Banning Landmines

[longly]

The idea of banning landmines was a dumb idea in the first place. There’s an old saying that some men think with their sex organs. I have liberal friends, and I’ve made a very similar comment about them—not in terms of sex, but in terms of emotion. I tell them that liberals tend to think with their emotions.

Sure, landmines are a terrible weapon—but all weapons are terrible, and all weapons can be misused. That doesn’t mean they aren’t effective. Landmines can be very effective. That’s one reason the Russians never signed on to the treaty. And even if they had, I believe they wouldn’t abide by it.

The situation in Ukraine has gotten to the point where even the Ukrainians—and possibly Europe—are rethinking the landmine treaty. It makes no sense to let an emotional reaction dictate your defense capabilities.

 

[whitehall]

At least landmines are part of a military agenda and their location is recorded by military law. Too bad you can't outlaw IED's

 

[hondo 50]

I almost walked on one once

 

[Mushroom]

The idea of banning landmines was a dumb idea in the first place.

Actually, I fully support their being banned short of the command detonated kind.

I do agree with the US interpretation, where mines like the M18 "Claymore" is allowed to be used as only as a command detonation device, but not emplaced where it is operated via a tripwire. There is simply too great a chance of either fratricide or non-combatants to be killed by them. And I strongly believe that any military device that is created to harm others should only be activated by an actual person.

And I am somebody that was trained in both uses. And I always detested the times I had to place a real Claymore in place as part of a training exercise, knowing that if a tree branch fell on the trip wire or some animal came along before I had time to get a safe distance away, I was going to be toast. Especially as more than once it involved also stringing the fuse with a hundred meters of DetCord, wound around tree trunks, branches, and the gap between the spoon and body of a dozen or so M67 hand grenades.

So not only do you have the mine going off, but wood fling everywhere followed a few seconds later by a dozen grenades, some thrown quite a distance away by the DetCord blasting the spoon in half.

Oh, I still think those uses are perfectly fine. But only with the intervention of a human in order to cause the carnage.

 

[longly]

The problem is that in 2023, Russia was able to thwart Ukraine's offensive through the extensive use of landmines, this year, however, Ukraine has been unable to respond in kind due to its obligation under the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits use of anti-personnel Landmines, as a result Ukrainian forces have suffered unnecessary casualties. How many lives must be lost for a treaty the enemy never honored. Given the threat Russia poses to Europe, Perhaps NATO should consider building a defensive wall of landmines to slow any potential Russian advance, should they to decide to invade NATO territory.

Remember your Vietnam 101 lessons: never allow the enemy any advantage.

 

[Mushroom]

How many lives must be lost for a treaty the enemy never honored.

Sorry, we have laws of land warfare for a reason. It does not matter if the enemy does not honor them, we must.

 

[longly]

Sorry, we have laws of land warfare for a reason. It does not matter if the enemy does not honor them, we must.

It is Academic questions now , because as I understand it, Ukraine has withdrawn from the treaty, and all that remains is for them to issue the formal notification. However, let me pose this question: Would you prefer a world with no freedom and no landmines—or one filled with landmines but freedom?

I know what I would choose, because I truly value freedom. I value it enough to leave my family and join the struggle against the communists. My opinions and values have remained unchanged since my youth.

If landmines are what it takes to deny Russia a victory and preserve freedom, then I support their use. The sacrifice is worth it.

 

[Litwin]

The idea of banning landmines was a dumb idea in the first place. There’s an old saying that some men think with their sex organs. I have liberal friends, and I’ve made a very similar comment about them—not in terms of sex, but in terms of emotion. I tell them that liberals tend to think with their emotions.

Sure, landmines are a terrible weapon—but all weapons are terrible, and all weapons can be misused. That doesn’t mean they aren’t effective. Landmines can be very effective. That’s one reason the Russians never signed on to the treaty. And even if they had, I believe they wouldn’t abide by it.

The situation in Ukraine has gotten to the point where even the Ukrainians—and possibly Europe—are rethinking the landmine treaty. It makes no sense to let an emotional reaction dictate your defense capabilities.

Post in thread 'Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia have announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines.'

Mar 18, 2025

Was that the same anti-landmine agreement that Bill Clinton refused to sign?

yes, the same Bill Clinton who fucked servo - Muscovite imperialists in Bosnia and in Kosovo. But I see your point.
ps

• Litwin

 

[whitehall]

Dig 'em up if they no longer serve a purpose that mostly relies on illegal entrance in certain countries. What do we do when a world leader opened the borders to the U.S.? Dig up the criminal aliens and send them back is the most humane treatment to avoid getting blown up by mines? Doesn't it make sense?

 

[Mushroom]

Would you prefer a world with no freedom and no landmines

That is a nonsensical statement.

 

[longly]

That is a nonsensical statement.

Freedom only survives when its defenders refuse to back down. If land mines are what it takes to hold the line, then I support their use without hesitation—and so does the president of Ukraine. We stand united in the belief that decisive measures are essential when facing those who threaten liberty itself.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Dig 'em up if they no longer serve a purpose that mostly relies on illegal entrance in certain countries. What do we do when a world leader opened the borders to the U.S.? Dig up the criminal aliens and send them back is the most humane treatment to avoid getting blown up by mines? Doesn't it make sense?

There are difficulties to "digging em up". Most third world armies don't keep records of their minefields. Plus, mines are often booby trapped to prevent clearing. Between the two, clearing abandoned minefields is a high-risk process that often involves casualties. Typically, when possible, mines are blown in place rather than cleared.

 

[Mushroom]

There are difficulties to "digging em up".

Not only that, but even finding them in the first place.

After WWII, the use of "Minimum Metallic Mines" increased drastically once it was realized how effective metal detectors had become. During WWII, the Germans made several out of glass. And most others use plastic, and have only the bare minimum metal needed for the blasting cape that detonates it. And many improvised mines are made out of wood.

That is one reason why many of the techniques used for clearing minefields are really primitive. This is one of the things where "advanced technology" is of little use.

The image is a more modern version of a "mine flail", just like what was used in WWII. And the video is the APOB, this is little changed from how it was done in WWII with Bangalore Torpedo's.

And Bangalore Torpedo's are still used in the military to this day for mine clearing.

Most times, it is far safer to just attempt to blow them in place instead of trying to find and remove them. But even that is never guaranteed.

 

[egp320i]

The idea of banning landmines was a dumb idea in the first place. There’s an old saying that some men think with their sex organs. I have liberal friends, and I’ve made a very similar comment about them—not in terms of sex, but in terms of emotion. I tell them that liberals tend to think with their emotions.

Sure, landmines are a terrible weapon—but all weapons are terrible, and all weapons can be misused. That doesn’t mean they aren’t effective. Landmines can be very effective. That’s one reason the Russians never signed on to the treaty. And even if they had, I believe they wouldn’t abide by it.

The situation in Ukraine has gotten to the point where even the Ukrainians—and possibly Europe—are rethinking the landmine treaty. It makes no sense to let an emotional reaction dictate your defense capabilities.

they are effective sometimes but once a skirmish is over they don't take the time and effort to remove them.
they can sit in the earth for decades, you have some hunter just watching with his kid hunting birds and boom, both are killed

I am sure deer, bear have stepped on one or two and got blown up

 

[Zebra]

3 of 12 say no

like me

 

[Mushroom]

It is Academic questions now , because as I understand it, Ukraine has withdrawn from the treaty

In reality, six nations are withdrawing from the treaty. And they are Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. Most of those bordering Russia which never signed it and has been using them in Ukraine as well as in other conflicts in recent years.

The biggest issue I have had with the treaty is that it treats absolutely all land mines the same. Both command detonated as well as those left in place with no human monitoring. The US had the same issues which is why it refused to ratify it.

And many nations that border nations that are known to use such mines have also refused to ratify it, as their primary potential aggressor is likely to use them in a future conflict.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Hell ******* no. Signing that treaty is treasonous. Sometimes, land mines are simply the right tool for the job.

 

[whitehall]

The problem is that in 2023, Russia was able to thwart Ukraine's offensive through the extensive use of landmines, this year, however, Ukraine has been unable to respond in kind due to its obligation under the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits use of anti-personnel Landmines, as a result Ukrainian forces have suffered unnecessary casualties. How many lives must be lost for a treaty the enemy never honored. Given the threat Russia poses to Europe, Perhaps NATO should consider building a defensive wall of landmines to slow any potential Russian advance, should they to decide to invade NATO territory.

Remember your Vietnam 101 lessons: never allow the enemy any advantage.

Ukraine's "offensive"? Surely you have it backwards.

 

[whitehall]

There are difficulties to "digging em up". Most third world armies don't keep records of their minefields. Plus, mines are often booby trapped to prevent clearing. Between the two, clearing abandoned minefields is a high-risk process that often involves casualties. Typically, when possible, mines are blown in place rather than cleared.

IED's are worse than landmines. Maybe the free world can find a way to locate them and detonate them without risk.

 

[ozro]

I wish I could install landmines around the perimeter of my property but I was advised by my attorney that is illegal. That brings up the valid issue of private property rights, but I won't discuss that here.
I inquired if warning signs claiming landmines were present would be illegal, if there are no mines there.
He laughed and told me he would research the issue and get back to me.