Maybe we could hire and trail the cheese-eating surrendering monkeys.
There are a bunch of mine fields in southern Iraq that need sweeping. This could take years to do.
Also,. it seems the events of sanctions and war is causing food shortage in southern Iraq.
So here’s the plan.
Import a bunch of cows. Set up pastures in the mine fields. When you hear a boom, you know there is a bunch of hamburger just waiting to be picked up.
Can’t do it. You need to understand we are talking TONS of mines.
Have you priced a cow lately? You would need millions of cows to do the job right. As I said before you can’t be happy with “most of the mines” being lifted. You need a human to do the job.
As for nondetectable mines, you have to assume that semiskilled minelayers (people who too often never even kept maps) would forget to bury metal with the mines.
Like I said, heluva problem. I do like the monkeys with laser beams on their heads.
“The “well-known military tactic” might refer to the practice of driving herds of domestic cattle, sheep, horses, etc. through a mine field/army/town - sensible, if inhumane. And I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that someone had rounded up civilians and force-marched them through mine fields.”
There are reports of armies doing just that.
I’d be astounded if that hadn’t been known to happen now that I think of it. Anyway, which armies in particular are reportedly doing this?
Certainly it has happened, but not too frequently. It comes back to my central point, mines are cheap and the means of clearing them are expensive. Even slave laborers, sheep, moo-cows whatever are too valuable to clear huge amounts of mines.
Some mines? Sometimes? For a limited tactical purpose? Sure. Large areas? Nah.
I don’t care if Gandhi said this, I still think it’s borderline ridiculous. I happen to think how a nation treats its people is more important than how it treats its animals.
And the subject of the OP bothers me not a bit. I’m totally with Paul of Saudi: if sending Cheetah out to tap-dance on these things works, I say import his whole family and give them dancing shoes. Better them than me, or anyone I know in the U.S. armed forces. Or any local noncombatants.
If a culture treats people well and fairly but treat animals viciously and cruelly, do you believe they still retain a high level of morality in respect to their behaviour?
The point of the quote (all the quotes really) is to say that the level of morality is highest when one respects the life of those who are most at the mercy of power. Sure we could kill all the animals. Sure we can cut down all the trees. Sure Americans could wipe out many other countries who are weaker militarily. Does that mean we should?
How we behave towards those who cannot fight back is a measure of true goodness.
Flip it over and ask: would you rather risk destroying a remote-controlled machine that can search for mines or a troop / family of primates? Can you not distinguish between the two? Does the random use of animal deaths for a process which holds no concern to them (and is easier preformed by other means) merit that response?
I agree that if the only choice lies between animal death and human death, then of course use the animals to clear a path for humans and avoid casualties.
But that is a very different premise than just deciding to lash a load of animals into an area to clear mines without considering the obvious alternatives available.
I agree with Aro. To use other species like that, when we have other methods is wrong, but rather indictive of human mannerisms. Don’t you just love this species? We’re the nicest out there, really. Don’t believe me? Fine, jerk, walk two steps to the right.
Sorry about the sadisticness. I don’t have a very high opinion of the human species.
“All our knowledge merely helps us to die a more painful death than animals that know nothing.”
Maurice Maeterlinck
Meet for lunch, Aro? 
Well, one thing I’m sure of is that I’m nowhere near as comfortable defining morality for others as you appear to be. I strongly object to your casual assumption that you or anyone else has the right to decide what morality is “highest,” or what defines “true goodness.” What is moral for me and what I think is moral for others cannot occupy the same plane of existence. To some extent they do anyway, since civilized society cannot exist without some sort of imposed common standard.
But war is by definition a breakdown in civilized behavior. The same rules do not apply, and attempt by one side to apply the same rules would simply result in their swift destruction by whomever is willing to fight dirty.
You made a comparison of monkeys with a machine. My response would be: use whichever one is cheaper. I would have no problem letting 100 monkeys that cost $100 apiece to their deaths before I sent a $1 million machine out to be destroyed.
Militaries the world over do the same calculations and reach the same conclusions, sometimes even with human lives. Why? Because they don’t have the luxury of engaging in utopian idealism. They have to deal with reality. Realities such as, which is easier to replace, 100 monkeys, or a machine that cost a million dollars?
NO, NO, NO, dammit. They’re not using monkeys. They’re using The Monkees.
I mean, really, what’s Peter Tork or Davey Jones worth, anyway?
Paul, I had thought the standard tool for clearing large miefields was this heavily armored vehicle with a large cylinder, axis horizontal, in front of it. When the cylinder spun chains attached to it would thwack the crap out of the ground in front of the vehicle setting off mines. You could drive around at a reasonable rate like mowing a big lawn.
I know I have seen these things before, but my info would be dated. It seems it would be fine for rought terrain, but forested areas and towns would be a problem.