Originally posted by marinakatombHow about England,France, Germany, China, N. Korea, and the other countries who sell arms? Your statement really shows your ignorance. Most arms bought in Africa are Chinese and former Soviet Union AK's with a mix of French and other European arms. Heck they even buy South African weapons also.
It's quite simple really, money.
America is the largest arms manufacturer, they sell their s**t to poor counties in Africa where children are expendable.
Originally posted by FiathahelIt's a good thing you don't run an Army...you would be smashed and grovelling in defeat simply because you wanted to play nice...well, nice guys finish DEAD in battle, so stick to PETA or Greenpeace where your advise may be warranted...🙄
The problem is that you don't know who you hit. And when the enemy noticed that their are landmines in an area and they know it after just a few explosions, they wont go there anymore. And all other landmines will still be laying there waiting till anyone steps on them, and it will not be the enemy. Also you can't justify your actions simply by saying others do the same thing.
I'll try this again. Is this going to be a debate on justifiability of the use of landmines, or another boring mudslinging affair? Here are some arguments against the continued use of the "smart" landmines the Bush administration is unwilling to give up. Again, these are taken from Human Rights Watch.
Following in bullet form are the key humanitarian, technical, and political arguments against smart (self-destructing) mines:
Dangers to Civilians:
* Self-destruct mechanisms are not 100% reliable. The Landmine Protocol of CCW (to which the US and China belong) allows a 10% failure rate. Technical experts say less sophisticated production methods can result in failure rates much higher.
* Smart mines are usually scattered by aircraft or artillery at a rate of thousands in a matter of minutes, with little precision; given the failure rate for self-destruction, many dangerous mines will remain on the ground. Because of the huge number of smart mines that are typically employed at one time, the danger to civilians could be greater than hand-laid dumb mines. We have already seen that smart mines are sometimes used in populated areas. Russian mines that are supposed to self-destruct are now causing civilian casualties in Chechnya.
* Because smart mines are usually scattered (or remotely-delivered), there is no way to accurately mark or map or fence the smart mine minefields.
* Civilians in smart mine fields not only face the danger of stepping on mines that have failed to self-destruct, but the danger of hundreds of those mines randomly self-destructing at unknown times.
* Because smart mines self-destruct, and do not last for an indefinite period of time, some nations might compensate by using greater numbers of mines and/or by using them repeatedly in the same area.
* The Landmine Protocol, in addition to self-destruct mechanisms on scatterable mines, requires a "self-deactivation" feature (a battery goes dead so the mine's firing chain cannot be started, the mine becomes inert). But the protocol allows 120 days (17 weeks) before self-deactivation must occur. In warfare today, civilians often return to conflict zones in that period of time. And there is no guarantee that the batteries will in fact go dead in that period of time.
* It should also be noted that the restrictions on use of smart mines (such as reliability requirements) contained in the Landmine Protocol affect very few countries. Countries that are party to the protocol who haven't already banned smart mines include the US, China, India, Pakistan, Finland, Israel, South Korea and Estonia.
* Smart mines will still deny land to civilians. Because they are usually remotely-delivered, smart mines are usually on the surface of the ground, not buried. The 10% or so of the mines that have failed to self-destruct (even if they have self-deactivated), and the mines that failed to arm when delivered (estimated at another 10%...), will at least for a period of time be visible on the ground. Civilians will not enter the area, fearing that the visible mines are still dangerous. In many places, the mines will eventually be overgrown or otherwise obscured.
* A landmark study published in 1996 by the International Committee of the Red Cross cited the views of a military Group of Experts (more than 30 retired officers from about a dozen countries). With respect to smart mines, they concluded, "Because of the vast numbers [of mines] involved, and the complete absence of any [mine] marking, it is likely that the number of civilian casualties resulting from a large-scale strike with remotely delivered mines will greatly exceed the casualty rates seen with conventional minefields.... Even the doubtful benefit of self-destruction and self-deactivation at a later date will not prevent widespread casualties in the initial days after the strike. There is little doubt that the development of remotely delivered mines has increased the probability of a major rise in post-conflict mine casualties."
Problems for Mine Clearance:
* Large numbers of smart mines will fail to self-destruct; each will pose the same danger to civilians and to deminers as dumb mines, unless and until they self-deactivate (if they have such a feature).
* Smart mines that have failed to self-destruct, but which have self-deactivated, will have to be treated by deminers as live mines that may potentially explode. Thus, a field that has unexploded smart mines in it will have to be cleared with the same care as any other minefield. The time and cost will be similar. The job may be made easier by the fact that most smart mines should be on the surface, not buried -- though vegetation will overgrow, sands will shift, etc. But the job may be made more difficult by the large numbers of mines present (given the propensity to use thousands at a time in remote-delivery). US smart mines (Gator mines) were still being cleared from Kuwait several years after Operation Desert Storm.
Political/Military Problems:
* Acceptance of use of smart mines will legitimize use of other antipersonnel mines.
* Experience has shown that nations -- especially those in the developing world where mines have been used the most -- are unwilling to give up the dumb mines in their arsenals, if more wealthy and technologically advanced nations insist on the right to keep the smart mines in their arsenals. We have heard governments say that they are unwilling to make the world safe for US mines and US mine exports.
* Poorer armies and rebel groups will reject a smart mine only solution. They not only will be unable to afford smart mines, they don't have the technology to deploy them. And they likely prefer mines that last a longer period.
* Governments have argued that they have as legitimate an argument to keep dumb mines as the US and others do to keep smart mines. The US argues that smart mines are necessary for the type of maneuver warfare it specializes in; other governments argue that dumb mines are necessary for the type of long-term border defense problems they face (and for which smart, self-destructing mines are not useful). Those nations will also argue their mines pose little danger to civilians because they are in marked and fenced minefields in border areas only. The point being that, if one doesn't insist on a comprehensive ban on all types and uses of antipersonnel mines, each nation will be able to claim unique requirements and justifications.
* Some nations have claimed that it would take 15-20 years to convert their mine stockpiles to self-destruct mines. The Landmine Protocol allows nations 9 years before the regulations on use of smart mines come into effect.
* Neither the US nor other nations that have promoted smart mines have also proposed an immediate ban on dumb mines.
What it boils down to is the US policy is to destroy the enemy with the minimal amount of friendly casualties. In other words "No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country". General George S. Patton Jr.😏
Originally posted by slimjimYeah, baby..Patton, baby....go 3rd Army, smash them cabbage heads....I think guys named after General Patton must be God's gift to women....😏
What it boils down to is the US policy is to destroy the enemy with the minimal amount of friendly casualties. In other words "No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country". General George S. Patton Jr.😏
Originally posted by slimjimIs a civilian death considered a "friendly casualty"?
What it boils down to is the US policy is to destroy the enemy with the minimal amount of friendly casualties. In other words "No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country". General George S. Patton Jr.😏
Originally posted by bbarrYes, it would seem so...he did mention "minimum"...what it boils down to is that in the heat of war, some "friendlies" are going to die....land mines are a fact of war....the only way to prevent friendly casualties is to stop making war...do you hear that Osama?....Saddam?... GW?...LOL 😵
Is a civilian death considered a "friendly casualty"?
Originally posted by chancremechanicFair enough. What I'm concerned with are 1) the production standards of the "smart" landmines currently in use, and 2) their method of delivery. Currently, production standards for "smart" landmines require only a 10 percent failure rate in the self-destruct mechanism, which seems quite high given that tens of thousands of these mines are delivered from the air in an average drop. Also, this scattering of mines makes their recovery almost impossible. This leads to whole areas being unfit for civilian use, and poses a risk to innocents long after hostilities have ended. Note that I'm taking no position in this debate on the justifiability of current US military operations. What I am taking issue with is the manner in which these operations are conducted. There must be a better way to use our material than to literally carpet civilian areas with "smart" landmines.
Yes, it would seem so...he did mention "minimum"...what it boils down to is that in the heat of war, some "friendlies" are going to die....land mines are a fact of war....the only way to prevent friendly casualties is to stop making war...do you hear that Osama?....Saddam?... GW?...LOL 😵
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr. Any veteran will tell you that no one wants to go to war. Especially the soldiers who will be putting their lives on the line. I wish all nations of this world would destroy their weapons of war but, until that time comes I want to have the best weapons in the world to insure the survivability of our troops.
Fair enough. What I'm concerned with are 1) the production standards of the "smart" landmines currently in use, and 2) their method of delivery. Currently, production standards for "smart" landmines require only a 10 percent failure rate in the self-destruct mechanism, which seems quite high given that tens of thousands of these mines are delivered from ...[text shortened]... tter way to use our material than to literally carpet civilian areas with "smart" landmines.
Originally posted by bbarrfrom a scientists point of view, 10% failure to self destruct is pathetic. It's not an unavoidable feature, it's a sign that the 'smart' mines are cheaply made. As a simple example, if you put 2 self destruct timers on each mine you'd instantly reduce the failure rate to 1%, but that'd obviously double the cost of this feature. In industry we used to aim for 0.5% failure. Recently we've realised that, although it may involve more expense initially, 0.05% failure is more profitable in the long run. Land miones not exploding obviously isn;t about profit margins, but it does show that large reductions in faikure rates are possible.
Fair enough. What I'm concerned with are 1) the production standards of the "smart" landmines currently in use, and 2) their method of delivery. Currently, production standards for "smart" landmines require only a 10 percent failure rate in the self-destruct mechanism, which seems quite high given that tens of thousands of these mines are delivered from ...[text shortened]... tter way to use our material than to literally carpet civilian areas with "smart" landmines.
From an ex-soldiers point of view, land mines were traditionally used to deny land. The Geneva convention, which is the 'play nice' handbook, says that minefileds must be cordened off and marked because the idea isn't to blow the enemy up but instead to make him go another way. Smart mines don't get cordened off so are in this way worse than dumn mines because not only don't people know they are there, when the clean up operations start the military isn't 100% sure where they are either.
As for mines being essential for warfare, this is not really true any more. The US army is pretty much the best equipped in the world, and there is technology out there that could replace mines as 'land deniers', such as laser nets or even just mines that gave audable warnings - they may not kill the enemy for you, but you'd know he was there instantly so that you could react. And if it was a group of kids then the reaction could be non-lethal.
The big push in military R&D is non-lethal weaponry. It's been rightly said in this thread that we want to send our troups into battle with the best kit available, and this is why you haven't seen non-lethal weapons used. Yet. I am really hopefull that they will come to fruition, and that some of the wild ideas will become reality and as effective as traditional weapons. And here's why they should - there's a major focus on not killing civilians while at the same time warfare is no longer fought in the fields but in the towns. Imagine the tactical advantage of being able to shoot in or blast any area regardless of civilian content because they were just temporarily incapacitated, not harmed. You could separate the enemy from the civilians at leasure afterwards. It's reasons like this that mean that non-lethal weaponry will eventually become the 'most effective equipment' available for our troups. The only thing that wil stop it is if people refuse to give up the traditional wepons that they are used to.
At the end of the day, the civilised world got together and agreed that a ban on land mines was a good thing. Most countries signed up. Everyone in NATO, except the US, is a signatory. Non-signatories are people like Syria, North/South Korea, Vietnam. Is that really the sort of company the US wants to keep?
This administration (and I'm no fan of the Democrats either) seems determined to detach the US from the rest of the world, whether its on Kyoto, land mines or loads of other issues.
I don't really care about what the failure rate of the new high-tech mines are, or how much safer they are. Its an indiscriminate weapon which most decent countries are getting rid of. Except the US.
Why not make landmines that truly deserve the epithet "smart" and that obligingly disarm themselves after a particular period of time with very high probability? Or that at least make themselves easy to detect after that period of time? Is that really harder than making them explode??? Perhaps developing the underlying technology, and finding a way of cheaply mass-producing it, should be more of a priority than spending millions of dollars sending a handful people to a desolate nearby planet (to choose just one boondoggle among many).
Aiden
Originally posted by RedmikeWell the non-signatories also include: Finliand, India, China and Russia.
At the end of the day, the civilised world got together and agreed that a ban on land mines was a good thing. Most countries signed up. Everyone in NATO, except the US, is a signatory. Non-signatories are people like Syria, North/South Korea, Vietnam. Is that really the sort of company the US wants to keep?
This administration (and I'm no fan of the Democr ...[text shortened]... are. Its an indiscriminate weapon which most decent countries are getting rid of. Except the US.
And the Kyoto Treaty is a piece of crap that won't be met even by the signers. It was rejected by the entire Senate and not just the Bush administration as horrble legislation. Which it is.
Originally posted by bbarrif all countries used mines detectable only by there own forces, then no matter who won the war, there would always be undetectable landmines around.
The US has agreed to use only landmines that 1) are detectable to US forces, and thus (in principle) removable at the end of hostilities, and ....
i can see the military need that the opposing forces cannot find them, but this detectability is certainly insufficient to make them a sensible weapon (i know, that is stupid).
both sides would be better to agree not to use them, than have both sides use them.
- unless of course they fight a war in someone else's country.