Deyan 31
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Meaning what, that they are expendable?
Every soldier who get money for his service( don't forget that they are countries where you have to join the army even if you don't want) is more expendable than any civilian who die as a "collateral damage".Can you tell me how many soldiers lost their lives because of not using landmines to protect themselves ?And I will tell you the statistic for the civilians.About 3000 every year.Mostly in the third world countries,and 0 in USA. How many people have to die,so 1 soldier can stay alive???One,two....ten?!Or doesn't matter,as long as they are from the third world countries.
Ofcourse you are for the landmines.There's no any single landmine that your son or daughter can step on the next time they are walking the dog in the forest.
Just think about that.
The world is not only USA and everybody else.
There's a lot of claims in here that don't stand up well.
The US is not responsible for all the world's landmines, and that (unsubstantiated) 3000 deaths per year.
And those landmines don't just protect the soldiers. They protect the millions of civilians right near the DMZ. Surely you don't believe that an invasion by the North Koreans would only result in the death of "expendable" soldiers.
riddler 0
QuoteAssuming one per year, they have done it more than fifty times. How many times should we have followed your suggestion, and when we saw them moving more troops to the DMZ, bombed the shit out of them? Do you see the problem with your plan?
Assuming zero per year, then they've never amassed troops along the border. The short answer, is you don't know the answer to your own question.
QuoteDo you understand just how great a danger North Korea is?
No - do you? Oh, wait, we've already been down that road ...
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
riddler 0
QuoteI don't understand what your issue is here. Are you discussing why landmines should be banned by every country or are you specifically tageting the US? You said in the OP that the US generally abides by the treaty. The "dangerously insane" President mentioned in the ill-informed last post reformulated our landmine policy during his first term. Many of the arguments already mentioned in this thread were adressed in the official policy statement. Eliminating all persistent landmines, seeking a worldwine ban on sales, get rid of non-detectable mines, research non-persistent mines, etc. It even increased the funding for the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program. Just because we won't sign the treaty doesn't mean we're out scattering mines in neighborhoods.
It wasn't an issue - it was a question. If the U.S., by default, already tries to eliminate it's use of landmines, then why don't they sign the treaty?
If we don't want to scatter mines in neighborhoods, then why do we want to reserve the right to use them? Is it because we want to be able to scatter them in neighborhoods if we feel that it's necessary?
So far, I haven't heard an answer, other than for use in Korea, and I don't subscribe to that ideal. Other than Korea, is there a viable reason for us to continue to use landmines?
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
Quote
If we don't want to scatter mines in neighborhoods, then why do we want to reserve the right to use them? Is it because we want to be able to scatter them in neighborhoods if we feel that it's necessary?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not really that close minded. Could it possibly be, and stay with me here, that mines might need to be used outside of neighborhoods? Say, in a battlefield or as a perimeter.
QuoteSo far, I haven't heard an answer, other than for use in Korea, and I don't subscribe to that ideal. Other than Korea, is there a viable reason for us to continue to use landmines?
Right now, no. That's why we don't use landmines (outside of Korea or Gitmo). In fact, Korea is specifically mentioned in the 2004 change of landmine policy. The Korea situation is unique and mines need (whether some agree or not) to be there. The 2004 policy was specifically designed to eliminate persistent mines and develop non-persistent ones for the future. Who knows what future conflicts will arise? Korea is a current need. We don't use them other places. "Safer" mines could be used in the future.
If we generally follow the treaty, don't use them outside of Korea or Gitmo, are destroying undetectable and persistent mines, and developing new non-persistent ones then why do you have an issue with us not signing the treaty?
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
riddler 0
QuoteWho knows what future conflicts will arise?
According to this logic, we should also reserve the right to use chemical weapons, correct? Who knows when we might need them?
Of course, we have subscribed to several Chemical Weapons Conventions, the most recent being 1997. Turns out, we don't really use them in modern warfare and they typically do more harm than good in peacetime.
Sounds a lot like landmines.
Or are you suggesting we break our chemical weapons accord because we might need them one day?
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
Andy9o8 0
QuoteRight now, no. That's why we don't use landmines (outside of Korea or Gitmo). In fact, Korea is specifically mentioned in the 2004 change of landmine policy. The Korea situation is unique and mines need (whether some agree or not) to be there. The 2004 policy was specifically designed to eliminate persistent mines and develop non-persistent ones for the future. Who knows what future conflicts will arise? Korea is a current need. We don't use them other places. "Safer" mines could be used in the future.
If we generally follow the treaty, don't use them outside of Korea or Gitmo, are destroying undetectable and persistent mines, and developing new non-persistent ones then why do you have an issue with us not signing the treaty?
From a (military, not political) tactical standpoint, there is some (although not total) sense to this argument. But it comes at a cost: the US sets itself up as hypocrite when it reserves to itself the right to deny a form of disarmament called-for by other nations, while out of the other side of its mouth insisting that other nations engage in, for example, nuclear disarmament (while still keeping its own nuclear weapons). No, I'm not advocating unilateral US disarmement (far from it); but the double standard is what it is.
QuoteQuoteRight now, no. That's why we don't use landmines (outside of Korea or Gitmo). In fact, Korea is specifically mentioned in the 2004 change of landmine policy. The Korea situation is unique and mines need (whether some agree or not) to be there. The 2004 policy was specifically designed to eliminate persistent mines and develop non-persistent ones for the future. Who knows what future conflicts will arise? Korea is a current need. We don't use them other places. "Safer" mines could be used in the future.
If we generally follow the treaty, don't use them outside of Korea or Gitmo, are destroying undetectable and persistent mines, and developing new non-persistent ones then why do you have an issue with us not signing the treaty?
From a (military, not political) tactical standpoint, there is some (although not total) sense to this argument. But it comes at a cost: the US sets itself up as hypocrite when it reserves to itself the right to deny a form of disarmament called-for by other nations, while out of the other side of its mouth insisting that other nations engage in, for example, nuclear disarmament (while still keeping its own nuclear weapons). No, I'm not advocating unilateral US disarmement (far from it); but the double standard is what it is.
Nuclear disarmament is an entirely different discussion. Our landmine technology is moving towards 'safer', detectable, non-persistent weapons. Nuclear weapon technology is going the other direction.
I understand that wasn't really the point of what you were saying. The possibility for a hypocricy call is what you were getting at. I think not signing the treaty is what prevents that. The destruction of our own persistent mines, refusal to sell, and development of new technology for mines used in the future back up our foreign policy. We want to eliminate persistent, non-detectable mines and outlaw the sale of mines worldwide. It's in line with our own domestic policy.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
QuoteQuote***Who knows what future conflicts will arise?
According to this logic, we should also reserve the right to use chemical weapons, correct? Who knows when we might need them?
That's not logic at all. That's your inability to stay on the topic of mines. If you'd like to start a conversation on chemical weapons then we can. If you'd like to have a discussion on the topic you started then we should stick to it.QuoteOf course, we have subscribed to several Chemical Weapons Conventions, the most recent being 1997. Turns out, we don't really use them in modern warfare and they typically do more harm than good in peacetime.
Different weapon, different treaty, different discussion.QuoteSounds a lot like landmines.
If you think a chemical weapon sounds like a landmine then an entirely new thread on weapons should be started.QuoteOr are you suggesting we break our chemical weapons accord because we might need them one day?
Try to stay on point if you'd like to have a serious discussion. If you're only interested in twisting words around in a (poor) attempt to make a trap, the conversation is over.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
d16842 0
QuoteQuote
Meaning what, that they are expendable?
Every soldier who get money for his service( don't forget that they are countries where you have to join the army even if you don't want) is more expendable than any civilian who die as a "collateral damage".Can you tell me how many soldiers lost their lives because of not using landmines to protect themselves ?And I will tell you the statistic for the civilians.About 3000 every year.Mostly in the third world countries,and 0 in USA. How many people have to die,so 1 soldier can stay alive???One,two....ten?!Or doesn't matter,as long as they are from the third world countries.
Ofcourse you are for the landmines.There's no any single landmine that your son or daughter can step on the next time they are walking the dog in the forest.
Just think about that.
My son? My son is on active duty and may damn well be saved by land mines on the DMZ, and yes he could be harmed by them to. As a former EOD specialist, I have thought more about land mines than you might otherwise guess. My immediate family, i.e. me, my wife, and my son have nearly 40 years of military service, and growing.
I don't think our soldiers are one bit more expendable than those who don't serve. They are trained, and we need them and must used them, but that hardly makes them more expendable. Neither are our police officers. Any of them. In fact there are plenty of REMF's I would love to send in their place, were it not for the fact they would get good soldiers killed.
Tom B
Ron 7
QuoteSo far, I haven't heard an answer, other than for use in Korea, and I don't subscribe to that ideal.
We have given plenty of answers... you discounted them since you don't agree with them. But your agreement is not needed.
1. Landmines do serve a valid military function. The military and this administration agrees. Several other country's also agree and have also not signed the treaty.
2. They are being used as a political device. Why would the US sign the treaty while China still has landmines?
QuoteOther than Korea, is there a viable reason for us to continue to use landmines?
And this has been answered. Currently, no and that is why we don't use them. But that does not make them any less valuable in specific situations.
You may not like them... I don't think anyone LIKES them.... But your distaste for them does not make them any less effective or any less valuable.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
billvon 2,476
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.
Probably because we'd kill more US citizens than border jumpers.
Probably because we'd kill more US citizens than border jumpers.
wolfriverjoe 1,371
Quote>Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.
Probably because we'd kill more US citizens than border jumpers.
Or because the threat posed by illegal border crossers (including the druggies) doesn't justify the level of force the mines represent.
Deadly force isn't a valid response to anything but deadly force.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
riddler 0
QuoteDifferent weapon, different treaty, different discussion.
I'll connect the dots for you.
We don't use chemical weapons in warfare, and we are currently in the process of completely eliminating our stockpile. We've signed a treaty saying we won't use them, and other countries won't either.
We don't use landmines in modern warfare. So why are we against signing a treaty against them? If it was a good idea for chemical weapons that we don't use, why is it a bad idea for landmines that we don't use?
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
riddler 0
QuoteWe have given plenty of answers... you discounted them since you don't agree with them.
No you haven't. You've said they are necessary at the Korean border, but I already stated in my first post that I had heard that. No one said why they are necessary, other than speculation that they are cheap. I discount that because we already spend billions of dollars a year to not use them. Can you explain why landmines are superior to modern warfare techniques? Can you explain why they are cheaper if we don't use them, but spend billions of dollars on the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program?
QuoteBut that does not make them any less valuable in specific situations.
Sure, and I can say that chemical weapons are valuable in specific situations, without giving any real details. The question then begs - if we don't use landmines, and spend over a billion dollars a year to educate people about their dangers and remove them, why do we need them? Wouldn't it be cheaper to sign a treaty and not spend billions every year on something we don't actually use?
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
d16842 0
QuoteQuoteWe have given plenty of answers... you discounted them since you don't agree with them.
No you haven't. You've said they are necessary at the Korean border, but I already stated in my first post that I had heard that. No one said why they are necessary, other than speculation that they are cheap. I discount that because we already spend billions of dollars a year to not use them. Can you explain why landmines are superior to modern warfare techniques?
I can, and I DID. But to repeat, North Korea has a 1.2 million man army, about 75% of which is permanently positioned just north of the DMZ. They are commanded by a national leadership that let millions of its own people starve, literally, while they kept that army in place and built nukes.
Without that minefield, they can attack within hours of command with virtually no warning to us, on a 155 mile front. They might choose to attack on such a wide front because they have the numbers to do so, and because the relatively broad dispersal along the front greatly dissipates the power of our "modern warfare techniques".
With the minefield there, they have to clear lanes through it, which slows them down, and concentrates them, which makes our modern weapons, air and artillery far more powerful. Korea is unique in the world today. But that doesn't mean that some other idiot nation will not go there.
Tom B
Ron 7
QuoteNo you haven't. You've said they are necessary at the Korean border
Even in just the LAST POST I gave more than that reason.
QuoteNo one said why they are necessary, other than speculation that they are cheap.
Yes we have, they work.
QuoteCan you explain why landmines are superior to modern warfare techniques?
Sure, are you going to listen this time?
1. They cost next to nothing.
2. They are independent, we can lay them and then they will protect the area, or prevent intrusion without the need for human oversight. So we don't waste manpower patrolling an area.
3. They work well for the roll they have been designed to fill.
What "modern warfare technique" do you think is superior?
QuoteCan you explain why they are cheaper if we don't use them, but spend billions of dollars on the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program?
Sure, if we don't use them they cost next to nothing.
QuoteSure, and I can say that chemical weapons are valuable in specific situations, without giving any real details.
And we HAVE GIVEN YOU SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. You just ignore them, but here they are again:
1. GITMO, it prevents Cuba from getting close.
2. DMZ. It prevents excursions into S Korea. Also, you should be able to understand that even accidental excursions into anothers land has been a precursor to a war.
3. Any future situation where you need to be able to prevent, funnel, or just slow down an advancing element.
4. An early warning system to signal the approach WHILE slowing it down or stopping it without a firefight.
QuoteThe question then begs - if we don't use landmines, and spend over a billion dollars a year to educate people about their dangers and remove them, why do we need them?
Because they work. We have provided examples (some theoretical, some CURRENT REAL WORLD) and you just ignore them.
QuoteWouldn't it be cheaper to sign a treaty and not spend billions every year on something we don't actually use?
Cheaper? Maybe..... Militarily smart? Nope.
You just continue to ignore the examples that have been given.... Look, we get that you don't like them. We even get that you think they are not useful. And we even get that you think they cost too much.
But you don't seem to care about any differing opinions, so this is my last post on this topic to you.
We have them because:
1. They are cheap.
2. They work as designed.
3. They may be the BEST tool for specific jobs. (I am willing to hear what tools you think might be better)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Andy9o8 0
Quote>Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.
Probably because we'd kill more US citizens than border jumpers.
Collateral damage. Sacrifices must be made.
d16842 0
QuoteQuoteWho knows what future conflicts will arise?
According to this logic, we should also reserve the right to use chemical weapons, correct? Who knows when we might need them?
Of course, we have subscribed to several Chemical Weapons Conventions, the most recent being 1997. Turns out, we don't really use them in modern warfare and they typically do more harm than good in peacetime.
Do you understand what our policy is on weapons of mass destruction? It sure as hell is not that chemical weapons are not useful in modern warfare, as they most certainly are. The policy is that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction will be met with nukes.
Since I have personally done render safe proceedures on chemical weapons, I think I have a handle on the hazard they represent in peacetime. I am glad they are gone.
But take that minefield out of the DMZ, and nukes will be the only thing that will keep the North Koreans from taking Seoul, Inchon, and much of the nation. And even if we did use nukes, they have them too.
Now that you know the real stakes on that DMZ, a war we could not win, leading to the loss of tens of thousands of Americans, probably a million Koreans, and a good chance of expanding to thermonuclear war, perhaps those landmines may not seem so bad to you. And no, I am not just sitting here making this up. I have been in the DMZ.
Comparing that to the US planning to scatter land mines in third world neighborhoods and other similar bullshit is just stupid as is anyone who suggests it.
Tom B
riddler 0
QuoteAnd we HAVE GIVEN YOU SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
No, you gave me military theaters (Korea, Gitmo, et al), also with no real data about why they are necessary there (only speculation). I was asking for tactical information - like a military situation in which mines are preferable, to say, air strikes. Supporting data would be nice, of course, but not having it never stopped you before.
QuoteSure, if we don't use them they cost next to nothing.
Not true - as I already said, we spend 1.3 billion USD per year in the U.S. HUMANITARIAN MINE ACTION program. Signing a treaty seems a much cheaper option.
QuoteWhat "modern warfare technique" do you think is superior?
Retired Lt. General Robert G. Gard cites the following alternatives as viable:
1. Area denial bomblets
2. The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), a tracked vehicle that can fire a “ripple” of 12 M26 rockets. These cover an area of up to 200,000 sq. m to a range of 32km
3. The Extended Range MLRS, which has a range of 45km.
The above can be used in a war zone, as a direct result of conflict, rather than leaving silent killers in the ground for decades.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
nerdgirl 0
You do have a valid point to be considered w/r/t the US decision to abandon new chemical weapons and eliminate its arsenal. Both landmines and CW are indiscriminate weapons. The major difference is that CW are more unpredictable in behavior. There are *other* differences – latency, countermeasures, history, stronger norms, etc – but that is the major one from a strategic operational perspective (not necessarily foreign policy or other considerations that sometimes get lesser weight in this forum).
The US has chosen to retain the option of using landmines because landmines are judged to be of strategic and tactical value. Ron and Tom have tried to explain. There also considered to have greater value (versus CW) when weighed against the threat of other states possessing them or transferring them to non-state actors (terrorists). It’s a judgement call that weighs a lot of different factors including but not limited to the long term consequences.
Does that mean that whether that judgement is correct or incorrect cannot or should not be re-evaluated or discussed? Others may disagree, but I don’t think so.
My opinion, owned entirely as that, is that a number of factors are combining to make the utility and effectiveness of landmines versus other options less strategically and tactically desirable. There are technological solutions ("material solutions," in DoD-speak) and the predominant form of warfare is shifting toward asymmetric and increasingly urban. Situations in which landmines offer little advantage. We’re not there yet, however.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
The US has chosen to retain the option of using landmines because landmines are judged to be of strategic and tactical value. Ron and Tom have tried to explain. There also considered to have greater value (versus CW) when weighed against the threat of other states possessing them or transferring them to non-state actors (terrorists). It’s a judgement call that weighs a lot of different factors including but not limited to the long term consequences.
Does that mean that whether that judgement is correct or incorrect cannot or should not be re-evaluated or discussed? Others may disagree, but I don’t think so.
My opinion, owned entirely as that, is that a number of factors are combining to make the utility and effectiveness of landmines versus other options less strategically and tactically desirable. There are technological solutions ("material solutions," in DoD-speak) and the predominant form of warfare is shifting toward asymmetric and increasingly urban. Situations in which landmines offer little advantage. We’re not there yet, however.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
riddler 0
Quotea war we could not win
There are lots of wars the US could not win, but that doesn't justify keeping an old war-relic around. With our defense budget, which is eight time larger than China's, we can afford ordnance that results in less civilian casualties.
QuoteThe policy is that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction will be met with nukes.
The policy is that "if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of military response," according to a 2002 briefing by Richard Boucher. Nuclear weapons are one option, but we are not limited to only using that option.
QuoteComparing that to the US planning to scatter land mines in third world neighborhoods and other similar bullshit is just stupid as is anyone who suggests it.
I don't really remember who first suggested that - FallingOsh?
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
Every soldier who get money for his service( don't forget that they are countries where you have to join the army even if you don't want) is more expendable than any civilian who die as a "collateral damage".Can you tell me how many soldiers lost their lives because of not using landmines to protect themselves ?And I will tell you the statistic for the civilians.About 3000 every year.Mostly in the third world countries,and 0 in USA. How many people have to die,so 1 soldier can stay alive???One,two....ten?!Or doesn't matter,as long as they are from the third world countries.
Ofcourse you are for the landmines.There's no any single landmine that your son or daughter can step on the next time they are walking the dog in the forest.
Just think about that.
The world is not only USA and everybody else.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites