riddler 0 #1 November 25, 2009 In the wake of the announcement that the U.S. will not support a landmine ban, it seems there is a lot of conflicting data. The U.S. is the only member of NATO that won't join the treaty which bans their "use, stockpiling, production or transfer". At the same time, the U.S. "has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported any since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997". So we generally abide by the treaty, and spend $1.5 billion annually to help fight against them worldwide. So why the double-speak? I read one person's theory that they are necessary at the North-Korean border. Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #2 November 25, 2009 I once read a Vietnam vet's rant about how landmines were not only useless, but worse than useless. One example he gave was how his platoon was attacked and had to retreat...through their own landmines."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #3 November 25, 2009 Quote So why the double-speak? I read one person's theory that they are necessary at the North-Korean border. Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them. 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.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #4 November 25, 2009 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!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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 November 25, 2009 QuoteSo why the double-speak? I read one person's theory that they are necessary at the North-Korean border. Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them. I think it falls in to that saying, "You never know..." I do believe the answer in this instance is that simple. We don't like them, our current doctrine does not require the use of them, but we just might need to dust off the old doctrine...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #6 November 25, 2009 Quote Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them. There is not a more effective method to prevent people from going into an area. It is cheap and does not require personnel to sit and watch. The benefit is that they can be set and left ignored... The DMZ is one example where they do fill a need. The detractor is that they are indiscriminate killers... and as someone already mentioned that they will kill you as easily as the other guy. Also, they last a long time and keep killing long after the war. Modern techniques do not supersede them, they still can fill a tactical need. But the US has realized that they are not perfect and we pretty much would like to never have to use them. And we have made them since as late as 2002.. Read up on the M2/M3/M4 SLAM. http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=306 But the newer models tend to have a self neutralization program. But much more likely is that the Us is not going to give them up until China and Russia agree to give theirs up as well..... It is most likely just a poker game being played."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #7 November 25, 2009 Quote 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! Are you really of the opinion that the USA should place land mines on our borders? You think it is funny? You consider yourself a good Christian? It is pretty creepy that while you profess to follow the teachings of Jesus, your personal beliefs as shown in this thread and others, are truly so far from His way. You will meet your maker and have to answer for the truth of who and how you are. Best of luck with that. I would expect that hypocrites are treated quite harshly when held to account. Religious Fundamentalism, a threat abroad, a threat at home. That sums it up quite nicely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 November 25, 2009 QuoteI read one person's theory that they are necessary at the North-Korean border. Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them. 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #9 November 25, 2009 QuoteIf you were a U.S. soldier standing guard over the North Korean DMZ border, would you not want napalm/artillery/mustard gas/chlorine/nuclear weapons/drones/hellfire missiles/patriots/F-18's/pointed sticks with feces on them/etc and land mines out there in front of you to reduce an incoming invasion force before it got to you? The damage that land mines do AFTER any conflict far outweigh the usefulness of them DURING the conflict. Unless there is some way to clean it up, the human costs are far too high. Oh wait - most of the countries riddled with land mines are not filled with while anglo-saxon protestant Americans - so they do not matter. (sarcasm) Even Mustard gas and nuclear fallout will eventually dissipate and be absorbed into mother earth. A landmine will kill someone 100 years after it is planted... Even so, I am glad the the US has far less landmines than they used to, but disappointed that they do not acknowledge the treaties. I wonder how many landmines we sell to Africa every year? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #10 November 25, 2009 QuoteThe damage that land mines do AFTER any conflict far outweigh the usefulness of them DURING the conflict. You say that having never carried a rifle in defense of something. They do have a terrible side, but you ignore the TACTICAL advantage they can have in limited areas... such as the DMZ. Quote I wonder how many landmines we sell to Africa every year? None according to most reports."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #11 November 25, 2009 I completely understand their tactical advantage. That does not change the fact that the end result far outweighs that tactical advantage. Dropping 1000 nukes on Pakistan and Afghanistan would also solve a lot of problems. glass factory. the end result AFTER that would not be worthy of the 'tactical' advantage. We build far too many weapons like that - depleted uranium, landmines, chemical leftovers that we have no idea how to dispose of, but they all have 'tactical advantages' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #12 November 25, 2009 QuoteI completely understand their tactical advantage. That does not change the fact that the end result far outweighs that tactical advantage. In your opinion... This current administration and several military leaders do not agree with that opinion."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 616 #13 November 25, 2009 QuoteIn the wake of the announcement that the U.S. will not support a landmine ban, it seems there is a lot of conflicting data. The U.S. is the only member of NATO that won't join the treaty which bans their "use, stockpiling, production or transfer". At the same time, the U.S. "has not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported any since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997". So we generally abide by the treaty, and spend $1.5 billion annually to help fight against them worldwide. So why the double-speak? I read one person's theory that they are necessary at the North-Korean border. Can anyone shed light on why the U.S. feels that landmines are tactically necessary? It seems that modern warfare techniques supersede the need for them. Just speculating here - but the US is pretty well known for simply renaming technologies to avoid problems. The US does not use torture but it uses "robust interrogation methods" could this be the same. Secondly are cluster bombs not a form of landmine?Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 November 25, 2009 QuoteThe 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. QuoteUnless there is some way to clean it up, the human costs are far too high. And the U.S. does clean up theirs after the fact, when no longer needed. We even clean up other people's messes, putting our own soldiers at risk to do so. It's not the U.S. that is leaving land mines laying around to kill others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #15 November 25, 2009 Since "I'M" the one that said that Ill answer your question. QuoteAre you really of the opinion that the USA should place land mines on our borders? Yes. It would deter illegal immigration and drug trafficing. Basically if you get blown up then you were doing something you shouldn't have been. If by some miracle you make it then good on you. QuoteYou think it is funny? No. I think its a very inexpensive solution to a couple of big problems.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #16 November 25, 2009 Quote Made my day! Are you really of the opinion that the USA should place land mines on our borders? You think it is funny? You consider yourself a good Christian? It is pretty creepy that while you profess to follow the teachings of Jesus, your personal beliefs as shown in this thread and others, are truly so far from His way. You will meet your maker and have to answer for the truth of who and how you are. Best of luck with that. I would expect that hypocrites are treated quite harshly when held to account. Religious Fundamentalism, a threat abroad, a threat at home. That sums it up quite nicely. The idea is hilarious in its absurdity. Relax pal.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe damage that land mines do AFTER any conflict far outweigh the usefulness of them DURING the conflict. You say that having never carried a rifle in defense of something. They do have a terrible side, but you ignore the TACTICAL advantage they can have in limited areas... such as the DMZ. Certainly you mean strategic and not tactical.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 616 #18 November 25, 2009 QuoteSince "I'M" the one that said that Ill answer your question. QuoteAre you really of the opinion that the USA should place land mines on our borders? Yes. It would deter illegal immigration and drug trafficing. Basically if you get blown up then you were doing something you shouldn't have been. If by some miracle you make it then good on you. QuoteYou think it is funny? No. I think its a very inexpensive solution to a couple of big problems. It is not possible to properly "clean up" landmines without enormous expense that is the problem. Fine put landmines on the US border wait for 5 years as the rain and environment move them to "safe" area's and watch your 10 year old american kid get blown up when he finds something really interesting while out hiking with mom and dad. Modern landmines are manufactured to be "stealthy" and every effort is made to avoid simple technology detecting them. They are not made of metal so metal detectors don't work, and they are normally designed so that even GPR systems struggle to differentiate them from the surrounds. Why not deploy armed predator drones along the border? At least then you can choose who you killExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #19 November 25, 2009 People throwing rocks could get a really good firework display or naughty folks may harvest H.E for alternative uses...... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #20 November 25, 2009 QuoteIt is not possible to properly "clean up" landmines without enormous expense that is the problem. Agreed. You'll never find them all once they're out there. QuoteFine put landmines on the US border wait for 5 years as the rain and environment move them to "safe" area's Sorry. I'm not buying in on that one. Weather might move them a little, but 10 miles (meaning you place the mines then put the "safe zone" border 10 miles away)? QuoteModern landmines are manufactured to be "stealthy" and every effort is made to avoid simple technology detecting them. They are not made of metal so metal detectors don't work, and they are normally designed so that even GPR systems struggle to differentiate them from the surrounds. Well thats the point then isn't it? What average joe potential illegal is going to have anything remotely capable of detecting them. It really wouldn't do any good if they could just go buy a metal detector and make a safe path. QuoteWhy not deploy armed predator drones along the border? At least then you can choose who you kill Because they cost a hell of a lot more to operate and maintain than landmines. Now if you have a cheaper/more effective solution than mines I'm all ears. BTW, the mines also choose who they kill/maim. The people who go into the restricted "Caution Mines" zone.Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #21 November 25, 2009 QuoteIn your opinion... This current administration and several military leaders do not agree with that opinion. Yes Ron, of course, you are right - I , me, myself; stand alone in my opinion of Landmines...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 616 #22 November 25, 2009 QuoteSorry. I'm not buying in on that one. Weather might move them a little, but 10 miles (meaning you place the mines then put the "safe zone" border 10 miles away)? The getting moved 10 miles does happen, where the mines get lifted during heavy rains, granted it does not happen overnight but it does happen. A 5 minute search brought up http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/07/11/stories/2003071102841300.htm but I've heard of it before.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 November 25, 2009 Quote QuoteWhy not deploy armed predator drones along the border? At least then you can choose who you kill Because they cost a hell of a lot more to operate and maintain than landmines. Now if you have a cheaper/more effective solution than mines I'm all ears. BTW, the mines also choose who they kill/maim. The people who go into the restricted "Caution Mines" zone. Total costs have to be measured, as do benefits. Every time a landmine kills someone that is not intended to be, that''s a huge cost. Does it cost money to run and operate drones? Of course. But is that cost already present in the need for training? Maybe. The border zone may be a perfect place to train military operators with a real mission before they go to an active warzone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #24 November 25, 2009 Quote QuoteSorry. I'm not buying in on that one. Weather might move them a little, but 10 miles (meaning you place the mines then put the "safe zone" border 10 miles away) QuoteWhy not deploy armed predator drones along the border? At least then you can choose who you kill Because they cost a hell of a lot more to operate and maintain than landmines. Now if you have a cheaper/more effective solution than mines I'm all ears. BTW, the mines also choose who they kill/maim. The people who go into the restricted "Caution Mines" zone. Are you including the cost of expropriating all the land in Chula Vista, El Paso, Buffalo and Detroit as well as all the small towns within 10 miles of the border? BTW Drones already patrol the Canada-US border. www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/02/.../drones-border.html Clearly the response of someone who does not live near the border. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #25 November 25, 2009 QuoteSince "I'M" the one that said that Ill answer your question. QuoteAre you really of the opinion that the USA should place land mines on our borders? Yes. It would deter illegal immigration and drug trafficing. Damn protectionists! putting up non-tariff barriers every time we turn around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
