the revision of the Landmine Protocol of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), which again was largely aimed at promotion of smart mines. Out of those failures, the Ottawa Process was launched, and in no small part, the process that resulted in the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty was based on the rejection of a smart mines approach to resolving the landmines crisis.

[angaq0k]

But...

Ongoing use, production and export of smart mines is a major step back from existing policy in nearly every nation, including the United States. It has been official US policy since 1994 that ALL antipersonnel mines should be banned, both smart and dumb. This policy is enshrined in a Presidential Decision Directive issued in 1998. Regrettably, the target date for this ban was 2006, and it was dependent on development of alternatives. But, the US had accepted that smart mines should be eliminated, and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to find alternatives to smart mines. It is also the case that the US has prohibited export of all antipersonnel mines, both smart and dumb, since 1992, and that the US has not produced smart antipersonnel mines since 1997 (though no legal prohibition is in place).

2006... and I suppose this does not fit in some business plan...

Final quote, si vous me le permettez...

Dangers to Civilians: _
_
* Self-destruct mechanisms are not 100% reliable. The Landmine Protocol of CCW (to which the US and China belong) allows a 10% failure rate. Technical experts say less sophisticated production methods can result in failure rates much higher. _
_
* Smart mines are usually scattered by aircraft or artillery at a rate of thousands in a matter of minutes, with little precision; given the failure rate for self-destruction, many dangerous mines will remain on the ground. Because of the huge number of smart mines that are typically employed at one time, the danger to civilians could be greater than hand-laid dumb mines. We have already seen that smart mines are sometimes used in populated areas. Russian mines that are supposed to self-destruct are now causing civilian casualties in Chechnya. _
_
* Because smart mines are usually scattered (or remotely-delivered), there is no way to accurately mark or map or fence the smart mine minefields. _
_
* Civilians in smart mine fields not only face the danger of stepping on mines that have failed to self-destruct, but the danger of hundreds of those mines randomly self-destructing at unknown times. _
_
* Because smart mines self-destruct, and do not last for an indefinite period of time, some nations might compensate by using greater numbers of mines and/or by using them repeatedly in the same area. _
_
* The Landmine Protocol, in addition to self-destruct mechanisms on scatterable mines, requires a "self-deactivation" feature (a battery goes dead so the mine's firing chain cannot be started, the mine becomes inert). But the protocol allows 120 days (17 weeks) before self-deactivation must occur. In warfare today, civilians often return to conflict zones in that period of time. And there is no guarantee that the batteries will in fact go dead in that period of time. _
_
* It should also be noted that the restrictions on use of smart mines (such as reliability requirements) contained in the Landmine Protocol affect very few countries. Countries that are party to the protocol who haven't already banned smart mines include the US, China, India, Pakistan, Finland, Israel, South Korea and Estonia. _
_
* Smart mines will still deny land to civilians. Because they are usually remotely-delivered, smart mines are usually on the surface of the ground, not buried. The 10% or so of the mines that have failed to self-destruct (even if they have self-deactivated), and the mines that failed to arm when delivered (estimated at another 10%), will at least for a period of time be visible on the ground. Civilians will not enter the area, fearing that the visible mines are still dangerous. In many places, the mines will eventually be overgrown or otherwise obscured. _
_
* A landmark study published in 1996 by the International Committee of the Red Cross cited the views of a military Group of Experts (more than 30 retired officers from about a dozen countries). With respect to smart mines, they concluded, "Because of the vast numbers [of mines] involved, and the complete absence of any [mine] marking, it is likely that the number of civilian casualties resulting from a large-scale strike with remotely delivered mines will greatly exceed the casualty rates seen with conventional minefields.... Even the doubtful benefit of self-destruction and self-deactivation at a later date will not prevent widespread casualties in the initial days after the strike. There is little doubt that the development of remotely delivered mines has increased the probability of a major rise in post-conflict mine casualties."

About demining:

http://www.humanitarian-demining.org...ng/default.asp


I apologize for pointing my finger only at the U.S.

But do not accuse me of not using "knowledge".

I will admit that I am not an expert in this field and I can be partially wrong...

And in terms of smart, if you cannot see the irony of my sarcasm, here it is in plain:

The "smart" bombs are only as "smart" as those who decide when to activate/deactivate them. A smart device that is remotely controlled can be remotely reactivated. There is the irony.

Finally about this:

Quote:

re: the "it's all about business" line. Very cute, very trendy, very devoid of intelligent thought. That's a pity because this is a serious subject.

Allow me a last sarcasm: smart land-mines, free for humanitarian usage?

Maybe I am only a hard core peacenick and a utopist. I guess the discussion will stop on an agreement of our differences...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by docbud:
Hey angaq0k

Did you read the second paragraph in your link?

( bold my emphasis)
It was right before the 3rd paragraph you quoted.
doc

Thanks for pointing this out.

But basically, my position is against pretty much all weapons and land-mines are especially nasty to my point of view. The lack of efficency that technology shows too often leads to a percentage of disfunction.

I'd rather avoid that.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You might also be interested in knowing that the US spends more on international humanitarian demining than any other country.

It also spends more on arms than any other country. In fact, it spends more on arms than the next 8 biggest spenders put together!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
It also spends more on arms than any other country. In fact, it spends more on arms than the next 8 biggest spenders put together!

This is irrelevant.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is irrelevant.

With that sort of reply, I really wonder how one can take you seriously...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
The "smart" bombs are only as "smart" as those who decide when to activate/deactivate them. A smart device that is remotely controlled can be remotely reactivated. There is the irony.

What are you basing this on? My understanding is that the technology uses remote detonation. You can't reactivate a detonated mine. However, if you have specific information that particular models of smart mines can be turned off and then on again, please share it. But please don't just assume such a capability without evidence.

A note also about emplacement. Your articles above make a great deal about air delivered mines. That was how the Soviets delivered mines. US doctrine is to hand emplace land mines by burying them. (I used to be a US infantryman, so I have some familiarity with this). The dumb mines that smart mines replace are mainly the M-16 "bouncing betty" and the M-25 anti-armor mine. Neither are air-droppable.

The only place where the US uses dumb mines is in the Korean DMZ. They are all in marked minefields per the Geneva Convention. Civilians aren't really an issue there because the areas where the mines are have been cleared of civilians for decades. Dumb mines are used because the DMZ (unfortunately) is pretty much permanent.

The 10% figure refers to air-droppable cluster bomblets. That's a slightly different issue from what we are talking about here. Cluster bombs are used against fairly specific targets -- mainly airfields. Antipersonnel mines are used (at least by the US) primarily as obstacles to channel enemy attacks.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
With that sort of reply, I really wonder how one can take you seriously...

How so? It was irrelevant to the subject at hand. It's basically trying to turn the subject into a general attack on the US. Let's stay away from that, OK?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How so? It was irrelevant to the subject at hand. It's basically trying to turn the subject into a general attack on the US. Let's stay away from that, OK?

No it is not:

You brought the issue that the U.S. is actually doing more than any other country humanitarian demining. That is diverting the topic. As if, since the U.S. does that great work in demining, the issue of land mines is less important.

The issue is about the use of smart land-mines and "what the heck are they used for anyway".

He just states that actually, the U.S. is one major producer of weapons. Among which, are land mines. Regarding your last post, suddenly, I understand why we will be in constant disagreement, acknowledging the idea that you could be an ex-infantryman.
If you feel it is OK to use such a weapon, well I guess that does it on my part.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
No it is not:

You brought the issue that the U.S. is actually doing more than any other country humanitarian demining. That is diverting the topic. As if, since the U.S. does that great work in demining, the issue of land mines is less important.

The issue is about the use of smart land-mines and "what the heck are they used for anyway".

He just states that actually, the U.S. is one major producer of weapons. Among which, are land mines. Regarding your last post, suddenly, I understand why we will be in constant disagreement, acknowledging the idea that you could be an ex-infantryman.
If you feel it is OK to use such a weapon, well I guess that does it on my part.

And I bet you wonder why pacifists' POV is ignored.

The broader subject is the danger posed by landmines to innocent civilians. Without that serious issue, we wouldn't be talking about this because that is the motivation behind the Ottawa Convention. Humanitarian demining directly and practically addresses the existing problem. Mines exist by the millions in former war spots throughout the world. The civilized world ought to deal with that problem. Noting that the US is leading the world is not a diversion of the topic. It is directly addressing it.

Smart mines also directly address the issue because they are a solution that wealthy militaries can adopt to make sure that they are not future contributors to the problem. However, smart mines don't address the root of the problem which comes from the fact that dumb mines are extremely easy and cheap to produce. No treaty can prevent individuals and small plants from making dumb mines. They cost an estimate $3 to make, or maybe less. I could show you how to improvise a toe popper with nothing more than a piece of copper pipe, a nail, a block of wood, and an ordinary bullet. Another more lethal one can be made with a tin can, a standard-issue grenade, and a piece of string. How would a fancy treaty prevent a soldier whomping that up? Answer me that. How would the treaty prevent soldiers or guerillas from emplacing them where civilians would be endagered (accidentally, or be design). Answer me that.

[Spliffdaddy]

*SMACKDOWN*


You know their point lacks merit when they link to 'worldvision.com'.

lol.

[macvillage.net]

This will never actually go through.

North Korea and South Korea are mainly separated by US installed Land Mines. There is no way (especially with Little Kim in power), that the US is going to put anything in the ground that's detectable, or will eventually need to be replaced.

This sounds like yet another political move during election season. Then when everyone forgets, we scrap the development program, and life goes on.

This isn't the first time promises are made and broken, and I'm sure it's not the last.


There's no way, the US is going to do anything that could possibly weaken one of it's most useful weapons.

The US has used the in every major operation to this day. We have laid them all across Europe in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, even Iraq. They do a great job.

I'm not justifying them. I personally wish we would ban the damn things like every other nation (even the evil ones want to bad them).

But it's not going to happen. I'll guarantee it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. You have either built or placed or caused to be placed more mines on this planet than anyone except maybe Russia and China. And your continued reliance on military might supports a market in these things. On top of all that, psychologically, the US's failure to sign the Treaty and the its insistence that "smart mines" should not be banned has the effect of reducing pressure that can be brought to bear on other countries and has prompted Russia, China, Pakistan and other to step up production of mines. "Smart" doesn't translate into Russian 100%!

Take the following facts into consideration:

1) The US still has the third largest stockpile of APM's in the world with 11.2 million mines (!!!), right behind Russia and China.
2) It used them up until 1992. In fact, APM's emplaced by the US during the Gulf War in 1991, as well as those from the Iran-Iraq war (which the US had a hand in), continue to kill or maim up to 30 Iraqis each month.
3) The US only stopped exporting mines in 1992.
4) Although they haven't produced mines since 1997, APM's were distributed to the Theater during Gulf War II and they are contained in some of the bombs the US dropped in Afghanistan and Iraq.
5) The Iraqis used mines to defend themselves against the illegal US invasion in Gulf War II.

Bush has reduced demining and demining awareness funding since he came to power (despite the fact that Bush used military force more). It's down by about 20m over two years. Much of the $70m (in comparison to the $4Bn a month the Iraq war costs!) that the US will spend this year on demining comes back to the US through lucrative and eternal mine-clearing contracts granted to US companies. At the same time as it has reduced spending on demining, the Bush administration has *increased* the budget spent on the development of mines. This year, it will spend $50m on its mine development program in comparison to the $70m it spends on demining.

The fact that the US is part of the solution to the problem is somewhat tempered by the fact that the US is also largely responsible for the problem! I don't want to pick on the US too much, because Russia and China and others should be more engaged in this too, but it's no excuse to say that the US spends more than anyone else on demining. If you want irrelevant, there is no correlation between how much you spend on demining and your level of responsibility for the problem. Whatever you're spending it is not enough.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Of course it's relevant.

It's only relevant if your primary goal is merely attacking Americans by bringing in collateral issues. Your tendency to do this is becoming tiresome.

Consider these facts:

The treaty does not ban all landmines. It exempts all anti-armor mines. It also exempts any mine linked to an anti-armor mine. It calls such antipersonnel mines antitampering devices for the antiarmor mine. Coincidentally, those are the type of mines built by the European proponents of the treaty. The US, on the other hand, colocated anti-armor and antipersonnel mines. This achieves the same result as attached anti-tampering devices, but lacks the physical link between the two mines. This is one of the main reasons the Clinton Administration lost patience with the Ottawa process. The treaty exempted Europeans (quietly, and in a way that went over the heads of activists), while it would have forced the US to stop using the mines it had.

On the other hand, Europeans take no responsibility for such things as defending South Korea from North Korea. Once again, Europeans expect Americans to bleed to satisfy their bleeding hearts. The Clinton Administration rightly said no. Bush is merely continuing where Clinton left off.

There are other problems I have already indicated. The primary ones are that no treaty will be able to stop the manufacture of such simple and cheap weapons. This is sub-bicycle shop stuff. You don't need western exporters to create mines. Additionally, this treaty does nothing to reduce the threat from mines that already exist. Nor does it prevent the illegal use of mines. That's the core of the problem. But the illegal use of mines is the doing of people who do not respect any other law of war -- primarily guerillas and rogue regimes who always seem to escape meaningful criticism from people who seem to go out of their way to point fingers at Americans.

This treaty is a sop to sentiment. It will not do anything practical except make it harder for the US to defend South Korea. Clinton was absolutely right to reject it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

It's painfully apparent that there are two basic approaches here. One reacts emotionally to a problem, and looks to "do something" no matter whether that something will actually solve the problem. The result is measured as participation in the process -- often a treaty. The goal is to sign a treaty no matter how flawed, and no matter what the consequences. In fact, the more useless the treaty, the easier it is to sign because you can always ignore a useless treaty. Especially, when you take absolutely no responsibility for peace and security on any continent, including your own.

The second approach is to find practical solutions to the problem, balancing them against other responsibilities and the consequences of doing the wrong thing. What matters is the result. The process toward that result doesn't matter. If a treaty is flawed, you do not sign it. If there are other things that are more effective, you do those instead.

As Robert Kagan succinctly put it, Americans are from Mars and Europeans from Venus.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

On the other hand, Europeans take no responsibility for such things as defending South Korea from North Korea. Once again, Europeans expect Americans to bleed to satisfy their bleeding hearts. The Clinton Administration rightly said no. Bush is merely continuing where Clinton left off.

Good points...

But one must ask why we still choose the methods we do. Landmines were put in the ground well before most modern advances. We can now monitor movement from space, even fire from off the continent. We can also errect barriers that are harmless.

The reason goes much more than just Korea. If that were all, the US would have joined, since US landmines have killed many, including quite a few of our own soldiers and civilians, who are out there cleaning up some of the old ones.

There are many means of keeping Korea segregated.

Not to mention NK isn't stupid. They are well aware if they even look towards the south, they will have US, and several other nations bombing them back to the stone age.

This isn't the 50's. Times have changed.

When they were put in, they were a wise choice considering the options. But they outlived their usefulness. They are like asbestos in a preschool. Harmful, and can be replaced with more effective, and safer means.

The US doesn't want the treaty, because it's a very low cost tool of war. One the US doesn't want to loose. It would rather the rest of the world just agree, and exclude the US. Giving it an advantage.

Military strategy... most likely a good one.

Humanitarian/Political... not really.


I do wonder if the Bush administration would allow the use of landmines on the US borders as a way of keeping terrorists out. Or perhaps on the whitehouse lawn. Using them on the border I know was actually suggested since 9/11, and was investigated. But never heard an outcome.

I'm curious how Americans in Texas would feel about such devices being close to their homes. Since the minefield would most likely be several miles short of the actual border, and extend for some time.


I think landmines are about as effective as biological agents. Powerful, but there's just no way to *legitimately* justify their usage.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Good points...

But one must ask why we still choose the methods we do. Landmines were put in the ground well before most modern advances. We can now monitor movement from space, even fire from off the continent. We can also errect barriers that are harmless.

The reason goes much more than just Korea. If that were all, the US would have joined, since US landmines have killed many, including quite a few of our own soldiers and civilians, who are out there cleaning up some of the old ones.

I have no idea what barriers you think would hold back a million man army. In any case, if you are talking about the use of mines against soldiers, there is really no problem. Mines are no more inhumane than grenades, shells, bullets, and so on. The problem with mines is in other areas - injuries to non-combatants, often years after the war, or misuse by unscrupulous combatants. Neither apply to the DMZ situation.

Your second point has it backwards. But for Korea, the US would probably sign on. Mines are something you use when you are on the defensive and outnumbered. North Korea is pretty much the only place where that applies. In all the years I spent in the infantry, I did very little training on how to emplace mines, but spent years learning how to clear minefields. Mines are more something the US army deals with rather than uses itself, because the US Army generally tends to be on the offensive rather than defensive. Again, the major exception being Korea.

In any case, smart weapons and the export moratorium coupled with a much bigger demining program than anyone else means that the US does not contribute to the problem, and contributes to the solution far more than anyone else. Until these other countries spend as much as the US does on demining and put troops on the DMZ, they can shove it as far as I am concerned. I'm tired of being lectured to by people who do nothing concrete.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's only relevant if your primary goal is merely attacking Americans by bringing in collateral issues. Your tendency to do this is becoming tiresome.

Oh for God's sake. I specifically said that others need to bear responsibility for disarmament too. My point was simply that you don't shirk your responsibility by saying we spend more money on this than anyone else.

[angaq0k]

It is true that it is easier to attack America. But Smiley, you are wrong when you say we target Americans.

I think most people are targeting the elected government and the corporations that animates it.

The corporations that have a lot of power in financing candidates and in lobbying for their own interests.

Although this is true pretty much everywhere, the U.S. is such a militarily and economically powerful country, it is easy to target simply because of the raw power it manages.

It hurts further to see some of that power hurting innocent bystanders.

Of course, war requires tools and a will.

On the other end, I do not believe technology to be reliable enough to prevent accidents from making more wounded and crippled.

True, the cheap landmines are also dangerous. But that you could share how to make that stuff with us, I think it is not wise... And probably it is possible to find that info on the Internet. But I still do not believe it was appropriate to put this on this site, nor responsible.

Again, targeting the U.S. in this thread is easy, simply because it's "foot print" is so important. Does not mean that other countries are blameless though...

And the article mentionned here was about U.S. smart land mines. I blame equally all land mines.

I hate weapons, I hate wars, I hate that people get killed.

Call me a utopist, but I believe most of the times, war can be avoided.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Mines are more something the US army deals with rather than uses itself, because the US Army generally tends to be on the offensive rather than defensive.

Funny, the US was on the offensive in the First Gulf War and it used mines quite extensively in that campaign. Was it planning on being on the defensive this time round? Is that why it shipped tons of mines into Saudi and Kuwait?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In any case, smart weapons and the export moratorium coupled with a much bigger demining program than anyone else means that the US does not contribute to the problem, and contributes to the solution far more than anyone else. Until these other countries spend as much as the US does on demining and put troops on the DMZ, they can shove it as far as I am concerned. I'm tired of being lectured to by people who do nothing concrete.

The US IS contributing to the problem. As much as anyone else is. Certainly more than the European nations are. Most of the mines that are spread around the world were spread during the Cold War. Remind me who the principle actors were during the Cold War? I suppose the rest of us should clean them up because we benefited from your liberating us?

As individual countries, the EU nations spend less than the US does. As a collective their spending is almost double the US's. Per capita, Europeans that you are so wont to complain about spend double what the average American spends on getting rid of mines. Mines that are spread around the world why? Many reasons, but most fall under the Cold War which and were put there by two countries and their agents - the US and Russia. Two because whenever there's a war, people put these things in the ground. The US has just finished one illegal one that lead to a whole lot of mines being put into the ground. Sure, you're not the devil incarnate, but you are more responsible than most for the mines that are scattered around the world and you have benefited from what those mines achieved for your interests. And you have one thing that China and Russia don't have. The money and the wherewithal (if not the political will) to do more to get rid of these things. Scores of Iraqis are still dying from the mines the US sowed in 1991. More needs to be done by everyone, but especially by those that are responsible for the mines being there in the first place.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Funny, the US was on the offensive in the First Gulf War and it used mines quite extensively in that campaign. Was it planning on being on the defensive this time round? Is that why it shipped tons of mines into Saudi and Kuwait?
The US IS contributing to the problem. As much as anyone else is. Certainly more than the European nations are. Most of the mines that are spread around the world were spread during the Cold War. Remind me who the principle actors were during the Cold War? I suppose the rest of us should clean them up because we benefited from your liberating us?

As individual countries, the EU nations spend less than the US does. As a collective their spending is almost double the US's. Per capita, Europeans that you are so wont to complain about spend double what the average American spends on getting rid of mines. Mines that are spread around the world why? Many reasons, but most fall under the Cold War which and were put there by two countries and their agents - the US and Russia. Two because whenever there's a war, people put these things in the ground. The US has just finished one illegal one that lead to a whole lot of mines being put into the ground. Sure, you're not the devil incarnate, but you are more responsible than most for the mines that are scattered around the world and you have benefited from what those mines achieved for your interests. And you have one thing that China and Russia don't have. The money and the wherewithal (if not the political will) to do more to get rid of these things. Scores of Iraqis are still dying from the mines the US sowed in 1991. More needs to be done by everyone, but especially by those that are responsible for the mines being there in the first place.

This really pisses me off. First of all, the US is not to blame for the cold war. It's something you should be grateful for.

Secondly, most mines in the world are former Soviet ones. I just love the way everyone blames the US for Soviet exports.

Third, I know of no landmines deployed and used in the first Gulf War. Most troops I know who were there spent the entire war driving at breakneck speed. You don't bury landmines under those conditions.

Fourth, other countries do not get to shirk their responsibility for their own use of, and export of, landmines by hiding behind a useless piece of paper. Signing the treaty is not a substitute for removing mines. Especially when the treaty was carefully written to exempt European landmines from its scope.

Fifth. As I said before, when those states who criticize the US for being skeptical of this PR stunt of a treaty put troops on the ground in Korea, they can tell the US and Korea that mines aren't needed. Until then, no dice.

More and more it is clear that certain opinions should simply be ignored as irresponsible. This treaty is exactly the kind that fall into that category. Fortunately, our last two presidents agreed.

[Spliffdaddy]

very well said.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, the US is not to blame for the cold war. It's something you should be grateful for.

Oh yes, Angola should be grateful that the US and the USSR gave landmines to proxy armies that claim lives almost every day there. You either made those landmines, sold them or gave them to the people that used them, or funded the continuation of the war and you benefit today from your victory in that "war". The people of Angola gained nothing from the war. They are not to blame for it either; but they are the ones paying for it. The US has more responsibility than most for that situation. Sure, others should be involved too, but given your primary role in building some of those mines, in giving the armies the money and support to plant those mines, I myself feel that you should be bearing more of the burden of demining the place than most. Of course, Russia has responsibility for it too but I find it shameful that you turn your back on these people and simply say "We're doing more than most."

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Third, I know of no landmines deployed and used in the first Gulf War. Most troops I know who were there spent the entire war driving at breakneck speed. You don't bury landmines under those conditions.

Now you do. http://www.icbl.org/news/2002/266.php This was just a random one. You may remember that there were discussions at the UN in advance of Gulf War II where the UN expressed its discomfort with the stockpiling of mines by the US. I don't think we need to debate whether they sent the 100,000 odd mines over there but didn't intend to use them. I'm not an expert on bombs either, but I believe that one of the bombs used in Afghanistan and Iraq contains land mines.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fourth, other countries do not get to shirk their responsibility for their own use of, and export of, landmines by hiding behind a useless piece of paper. Signing the treaty is not a substitute for removing mines. Especially when the treaty was carefully written to exempt European landmines from its scope.

Per capita, the Europeans are spending more than Americans on de-mining. You make it sound like you're the only ones involved in this.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fifth. As I said before, when those states who criticize the US for being skeptical of this PR stunt of a treaty put troops on the ground in Korea, they can tell the US and Korea that mines aren't needed. Until then, no dice.

As if the mine fields are keeping the Koreans apart!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
More and more it is clear that certain opinions should simply be ignored as irresponsible. This treaty is exactly the kind that fall into that category. Fortunately, our last two presidents agreed.

150 other nations on the planet have decided to sign this. Are they all stupid? Besides, your insinuation that this is consistent with Clinton policy is not a view held by people who have been involved in this area for some time. For example:

"We hadn't expected a complete rejection of what has been US policy for the last 10 years" - Stephen Goose, director of the arms-control division of Human Rights Watch on the Bush Administration's refusal to join 150 nations signing an anti-land mine treaty.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The human rights watch person is simply wrong. Sorry to pull the inside knowledge thing on you again, but the person I learned about this issue from was one of Clinton's undersecretaries of defense who had responsibility for this (he was undersecretary for SOLIC). The policy now (rejection of the flawed treaty, an export moratorium, humanitarian demining, development of smart mines and deployment of the same except in Korea) is identical to the one he described to me back in 2000. As far as the US is concerned, Ottawa has been dead since 1997. It died when the other parties (mostly Europeans and the NGOs responsible for the treaty) refused to take valid concerns about Korea into account, and refused to amend the definition on antitampering devices that they were using to exempt themselves from the treaty.

The other 150 countries are not so much wrong as uninvolved. They aren't out there defending countries like South Korea. Nor are the Europeans. Until they are, then their voice carries no moral weight. It's easy to strike a pose when something has no cost to you.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone should turn their backs on countries like Angola. That's the whole point of the humanitarian demining program. However, that is a practical contribution. This treaty is not. It contributes nothing to the problem of legacy mines. All it does is make people feel good. Especially when they get to shift the blame to others.

It is time to drop your Gulf War I red herring. No matter how many mines were shipped to the Gulf, they weren't used. Or at least, they weren't used by the US. I'm sure that Saddam used his mines by the thousands. It so happens that Iraq under Saddam was one of the world's largest producers of dumb mines. You can check the statistics.

And by the way, ultimately, the US contribution to the Cold War was a service to humanity that requires no apology. You wouldn't be having this conversation if the other side had won.

[Lerkfish]

Landmines = bad
smart landmines that can be easily deactivated = less bad, a step in the right direction
continuing to use landmines, safer or no = still bad.

I give credit to Simey here in his attempt to explain why smart landmines are better. they ARE better, obviously.

But landmines, like all such weapons, are never inherently good things, so everyone else has a point there, too.

So, everyone is right, believe it or not.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
But landmines, like all such weapons, are never inherently good things, so everyone else has a point there, too.

Thank you for your post.

Just one point, I'd take issue with the above. Weapons put to a good purpose are good. To take an extreme example, the tanks that liberated Auschwitz were good. On the other hand, the simple and otherwise innocuous bricks of the gas chambers and crematoria were bad.

I don't think that objects have inherent moral character. It's all a matter of how and why the object is used.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It is time to drop your Gulf War I red herring. No matter how many mines were shipped to the Gulf, they weren't used.

Did you even bother to read the article. It's a fact that the last war that the US used mines in was Gulf War I - taken from that article "The last time the United States used antipersonnel mines was against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. Landmines were identified as the cause of 81 U.S. casualties during that conflict."

I don't think it's up to you to decide what kinds of contributions are worthy. The Europeans are taking legal steps and practical steps to get rid of land mines. I don't think they're doing enough either but the US is doing less. They're not taking any legal steps and token practical steps plus the US has contributed more to the problem than almost anyone else. I just get the feeling from your defense of the Bush Administrations waning commitment to this, that you think the US is doing enough as it is and it's time others started cleaning up your mess.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Did you even bother to read the article. It's a fact that the last war that the US used mines in was Gulf War I - taken from that article "The last time the United States used antipersonnel mines was against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. Landmines were identified as the cause of 81 U.S. casualties during that conflict."

Oh please! And who is the source of that article? An assertion by a partisan source like that is not proof.

How did the US use landmines when racing across the desert at 40mph? More to the point, WHY would they use mines when they were pressing an attack? That just doesn't fit the doctrine the army operates under. Permit me to fall back on my training and experience on that one. I have no doubt that units carried mines. But they wouldn't have emplaced them. At most, they might have set out a few Claymores when they stopped. But a claymore isn't the kind of mine we've been talking about. Claymores are triggered by remote control and are designed to be removed and taken if you don't use it. They wouldn't have been left behind and even if a few were, they wouldn't be a danger to anyone without their blasting caps and triggering devices. I've carried claymores. They are perfectly safe until you arm them. They do not go off if you tread on them. They have to be set off.

Doctrinally, the kinds of mines we are talking about (buried anti-personnel mines like the bouncing betty) are used by the US Army as obstacles in the defense. You set them out primarily to channel attacking forces into kill zones. So you only use them when you are in the defense. They don't serve any purpose in the attack. There was no point in the first Gulf War when the Coalition was on the defensive.

Secondly, I'm sure it is true that some US casualties were caused by mines. But notice that the line doesn't claim that those casualties were caused by US mines. Common sense tells you that the mines they trod on were Iraqi since it was Iraqi minefields that were laid across the Iraq/Saudi border that the Coalition crossed in 1991.

Again, you seem to persist in thinking that signing a piece of paper is "doing something." In this case, it simply isn't. Mines are far too cheap and easy to make to be restrained by such a measure. Treaties have failed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms and missiles. How anyone could be so naive to think they will restrain the proliferation of $3 mines that can be made in any hobby shop is beyond me.

This is a completely false solution to a real problem. That's a sad indictment of the modern human rights industry. It's all fluff and illusion.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Again, you seem to persist in thinking that signing a piece of paper is "doing something." In this case, it simply isn't.

That's a strange thing for an aspiring lawyer to say. Of course, it's not the piece of paper that counts, but them doing what they undertake to do in that piece of paper. To date, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the 150 countries that have signed the treaty are not complying with it. The Treaty represents a global approach to a global problem. It deals relatively comprehensively with concrete proposals to stop this problem. What is the US's alternative? A half-baked, vague policy, that it seems to redefine with each new Administration and that it doesn't even comply with.

Your denial of the facts regarding the Gulf War is an illustration of how little you really do know. You just can't extrapolate the kinds of arguments you want to make from your limited experience in the US Army. It's like the guy who cleans the floor of Wal-Mart claiming inside knowledge of their currency hedging policies! Here's a a Google page full of articles referring to the US's use of mines in the First Gulf War.

You don't like my previous source, then how about USA Today?

"The Pentagon is preparing to use anti-personnel land mines in a war with Iraq, despite U.S. policy that calls for the military to stop using the mines everywhere in the world except Korea by 2003.

To prepare for a possible war with Baghdad, the Pentagon has stockpiled land mines at U.S. bases in countries ringing Iraq, according to Pentagon records. The decision to make the mines available comes despite a recent report by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, concluding that their use in the 1991 Gulf War impeded U.S. forces while doing nothing to impair Iraqi forces."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Your denial of the facts regarding the Gulf War is an illustration of how little you really do know. You just can't extrapolate the kinds of arguments you want to make from your limited experience in the US Army. It's like the guy who cleans the floor of Wal-Mart claiming inside knowledge of their currency hedging policies! Here's a a Google page full of articles referring to the US's use of mines in the First Gulf War.

A long list of assertions is not proof.

And please. You have no military experience whatsoever. I dare say nor do any of the partisans who wrote those articles you rely on. So don't pull rank on me. It's true that I wasn't in the first Gulf War. But I was an infantryman trained identically to the soldiers who were, and I trained alongside them when they came back. Not one ever mentioned using antipersonnel mines with the possible exception of the claymore, which I have explained above isn't the kind of mine we are talking about. I don't care how many pressure groups you can link to that assert otherwise. I strongly doubt they were used, and until you can produce statements from a US DOD source or other trustworthy source describing the use of antipersonnel mines in the First Gulf War, in Iraq, or Kuwait, during the attack, I regard this as closed.

OK, I am done with this. I don't care what your opinion is. You haven't dealt with a single substantive issue I have raised. All you have done is try to blame the US for all the ills of the world. Well, here is how it is. The US will not be signing the Ottawa treaty. It's dead. Get over it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So don't pull rank on me. It's true that I wasn't in the first Gulf War. But I was an infantryman trained identically to the soldiers who were, and I trained alongside them when they came back.

I'm pulling rank on YOU? Oh, that's funny. Anyway, I still think you're the Wal-Mart floor cleaner claiming knowledge of hedging policies. Infantrymen don't generally have insight into decisions as to what arms the US military as a whole might use!

Do I really need to go and find you the GAO report just to prove that they used mines in Gulf War I?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I'm pulling rank on YOU? Oh, that's funny. Anyway, I still think you're the Wal-Mart floor cleaner claiming knowledge of hedging policies. Infantrymen don't generally have insight into decisions as to what arms the US military as a whole might use!

Do I really need to go and find you the GAO report just to prove that they used mines in Gulf War I?

Yes, if it will back up your assertion that US mines from 1991 are still killing Iraqis.

At most, the GAO could be talking about mines around airfields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. It's possible that the Air Force used them for that since the Air Force would be defending their fixed installations. But the Army and Marine thrust into Kuwait and Iraq would not have been defending fixed installations, and thus would not have used antipersonnel mines like the M-16. The mines in Iraq were Iraqi.

Oh, and your "floor cleaning" comment is simply insulting. Nice, very nice.

In any case, this is just getting sucked into your anti-American attacks, which are becoming more and more obnoxious. Now you are opposed to the first Gulf War as well as the second?

Now, if you would like to rehabilitate the discussion, please address the substantive point I have raised about the treaty. Why does it exempt European land mines that have antipersonnel mines connected to them by calling them antitampering devices? How would the treaty prevent indiginous production of mines? How would the treaty prevent improvised mines? How would the treaty prevent improper and illegal use of mines by guerillas and rogue regimes? How many legacy mines does this treaty remove from the ground?

Your turn. Defend it if you can.

P.S. Have you even read it? You haven't shows so far that you have. I confess I haven't since 2000 when it became clear that it would never be ratified by the US.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Thank you for your post.

Just one point, I'd take issue with the above. Weapons put to a good purpose are good. To take an extreme example, the tanks that liberated Auschwitz were good. On the other hand, the simple and otherwise innocuous bricks of the gas chambers and crematoria were bad.

I don't think that objects have inherent moral character. It's all a matter of how and why the object is used.

You make an interesting distinction.....
However, I don't think a land mine's INTENDED purpose is to accomplish good: its to cause indiscriminate destruction. One of course HOPES the enemy will step on it, but any unsuspecting person could...therefore indiscriminate. The tanks that liberated Auschwitz were driven by thinking people who could decide whether to run over a tree stump or a child...Therefore discriminate.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A long list of assertions is not proof.

And please. You have no military experience whatsoever. I dare say nor do any of the partisans who wrote those articles you rely on. So don't pull rank on me. It's true that I wasn't in the first Gulf War. But I was an infantryman trained identically to the soldiers who were, and I trained alongside them when they came back. Not one ever mentioned using antipersonnel mines with the possible exception of the claymore, which I have explained above isn't the kind of mine we are talking about. I don't care how many pressure groups you can link to that assert otherwise. I strongly doubt they were used, and until you can produce statements from a US DOD source or other trustworthy source describing the use of antipersonnel mines in the First Gulf War, in Iraq, or Kuwait, during the attack, I regard this as closed.

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-1003

U.S. land mines of all types—nonself-destructing and self-destructing, antipersonnel and antitank—were available for use if needed in the Gulf War from U.S. land mine stockpiles, which contained about 19 million land mines. U.S. forces sent to the Gulf War theater of operations took with them for potential use over 2.2 million land mines. U.S. war plans included plans for the use of land mines if required by the tactical situation. According to DOD documents, no nonself-destructing, or “dumb,” land mines were used; and the reported number of selfdestructing, or “smart,” land mines used by the services totaled approximately 118,000. DOD did not provide us information on the effect of U.S. land mine use against the enemy.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...Now you are opposed to the first Gulf War as well as the second?

Heh. Maybe he's just opposed 'to war', period?

What a thought!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, if it will back up your assertion that US mines from 1991 are still killing Iraqis.

At most, the GAO could be talking about mines around airfields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. It's possible that the Air Force used them for that since the Air Force would be defending their fixed installations. But the Army and Marine thrust into Kuwait and Iraq would not have been defending fixed installations, and thus would not have used antipersonnel mines like the M-16. The mines in Iraq were Iraqi.

Well, that's quite a departure from your categorical statement that no mines were used in the First Gulf War. Your point appears now at least partially to be conceded so I'll just live with that.

I didn't mean to be insulting but you really do take your limited experience a little too far and then rub our noses in it. That is also insulting. Your training doesn't qualify you to call experts in their field and respected newspapers liars anymore than the fact that I once answered phones at Microsoft qualifies me to deny monopolistic activity on their behalf.

The US has a dwindling programme for de-mining. The fact that it exists is laudable. The fact that fewer and fewer funds are dedicated to it is not. But what is worrying to me is that the US is doing nothing to remove mines from its arsenal. Instead, it is legitimising the use of this indiscriminate and ineffective weapon.

I don't think the Land Mine Treaty is THE answer. No Treaty is worth anymore than the honour of the countries that sign it. I agree that it has problems but the people that have signed it are at least taking steps to remove landmines from their arsenals. Some of the countries have already destroyed all of their stockpiles of landmines. There is a coherent policy that addresses many of the issues. That is a step in the right direction though it is not a packaged solution.

The US is going backwards. Bush is reviewing a policy not to use landmines and making statements that suggest a departure from the policy to date is on the cards, he's decreasing funding for de-mining and mine awareness programmes at the same time as he is creating new programmes for the development of mines - those are steps in the WRONG direction. And to excuse that by saying that the amount of money you spend on de-mining is still higher than any other country (which is in itself misleading) doesn't change the fact that the trend in the US is something we should be critical of.

P.S. Has Bush signed any treaties since he came to power?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Adjusting your emphasis:

U.S. land mines of all types—nonself-destructing and self-destructing, antipersonnel and antitank—were available for use if needed in the Gulf War from U.S. land mine stockpiles, which contained about 19 million land mines. U.S. forces sent to the Gulf War theater of operations took with them for potential use over 2.2 million land mines. U.S. war plans included plans for the use of land mines if required by the tactical situation. According to DOD documents, no nonself-destructing, or “dumb,” land mines were used; and the reported number of selfdestructing, or “smart,” land mines used by the services totaled approximately 118,000. DOD did not provide us information on the effect of U.S. land mine use against the enemy.

OK, something for everyone. All of the mines used were self-destructing (see page 12 of 74). None of them were dumb mines. Therefore, the assertion that US mines from 1991 are killing Iraqis today is wrong.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Therefore, the assertion that US mines from 1991 are killing Iraqis today is wrong.

And your assertion that no mines where used is wrong.