because long after a war is over, they can still be waiting to kill someone, most likely civilians. God American politics p*ss me off.Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(
GabuEx
This topic is locked from further discussion.
because long after a war is over, they can still be waiting to kill someone, most likely civilians. God American politics p*ss me off.Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(
GabuEx
The US utilizes smart mines - they destruct after a certain amount of time so they are not left active in a land for years.
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Yea start putting landmines infront of your house to prepare for the enemy invasion. Just hide them under the ground so the enemy can't see them. Then when the war is over just hope none of your kids step on them while they are playing in the backyard.Thank God we haven't turned into complete pansies yet.
SpartanNapoleon
If I put landmines infront of my house and my kids were playing in the backyard. Then how would they step on them?
Why is our country so arrogant in thinking we can just do whatever we please. This is why people hate us.TauruslinkBecause we can. We're an independent nation
[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Why is our country so arrogant in thinking we can just do whatever we please. This is why people hate us.DivergeUnifyBecause we can. We're an independent nation Yar, while I think US foreign policy is one of a jerk at times, so are many nations, and nobody is obliged to join that treaty. It is a choice, perhaps the other nations could setup an embargo to encourage joining, that would be their choice. Otherwise everyone just moves on.
I'm glad we don't join. Land mines are necessary to protect out troops at bases, point bases, etc. Keeps the bad guys from getting near. Yes, their evil, but at least we know how to use them and do what we can to avoid civilian casualties. And unlike many nations, we don't leave them lying around later.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(
heysharpshooter
They can be used properly, so that left overs won't blow up innocent people. We have the technology now to make them safer than ever. Most of the incedents involving landmines are with very old ones from earlier wars. I think the US should do more to make them safer, and offer to clean up their left overs, but an outright ban is too far IMO.
my thoughts exactly.
also, I forgot where i read it, but I remember reading something about how unexploded ordinance is far more harmful than leftover landmines. Its not 100% relevant, but there are better things to worry about and so long as landmines provide are an effective tool I dont think we should outright ban them.
I also dont think the US should be demonized simply for refusing to sign this.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Landmines are among the most evil weapons in the world, and this makes me sad. :(
heysharpshooter
They can be used properly, so that left overs won't blow up innocent people. We have the technology now to make them safer than ever. Most of the incedents involving landmines are with very old ones from earlier wars. I think the US should do more to make them safer, and offer to clean up their left overs, but an outright ban is too far IMO.
make landmines safer.....i think Ive finally heard everythingPeople's reactions to this are kind of confusing. I think people associate the term "land mine" with a passive device that detonates indiscriminately when operated by its victim. While the majority of mines in the world today are deployed in this fashion, mines currently fielded by the U.S. are mostly command detonated. The claymore being the most prominent example of this type of mine. Mines like claymores are deployed for the duration of an operation and then retrieved after words. While the U.S. does have an inventory of passive mine systems, they are not extensively utilized in current conflicts. Besides all this, the U.S. adheres to the Hague and Geneva conventions which prohibit excessive use of force as well as the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. ALL U.S. munitions are deployed with respect to those treaties.
As to the question, "How do you make a mine that only targets the enemy?" (which should really be "How do you make a passive mine system that only targets the enemy?)
There are a few ways to do it:
For vehicles, you can use acoustic sensors to identify sound signatures produced by enemy equipment like tanks or helicopters. you could also use cameras to identify specific vehicles.
For people, Command detonation is the best method, but, since mines are used to deny enemy access to a specific region anyway, informing the local populace and posting signs is a good start. Mines that deactivate after a certain criteria is met (an expiration time, for instance) are also helpful. In either case, mapping mines and recovering them after they have become operationally moot is something responsible nations have been doing for a while.
The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.People's reactions to this are kind of confusing. I think people associate the term "land mine" with a passive device that detonates indiscriminatelywhen operated by its victim. While the majority of mines in the world today are deployed in this fashion, mines currently fielded by the U.S. are mostly command detonated. The claymore being the most prominent example of this type of mine. Mines like claymores are deployed for the duration of an operation and then retrieved after words. While the U.S. does have an inventory of passive mine systems, they are not extensivelyutilized in current conflicts. Besides all this the U.S. adheres to the Hague and Geneva conventions which prohibit excessive use of force as well as the indiscriminatetargeting of civilians. ALL U.S. munitions are deployed with respect to those treaties.
As to the question, "How do you make a mine that only targets the enemy?" (which should really be "How do you make a passive mine system that only targets the enemy?)
There are a few ways to do it:
For vehicles, you can use acoustic sensors to identify sound signatures produced by enemy equipment like tanks or helicopters. you could also use cameras to identify specific vehicles.
For people, Command detonation is the best method, but, since mines are used to deny enemy access to a specific region anyway, informing the local populace and posting signs is a good start. Mines that deactivate after a certain criteria is met (an expiration time, for instance) are also helpful. In either case, mapping mines and recovering them after they have become operationally moot is something responsible nations have been doing for a while.
Frattracide
So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.
-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]If they are needed for our adventage yes. Welcome to war. It's not pretty.I hope you die in a mine explosion :).[QUOTE="metroidfood"]
So the banning of a pathetic excuse of a weapon that inflicts massive collateral damage on innocent bystanders years after actual conflicts end = turning into pansies?
Sure.
brandontwb
that is not very nice.
and considering the pace at which the US fights wars at, I severely doubt anyone has been killed by a US landmine that has been set upin the last 30 years.
out of curiosity, did Russia sign this treaty? Theyre the ones with the surplus muntions, selling them to African and Middle East warlords. Or was this NATO-only?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I see no reason to ban them. They are used in war. Rather the landmine stopped the enemy than a fight ensued. Less loss of life that way....SapSacPrimeYou mean less loss of American soldiers lives am I correct? no regard for the innocent people many of which are children that stumble across these weapons then? So tell me when the last time an innocent person died as a result of a US land mine. Tell me when the last time the US even deployed a land mine. We should really be arguing on facts instead of this emotional response from the assumption that the US military deploys land mines indiscriminately. They don't. They simply want the option left open in case they need it to protect their soldiers from conflicts that Nato sends them to. Nato deploys a heavily disproportionate number of US troops when they decide military action is neccessary. Of course, people living in countries who only send a handfull of troops in to Nato engagements as a token gesture aren't going to care if their countries have land mines at their disposals. They don't risk loosing a large number of troops and they get to look good in world opinion by signing this treaty. I, for one, am completely happy that the US is willing to allow our troops to protect their own lives when Nato asks for our help.
I hope you die in a mine explosion :).[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]If they are needed for our adventage yes. Welcome to war. It's not pretty.
mrbojangles25
that is not very nice.
and considering the pace at which the US fights wars at, I severely doubt anyone has been killed by a US landmine that has been set upin the last 30 years.
out of curiosity, did Russia sign this treaty? Theyre the ones with the surplus muntions, selling them to African and Middle East warlords. Or was this NATO-only?
No. Niether Russia or China are signing the treaty. It seems the US is held to a double standard.[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I see no reason to ban them. They are used in war. Rather the landmine stopped the enemy than a fight ensued. Less loss of life that way....psychobrewYou mean less loss of American soldiers lives am I correct? no regard for the innocent people many of which are children that stumble across these weapons then? So tell me when the last time an innocent person died as a result of a US land mine. Tell me when the last time the US even deployed a land mine. We should really be arguing on facts instead of this emotional response from the assumption that the US military deploys land mines indiscriminately. They don't. They simply want the option left open in case they need it to protect their soldiers from conflicts that Nato sends them to. Nato deploys a heavily disproportionate number of US troops when they decide military action is neccessary. Of course, people living in countries who only send a handfull of troops in to Nato engagements as a token gesture aren't going to care if their countries have land mines at their disposals. They don't risk loosing a large number of troops and they get to look good in world opinion by signing this treaty. I, for one, am completely happy that the US is willing to allow our troops to protect their own lives when Nato asks for our help.
exactly
the mass-banning of landmines is a non-practical gesture of goodwill that we will would later regret.
The US, being far away from the rest of the world, is fairly safe. But what if East Europe or Asia decided to invade, idunno...Germany, France, or any other nation. Theyre gonna be begging for landmines then.
Well of course we didn't join the landmine treaty, that would set us back in our plans to build a nuclear landmine equipped moonbase.
I am gonna say one last thing before I go. I will use the same argument I use concerning gun control; we need smarter regulations, not more.
Landmines are a useful weapon that can be safely used and planned out to present a minimal threat to civilians. The cure to the current ails is not to ban mines, but to regulate them more.
Just like with guns; do not ban them, simply make smarter rules and keep those responsible for their useon a tighter leash.
[QUOTE="Frattracide"]So the treaty is pretty much Moot then. Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.
-Sun_Tzu-
we also have a large stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should we get rid of those too?
*dear god I think that is the most conservative statement I have ever made. Sorry :oops: But I stick to it
Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. fidosimThere's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.
If I ever was a soldier, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be maimed or lose a nut or both in an explosion... or die for that matter. Landmines are necessary when it comes to war unfortunately. We gotta use whatever we have. And landmine accidents are not a problem here in the US but it sucks for the other countries that have to suffer from it.
[QUOTE="fidosim"]Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. -Sun_Tzu-There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty. Those would not be easy to remove.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. duxupThere's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty. Those would not be easy to remove.
I think a few thousand busloads of school children would clear them out
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="fidosim"]Meh, unexploded landmines are only really a problem in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and maybe a few in the Balkans, so it's not exactly an American problem. I understand that to many it is a matter of principle, but it's not like limiting ourselves is going to do anything to eliminate the problem. Plus, Americans have done quite a bit to clear landmines in war-torn parts of the world. duxupThere's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty. Those would not be easy to remove.
Not to mention if the US did try and remove them NK would probably spin it in a way that convinces their people that the US and SK are getting ready for a land invasion.
[QUOTE="Frattracide"]So the treaty is pretty much Moot then. Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines. As far as I'm aware, the only truly passive landmines the U.S. fields are currently in between North and South Korea. All other landmines in the U.S. inventory are either command detonated, incorporate a self destruct safety feature or are used for E.O.D training purposes only. Now, it would make sense not to sign a treaty that would require us to remove land mines from a demilitarized zone but this is irrelevant to my original point. Which was that the U.S. does not field mines irresponsibly[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
The Ottawa treaty (i.e. the landmine treaty) doesn't include stuff like claymores that are command detonated.
-Sun_Tzu-
Those would not be easy to remove.[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There's also a lot in the DMZ in Korea. In fact, that's one of the reasons why the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty.mrbojangles25
I think a few thousand busloads of school children would clear them out
Oh I think there are more than anti personnel, also sparking a war with the north might not e the best of ideas.Well, not exactly. The U.S. has a lot of stockpiles of "dumb" landmines.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Frattracide"] So the treaty is pretty much Moot then.
mrbojangles25
we also have a large stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should we get rid of those too?
*dear god I think that is the most conservative statement I have ever made. Sorry :oops: But I stick to it
If the U.S. were to sign a treaty that says that they will get rid of those stockpiles, then yeah they should, but I personally am not really taking a position on the matter one way or the other. All I'm saying is that the treaty would not be moot - it would effect U.S. policy vis-a-vis landmines.Well of course we didn't join the landmine treaty, that would set us back in our plans to build a nuclear landmine equipped moonbase.
MetroidPrimePwn
Read all of those, I loved this quote:
"Fortunately, the United States came down off their explosion high and realized that nuking an orbiting planetary body for no particular reason might cross the line between "illustrating our technical prowess" and "cartoonish supervillainy,""
:lol:
[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]
Well of course we didn't join the landmine treaty, that would set us back in our plans to build a nuclear landmine equipped moonbase.
chessmaster1989
Read all of those, I loved this quote:
"Fortunately, the United States came down off their explosion high and realized that nuking an orbiting planetary body for no particular reason might cross the line between "illustrating our technical prowess" and "cartoonish supervillainy,""
:lol:
the writers at Cracked.com really are some of the best
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment