So what's the deal with landmines?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.

So what would happen if someone goes deep inside this mine field, then steps on one and lies there screaming with a torn leg? Should we just leave him there forever, or maybe you would volunteer to get in and bring him out (to provide emergency services and then deportation, of course)?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[millertime24 8]

Quote

Quote

Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.

So what would happen if someone goes deep inside this mine field, then steps on one and lies there screaming with a torn leg? Should we just leave him there forever, or maybe you would volunteer to get in and bring him out (to provide emergency services and then deportation, of course)?

Nope. It was their dumbass fault for going in. They can find their way back out. Of course that is why you would post signs saying that you're about to enter a mine field.

Muff #5048

[riddler 0]

Quote

(meaning you place the mines then put the "safe zone" border 10 miles away)

Are you saying we need to relocate everyone that lives within ten miles of the Mexico border? I think the cost of that would outweigh any savings.

Or were you saying move everyone 10 miles over in the Mexico side? I think the government of Mexico might have an issue with that.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Nope. It was their dumbass fault for going in. They can find their way back out. Of course that is why you would post signs saying that you're about to enter a mine field.

Wouldn't you at least want to check to make sure that it's not a pregnant woman? Otherwise you'd be an accessory to murdering an innocent human being.

[riddler 0]

Quote

If you were a U.S. soldier standing guard over the North Korean DMZ border, would you not want land mines out there in front of you to reduce an incoming invasion force before it got to you?

I'm glad you feel the need to shelter the South Koreans - I wonder how you would feel about them all immigrating to the U.S.? My guess is the South Koreans are more worried about immigration than invasion, and they think, as a few here do, that landmines are a good solution to that problem.

Anyway, I'm not an expert, but if there were to be a full-scale ground invasion of South Korea by the North, it seems our intelligence (poor as it is sometimes) would probably detect the massive troop build-up along the border (satellite photos are good enough to see that). There would be enough time to redeploy South Korean and U.S. forces to the area, and as the first Gulf War showed, air assault on ground forces does more damage than randomly scattered land-mines.

I've been reading more about them, and this article claims the U.S. resistance was originally more about the proposed ban on anti-tank as well as anti-personnel devices.

The fallout of the mines at the Korean border:

Quote

According to the South Korean Defense Ministry, at least 38 South Koreans, the majority of them soldiers, have died and 40 have been injured because of landmines placed along the DMZ. In addition, the Korean Campaign to Ban Landmines (KCBL) has reported that at least 1,000 civilians have been killed or injured by landmines that washed out of the DMZ during seasonal flooding. The effects of flooding on mines have become so severe that the South Korean Air Force initiated a program in 1999 to remove 2,700 landmines from four defense bases outside of Seoul. The project is anticipated to take 4 years.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[d16842 0]

Quote

Anyway, I'm not an expert, but if there were to be a full-scale ground invasion of South Korea by the North, it seems our intelligence (poor as it is sometimes) would probably detect the massive troop build-up along the border (satellite photos are good enough to see that). There would be enough time to redeploy South Korean and U.S. forces to the area, and as the first Gulf War showed, air assault on ground forces does more damage than randomly scattered land-mines.

First, do you realize how many times the North Koreans have massed troops on the border? Which time should be have bombed the hell out of them? How many times would we push forces there to stand ready.

It is handy to use the Desert Storm example, but it took many months to get those forces there, both times, and Sadam just sat on is butt and waited. What if the North Koreans don't?

Despite your info sources, mines remain a key way to defend an area. And since we don't plan to invade North Korea or Cuba (you guys forgot Gitmo) there should be little reason for us to be wandering across either's minefield.

And the DMZ is NOT a few randomly scattered mines. They are arrayed miles deep in places, across the whole DMZ. You can't stop the bad guys from clearly a few small lanes across, but you can make it exciting when they use them, with our air and artillery assets.

Mines reduce the actual battle front significantly, and work to a smaller defending forces great advantage. But Korea and Gitmo are the only to places we have this situation.

Our combined forces already in Korea are by no means large enough to stop an invasion by the North, unless we are willing to use Nukes. Our guys that used to be on the DMZ consided themselves as no more than a speed bump on the North's drive to take Seoul, especially now that we have dumped our chemical munitions, the prime tools for area denial.

I have been in the Korean DMZ, and I have worked clearing impact areas and bombing ranges of unexploded which is more difficult than minefields in the sense that ordnance there can be at much greater depths. But I don't deny it would be very difficult to clear the DMZ.

As bad as the Korean loss of life was and remains, it is a cheap price if they prevented an invasion by the North, even if it was turned back as you state.

Tom B

[Ron 7]

Quote

Wouldn't you at least want to check to make sure that it's not a pregnant woman? Otherwise you'd be an accessory to murdering an innocent human being.

I take it you are anti-Abortion then?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[riddler 0]

Quote

First, do you realize how many times the North Koreans have massed troops on the border?

No, I don't. Can you tell me?

Quote

And since we don't plan to invade North Korea or Cuba (you guys forgot Gitmo) there should be little reason for us to be wandering across either's minefield.

Nice theory, but that doesn't explain the real and actual casualties from Korean landmines, both from troops and civilians at the border AND landmine washout to civilian areas.

Quote

Our combined forces already in Korea are by no means large enough to stop an invasion by the North, unless we are willing to use Nukes.

And landmines completely make up the difference? I doubt that. If that were the case, we could eliminate nukes and just use landmines everywhere.

Quote

As bad as the Korean loss of life was and remains, it is a cheap price if they prevented an invasion by the North, even if it was turned back as you state.

It's also an expensive price, in terms of civilians and children injured, just to placate fear-driven politics.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[ChangoLanzao 0]

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

According to the South Korean Defense Ministry, at least 38 South Koreans, the majority of them soldiers, have died and 40 have been injured because of landmines placed along the DMZ. In addition, the Korean Campaign to Ban Landmines (KCBL) has reported that at least 1,000 civilians have been killed or injured by landmines that washed out of the DMZ during seasonal flooding. The effects of flooding on mines have become so severe that the South Korean Air Force initiated a program in 1999 to remove 2,700 landmines from four defense bases outside of Seoul. The project is anticipated to take 4 years.

It's always problematic when an advocacy groups "killed or injured" together in way to make the killed number seem higher. What's the ratio? And how many South Koreans would be killed in the first 6 hours of a NK invasion?

There's a much greater defense for mining there than there would along the Southern border of the US. Their intent is to slow any attack long enough to be able to respond, and with that, deter it from happening in the first place.

[d16842 0]

Quote

Do you realize how many times the North Koreans have massed troops on the border?
No, I don't. Can you tell me?

The North Koreans, like us, have war exercises. Assuming 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?

But an even bigger problem with your plan is that even when they are not running exercises, they keep 75% of their 1.2 million man military right on the DMZ. They don't have to move forces to attack, and I am told that military experts believe they can launch an attack four hours from Kim Jong-il's order. Given that they have practiced exactly that for fifty years, I would not be surprised. Nothing about your plan will work. Nothing.

Quote

As bad as the Korean loss of life was and remains, it is a cheap price if they prevented an invasion by the North, even if it was turned back as you state.
It's also an expensive price, in terms of civilians and children injured, just to placate fear-driven politics.

Just to placate fear-driven politics? Do you understand just how great a danger North Korea is? By every measure I know of, Kim Jong-il is dangerously insane. He rules North Korea with an absolute iron fist. Their entire government simply doesn't give a damn about humanity. To keep their 1.2 million man army at full readiness, they let millions of people starve to death in the last decade. 75% of their army is always at the DMZ, so there is virtually no warning if they decide to attack.

The US has never endured had an attack of that scale, in any war. The closest modern comparison is when China attacked us in Korea with 300,000, and they pushed us back nearly two hundred miles. And that was during a war, when we had forces fully in the field, completely ready for battle. Your belief that we could turn it back with Desert Storm like bombing is a joke.

Without the land mines, they can attack with a one million man force spread out across the entire 155 mile DMZ. It seems very likely that they could be in Seoul in a day, far sooner than we could move assets there. If you want to assess how seriously the South Koreans take that threat, every bridge across the Han River, which runs through Seoul is equipped to be quickly and easily blown.

With the mine field, they must slow to clear lanes through it. This bunches up their forces in small areas, making them far easier to attack with our air and artillery assets. The mine field greatly reduces the battle front. It also gives us much more time to use air power on them.

You are right that the mines kill many people there. But if they reduced the chance of war there even just 1%, it is one of the best deals a military force has ever made. By far. Read up on how the North Koreans behaved the last time they crossed into South Korea. They made Hitler look like a pansy.

Tom B

[antonija 0]

Quote

By every measure I know of, Kim Jong-il is dangerously insane.

Yeah? When'd ya meet him? Or examine him? Because as far as I know GW Bush was dangerously insane...

Quote

Without the land mines, they can attack with a one million man force spread out across the entire 155 mile DMZ.

WTF do you think this is? WW1? When was the last time you have seen 150 mile long battle front since WW1?

Quote

If you want to assess how seriously the South Koreans take that threat, every bridge across the Han River, which runs through Seoul is equipped to be quickly and easily blown.

So what you're saying is that NK have the ability to amass millions of troops (virtually undetected or detected far too late to stop them) and at the same time does not have ability to move them south unless existing bridges stay intact? I'm pretty sure the dangerously insane man Kim knows about the explosives and has enough brain power in his country to plan around this obstacle...

Quote

With the mine field, they must slow to clear lanes through it. This bunches up their forces in small areas, making them far easier to attack with our air and artillery assets. The mine field greatly reduces the battle front. It also gives us much more time to use air power on them.

Worked like a charm in Vietnam, innit?

Quote

You are right that the mines kill many people there. But if they reduced the chance of war there even just 1%, it is one of the best deals a military force has ever made.

Just try to google up number of civilian deaths from landmines in areas where there is no war for a long time. Now try to imagine this is not in some shitty 3rd world country where Americans were stationed to "defend freedom and democracy" but in your own backyard. And your kid/friend/spouse steps on one and is blown to smithereens (if you're lucky, most likely they'll be screaming on the ground with legs missing and millertime24 shouting at them: "It was your dumbass fault for going in! Now find your way back out or die! Didn't you see the sign??!?".

Does that make it worth it?

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

[FallingOsh 0]

I 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.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[jclalor 12]

[

Quote

reply]

Quote

My theory is that one can still use landmines as a deterrant to keep people from going where you dont want them to. Well, that and they are, quite possible, the cheapest most low maintenance form of perimeter protection. Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.

Made my day!

While I oppose illegal imigration and am all in favor of a fence, the thought of land mines on the border is apalling. I am sure Jesus would be in favor of blowing up poor women and children.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Secondly are cluster bombs not a form of landmine?

Some cluster bombs can be filled with landmines but the general cluster bomb you're probably thinking of is not a form of landmine.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

[

Quote

reply]

Quote

My theory is that one can still use landmines as a deterrant to keep people from going where you dont want them to. Well, that and they are, quite possible, the cheapest most low maintenance form of perimeter protection. Why we dont use them on our own border with mexico and canada escapes me.

Made my day!

While I oppose illegal imigration and am all in favor of a fence, the thought of land mines on the border is apalling. I am sure Jesus would be in favor of blowing up poor women and children.

See my post #16.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I am sure Jesus would be in favor of blowing up poor women and children

Hm. An interesting solution to "WWJD", but we give you props for the effort.

[jclalor 12]

my apologies

[Deyan 31]

Quote

Quote

The damage that land mines do AFTER any conflict far outweigh the usefulness of them DURING the conflict.

That's easy to say from your perspective, sitting in your comfy chair in front of a computer in Florida. It's not so easy to say if you're a soldier patrolling the Korean DMZ, under threat of invasion at nearly any time.

It's so easy for you because you don't have to deal with them,right?

http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/posters/worldmapper_map290_ver5.pdf

Just something to think about.

And don't forget that the US soldiers are volunteers.They get money for the risk.

"My belief is that once the doctor whacks you on the butt, all guarantees are off" Jerry Baumchen

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....

It's not the U.S. that is leaving land mines laying around to kill others.

"As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to the treaty*. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States."

Source: Wikipedia/Land Mine

*Ottawa Treaty

Pharisaism comes to mind.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And don't forget that the US soldiers are volunteers.They get money for the risk.

Do you have any clue how much they are paid?

Mercenaries they are not.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

WTF do you think this is? WW1? When was the last time you have seen 150 mile long battle front since WW1?

uh, the Korean War certainly comes to mind. Iraq more recently.

Quote

Worked like a charm in Vietnam, innit?

Pretty obvious differences between the two Koreas and the two Vietnams during the war. South Vietnam was a colony that mostly didn't want to be one. South Koreans may dream of a reunification, but not one on NK's terms.

[d16842 0]

Quote

WTF do you think this is? WW1? When was the last time you have seen 150 mile long battle front since WW1?

Gee, the last time with the kind of density and intensity we are talking about would have been... right there on the Korean peninsula. And who was it.... Oh yes, the current nut case's father. And when was the last time we faced an army like North Korea's, with that many men always at the ready, on a battle line? That would have been WWI. Exactly. Your attempt to slam me just described the situation.

The wider they make the battle line, the less effective our air and artillery assets will be at stopping them. They have our ass totally overwhelmed by manpower. They want it wide, we want it narrow. That is the whole point of the mines. To narrow it.

Quote

So what you're saying is that NK have the ability to amass millions of troops (virtually undetected or detected far too late to stop them)

I really need some of the drugs you are on. THEY ARE NOT UNDETECTED. THEY ARE THERE, AMASSED, ALL THE FUCKING TIME! There is no warning possible since they stay there. Your plan is a pipe dream. They can attack within hours whenever they want, and we had little to stop them. But the mine field reduces the battle front to lanes that MIGHT be defended.

Quote

and at the same time does not have ability to move them south unless existing bridges stay intact? I'm pretty sure the dangerously insane man Kim knows about the explosives and has enough brain power in his country to plan around this obstacle...

I am sure he does know about them. But assuming they do blow them, crossing a river under fire... well it is a much bigger obstacle really than the mine field. It would be a great natural barrier, except half of Seoul, millions of people are north of the river. The bad guys win big just taking that.

Quote

(Minefield) Worked like a charm in Vietnam, innit?

There was never a solid battle line in Vietnam. There were few even brigade size engagements, an nothing even remotely comparable to what is across the DMZ in Korea. It literally is unique in the world. Vietnam was largely an insurgency war, and landmine's are not all that helpful in one. Except for the insurgents.

Quote

Just try to google up number of civilian deaths from landmines in areas where there is no war for a long time.

In case you haven't heard, North and South Korea are STILL at war. They had a shoot out last week.

Quote

Now try to imagine this is not in some shitty 3rd world country where Americans were stationed to "defend freedom and democracy" but in your own backyard.

Again, you show your complete and total ignorance. South Korea is FAR from a third world country. They have better infrastructure, roads, and mass transit than we do for example. They hosted the Olympics. They build ships, cars, electronics, oil derricks, etc. It is cleaner and safer than the US. And it is not a place where Americans WERE stationed, but one where they ARE stationed. I don't want our troops to be a speed bump.

Quote

And your kid/friend/spouse steps on one and is blown to smithereens (if you're lucky, most likely they'll be screaming on the ground with legs missing and millertime24 shouting at them: "It was your dumbass fault for going in! Now find your way back out or die! Didn't you see the sign??!?".
Does that make it worth it?

I don't have to imagine what happens when people are blown up. I have seen it. It is terrible. But read a little bit about North Korea before you post again, compare him to Bush for example. You you might see that the very real concern you have pales against what North Korea is capable of doing. It pales against what happens every single day in North Korea. I can't think of a single place in the world more evil, through and through.

Tom B

[christelsabine 1]

From your *name* I think you're a woman, a quite warlike one, right?

When have you been in South Korea last time? I lived there for more than 4 years. And you? When did you come back from NK?

Sickos, wherever I look.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[d16842 0]

Quote

From your *name* I think you're a woman, a quite warlike one, right?

When have you been in South Korea last time? I lived there for more than 4 years. And you? When did you come back from NK?

If you go back, and ever get the chance to jump at the Special Warfare Center's Commander's cup, it is a great experience.

Tom B