U.S. refusal to sign landmine treaty is quite revealing.

Great Debates
1

So once again, most of the world and virtually all educated and humanebeings everywhere on the planet have decided that the cost in general human suffering and environmental damage of the obscene production and use of made-for-maiming land mines should be eradicated forever. It is an evil plague that provides more consistent civilian and especially child deaths than any other conventional ground weapon.

There is one notable opponent to this treaty, in this case the U.S.
It is clear from the posture here that the stance of the United States places a higher priority on inflicting maximum human damage on the battlefield than it does on any humane reasoning behind a possible re-structuring of rules of engagement.

I find that this treaty serves as a good example of the utter hypocrisy of American humane relationships under the Bush administration. This is going beyond the ordinary international politicking and rhetoric of normal international posturing.
IMHO in encapsulates the idea that no matter what justification the administration offers for continuing military actions, righteous or not, there is one inescapable fact attached to landmines. They continue to maim people without killing them. In fact many are designed to cripple rather than kill, engineered by the idea that it’s far more expensive to care for a wounded or legless soldier than it is to put him in the ground.

The inescaple fact is that no matter the political reasoning behind any conflict, or regardless of how it is portrayed by the most convenient purveyor of information , a land-mine victim will always remember who did this to him. Different from the normal hatred of the enemy that might be inspired by the usual battlefield horrors men at war find themselves reduced to, land-mines are a direct example, impacting severely on innocent children by the tens of thousands, that technology and mass production can offer immediate and indiscriminate deadly effects on the other side, taking a higher priority than any stated plans for humane care of the subjected population.

Efforts to remove just the landmines already in place are hugely expensive, proving to be another giant revenue stream from the taxpayer often directly to the manufacturer of the devices themselves. Sadly there are tens of millions of landmines scattered throughout the world, with reclamation only covering about 1 or 2 percent from what I can gather.

The rest of the world is starting to come so it’s senses and realizing that a never-ending race to build weapons of indiscriminate and disgusting human tragedy is not necessarily the best plan when there are far more pressing humane and environmental concerns to be dealt with. IMHO this outright refusal to act in a humane manner is disturbingly revealing when it comes to what ordinary children worldwide are in danger of.

It looks like it’s time to be very afraid and suspicious of America, just like one would be suspicious and afraid of ANY country adopting a “more land-mines” position. For me, it’s no longer a question of poitics but a question of sanity. Just what kind of ideological world are we creating for our children then there’s ANY country refusing to honor this treaty? One where legless, handless, and eyeless children lie in hospitals or beds their whole lives fomenting hatred toward those that inflicted the suffering, REGARDLESS of supposed virtus goals.

I’ve never been a big U.S.A. basher, but today I’m feeling sorta like “Bloody well right I blame the ordinary American , they’re just as likely to re-elect this guy, and that reveals the real American sentiment.” Shame on America this time.

2

Hmm… for one thing, the first time it came up, ** Bill Clinton ** didn’t sign it. So don’t go blaming this strictly on Bush as some kind evil nutball cowboy. So get over this stupid-ass slam on the President.

Second, even if the President did sign it, I seriously doubt the Senate would ratify it, which is what really makes it binding.

Third, the main reason for US opposition to the treaty (as I understand it) is because of the pre-emplaced mine-fields in South Korea protecting the DMZ. That’s pretty much it- most of the time, US military doctrine tends toward a manuever strategy, not one with fixed emplacements, which is primarily where mines come in handy.

Fourth, it’s completely asinine to expose your own troops to any more casualties than necessary on account of some point of international law. That’s the point of war- to compel another nation to your will by violent force. In other words, to kill or demoralize enough of the enemy so that they stop fighting. Banning mines takes one more weapon in the arsenal away from achieving that goal.

3

Of all those educated and humanebeings, how many were military tacticians?

How is it a “more land-mines” position? Are we selling or giving them to some country that using them irresponsibly? Are we using them irresponsibly somewhere?

4

Yes, their use is totally irresponsible in the first place. That’s the point.While even the most backward nations on the planet, (actually those that have SUFFERED the effects of landmines are against them, naturally, unlike those in the U.S. who can glibly chalk it all up to strategy knowing that THEIR children are safe, would naturally be the most qualified to talk…)

While we’re talking military strategy, isn’t it a higher and capable form of strategy to take into account the lasting effects of any military action and the associated social and political consequences? Or would you prefer to remain in a world where the military strategist calls the shots solely on the basis of body count while ignoring the ramifications of future harm to civilians, the details of which are clearly outlined in the Geneva Convention?? Have we arrived at that particularly human perspective that the military should dictate our actions even if they run contrary to humane ideals?? Are we willing to ignore the future hate-filled generations of victims as long as it seems like we’ve killed enough in the here-and-now?

Does military strategy rule our ideology at the expense of human decency? Bravo.
We have evolved to the enlightened world vision status of the dark ages.

So to answer that question to the best of my ability, YES, the manufacture, distribution, and use of landmines is obscene, utterly stupid, and extremely shortsighted given modern considerations of winning a war which INCLUDE dealing with the aftermath in human and fiscal terms.

Seems like Uncle Sam is happy as long as the war chest keeps getting funneled to the well connected. Don’t worry though, it’s not American kids getting blinded and maimed, so it’s all good, right? Can you imagine the state of the American psyche in all it’s blind obeisance if it were American children getting blown apart?

Have we also arrived at that particulary primitive and stupid level of “strategy” which is unable to consider long term goals because the work of counting limbs and eyes has taxed the mental capability of the strategist?

Fuck strategy. I’m talking about little kids with moms and dads just like you (except under fire) who get killed and maimed long after hostilities have ceased, not to mention those who spill their little guts on the ground because they happened to be born or live in a war zone.

I cannot reconcile the idea of a progressive nation and one which which I would want to do business with the idea of taking a huge backward step into that sickening arena where “strategic necessity” takes precedence over the very fundamental and humane ideals that founded a nation. I’m watching America fall far behind the rest of the world when it comes to an understanding of critical social evolution. The land mine treaty is just the latest and most blatant example.

5

P.S. BUMP, way to bold Clinton’s name in that reply. Since when is this about Clinton? Last I checked, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions that America takes NOW.

Please tell me this isn’t the beginning of the usual distortion of the issue by dumbing it down to the tired republican/democrat reasoining.

6

My understanding is that the biggest reason the US hasn’t signed is because of North Korea. That’s a pretty dang big army that could head south into Seoul and one of the key barriers preventing such a scenario are the landmines.

7

The US also has the most advanced chemical and biological agents on the planet. There is precedence for agreeing to incorporate a ban on certain weapons into international law even though they might give you an advantage.

Yes. The M14, M16 and M18A1 mines have been deployed in numerous theatres of war across the Third World, where they have killed and maimed thousands of children and civilians.

Let us ban them, now. This talk of passing the buck and national interest sickens to the very stomach. If anything, the US soldier has more to fear from continuing their production and deployment than a ban, since they are so cheap that they easily find their way into the hands of militia which US forces might well come up against. It is difficult to imagine any US lives being saved by deploying them defensively considering the myriad alternative options available to a well-equipped force.

8

I doubt whether the landmines in South Korea are all thats stopping the North Koreans invading. I don’t think Kim Chong-il cares too much about human life - he’d probably just order a few hundred soldiers/political prisoners to walk though the minefield, setting them all off, and clearing a path for the bulk of their forces.

I think part of the reason is that landmines will probably never be used in the US, so its not worried about it too much. Also, the US under Bush tends to dislike any restrictions at all on its actions. The only way they would sign the agreement is if their military said that they would never need to use landmines anyway.

Which is a shame. IMO the military usefullness of landmines is totally outweighed by the damage they inflict on civilians after the war is over.

9

Although getting rid of mines is in the American national interest, the land mine treaty is of course a shame. That being said, the Americans not joining in to this lovefest.

Lets take these points in order.

  1. The American military is the most mobile force in the word. Since mines are countermobility devices, any program that make for fewer mines is good for the US military. This was my position when I prepared the Engineer School’s position. It still is.

  2. The treaty is a sham. Any country the size of Haiti can make mines by the basketload with at-hand materials. Banning factory-made mines will only encourage nations to use homebrews.

  3. The Americans not joining in is not important. The United States has never used a lot of mines (None at all in about forty years) and have never been a major exporter. The US has a hug obsolete stockpile, but they are not blowing up people. They are in warehouses.

The Europeans have been the major exporters of these nasty little things. (The Italians produce the best mines, plastic and shaped like rocks. Wonderful. The Eastern Europeans have tons of the cheapest ones. Nasty things that rust and get unstable in most climates.)

In any case, American mines and American policy is not the problem. The problem is man’s inhumanity to man and European greed.

10

Re. Korea, I understood that the proposed ban was merely on any future deployment, and even then only of certain kinds of anti-personnel mine (I think anti-tank mines would be exempt)?

11

Agreed, Paul, Europe is the worse-guy in this situation. Which makes it doubly odd that the US is dragging its feet so.

12

If the US doesn’t use mines, then where’s the harm in signing the treaty? Maybe it’s a crock, but surely sometimes, and some things, don’t have to be scrutinized to within an inch of their life. And if US support for the ban will help stop the nasty Euro arms exporters, then surely the quid pro quo diplomatic pressure is something worthwhile. As you say, crappy countries will still make home-made mines, one way or the other.

As for 40 years, I guess you mean nearer 30. I was in the Vietnam DMZ a few years ago. I saw kids walking down the street with bucket yokes on their shoulders full of shrapnel. I saw kids and adults in profusion by the side of the street with arms and legs missing. I bought a Coke off a guy by the side of the road, who took me to his shed - it was full of twisted antitank mines and tank tracks. Some of the mines had US lettering on them. He told me that nearly every day he hears a ‘boom’ in the distance - “usually a cow; sometimes a child”.

Unlike aerial bombardment, mines are a gift that keeps on giving.

13

…and aerially delivered mines give best of all, since they are mainly plastic (undetectable), brightly coloured and “sycamore-helicopter”-shaped (attracting children), and can be carefully dismantled in order to sell the aluminium in them (attracting the desperately, desperately poor).

14

Oh yeah, clusterfucks.

Why do so many of the internal parts malfucntion?

15

Can’t we produce mines that are designed to blow up after X number of weeks or months?

Marc

16

Or better still, auto-deactivation combined with broadcast radio signal, so that they can be swept up without danger.

17

The problem with any kind of deactivation mechanism is that the enemy might somehow use it. For time-delay mechanisms, they might malfunction themselves and, anyways, if you hit most mines with a pickaxe while innocently digging they might well go off whether they are armed or not, to say nothing of kids fiddling with them unknowingy.

In any case, mines do massive collateral damage during the conflict itself, when civilians are most likely flee into a newly mined field which didn’t exist a few days ago. Even a sign saying “DANGER! MINE FIELD” might seem the least worst option if your village is being razed by a rampaging militia.

Ban them all. Now.

18

This argument doesn’t weight much in my mind. I assume that plenty other nations which have signed the ban could have a military use for mines in some place or another, now or in a future contingency.

Yes. By that would be equally true with any other weapon banned by an international treaty. For instance nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. This position is only sensible if you believe that no kind of weapon altogether should be banned. Not having stockpiles of anthrax, for instance, also “takes one more weapon in the arsenal away from achieving [the goal you mentionned]”.

19

The landmine is an American invention.

First proposed during the American Revolution, it’s use was prohibited by orders of General Washington.

Later, during the US Civil War, Confederate forces deployed the first landmines to slow Sherman’s March To The Sea. The first landmines were wooden barrels filled with gunpowder. The pressure plate was made from a section of barrel top, & the trigger mechanism was made from an old flintlock pistol. There was a tin “roof” above the barrel, to protect the works from rain. There were various minor pieces of hardware, such as nail, tin strips, etc. used in construction.

The pistol was loaded with powder, no shot, & fixed in the 9/10ths full barrel of gunpowder, facing downwards. The barrel was placed in a hole, & the pistol cocked. A laynard ran from the trigger, through a hole in the top of the barrel. Above the barrel was a rooflike structure of tin, sloped, to carry rainwater away, & keep the gunpowder dry. The barrel was buried. with part of the laynard protruding from the ground.

The triggering plate was made from wooden barrel tops & iron springs, rather mousetrap-like. The laynard was connected to the trigger plate, & was buried. When stepped on, the trigger plate yanked on the laynard, firing the flintlock. The sparks from the flintlock detonated the powder in the wooden barrel, exploding the mine.

Though unintentional, I believe the tin “roof” acted as shrapnel.

Other versions used metal rods instead of laynards, or tripwires intead of pressure plates, but mostly they were pretty standard.

The Confederacy was quick to learn. Vairiable spring strength in the pressure plate, or modifying the flintlock’s springs allowed for “discrimination”–i.e. a mine that would not detonate when stepped on by a man, but would blow up if run over by a waggon, artillery piece, or if stepped on by a horse.

This weapon, fighting without human supervision, & able to discriminate between targets, was the ancestor of guided missiles & “smart” weapons.

20

I assume that most countries which signed the treeaty have military tacticians.

The point is that now, the international consensus is that using mines is in itself acting irresponsibly, due to the difficulty of removing these mines once the war is over (Egyptia is still one of the most mined countries, more than 50 years after WWI and the time needed to remove all existing mines in the world taking in account the number of people able to do so is generally estimated in one century or so), and due to the death and injury toll they cause to unintended targets, like children, farmers, etc… after they’re no longer needed.

IOW, you don’t need to sell them to some irresponsable country. The mere fact that the US still use them is considered irresponsible by the community of nations, and makes it an irresponsible country.