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

[XT]

@Roland Saul

So, Xtisme, if the U.S. doesn’t really use landmines in its’ doctrine, then what reasonable justification remains on the part of the States for not agreeing to adopt a more humane method of killing worldwide??

Thought you’d been told this already. Did you just choose to ignore it? The reason Clinton didn’t sign was because of mines deployed in the DMZ between North and South Korea. I don’t have all the details, but for whatever reason, the first nations putting forth the treaty were unable to compromise on this position so Clinton didn’t sign. As far as I know, this point has still not been addressed in the current iteration of the treaty either so its still a non starter for the US.

Now, you might dispute that mines are not necessary in the DMZ between North and South Korea, but unless you actually live there and are facing a threat of a rather large military invading your country you really can’t say, can you? And its a moot point anyway…as has already been pointed out, no one is likely to wander into the DMZ to dance among the mines (they would be shot long before they got that far most likely from the Norths side…and arrested from the South). So, I have to ask the question…exactly why DIDN’T these nations compromise on this to get Clintons signature? Seems pretty stupid to me.

@Roland Saul

Seeing as how (according to you) the accuracy and capability of American weapons to destroy military targets and spare divilian targets is so advanced, surely there remains no need for such an outmoded weapon?? You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Further, I remain unconvinced that there has been any significant improvement in humane delivery of munitions to large scale targets.

I said its constantly advancing in an effort to achieve this goal. Try to follow along, ok? The fact is, the US DOES spend an inordinate amount of money developing weapons with greater and greater percision. There are various reasons for this, but certainly one of them is to hold down civilian casualties. Only someone so out of touch to reality thinks this means they can possibly hold down ALL civilian casualties though. Thats never going to happen, especially when people insist on putting military structures among civilians in an effort to ‘shield’ them.

If you are unconvinced that there have been any significant improvements in humane delivery of munitions to large scale targets I can only conclude you are don’t know what you are talking about and haven’t been paying attention for the last 100 years of history. THere have been unbelievable advances in percision guided weapons that allow pin point attacks now as opposed to carpet bombing. Hell, look at the difference between Vietnam and the recent Gulf War as a comparison. Are they perfect yet? Not hardly. But to state there haven’t been advances and that the US doesn’t continue to strive to improve them kind of shows some rather large holes in your knowledge…or something anyway.

@Roland Saul

Cluster bombs , daisy cutters, and remote delivery wide dispersal mines do NOT IMHO fit the definition of accurate killing machines, and the civilian casualties
continue to grow. Granted the ratio of civilian/insurgent/dissident/terrorist/boogeyman death and injury has improved, so what? Are you going to be the one to tell a 5 year old girl whose eyes have been blown out that things are much better because previously her whole family would have died? I thought not.

Well, frankly who cares about your definition of anything military? You have shown a lack of understanding of matters military so your opinion is as valid as mine is on the subject of Quantum Physics. I will point out that those munitions you talked about are mostly used against large ememy formations in battle or to take out enemy bunkers, not normally in civilian areas (there are, of course exceptions, especially when the targets are put in civilian areas). They are also quite useful on the battlefield, which a weapon should be…you seem to be laboring under the delusion that we use them for the fun of it. The fact that some civilians might die from them is horrible…but its, like, reality. You know…real reality, like? You seem to think that war is some kind of clean and neat event where only those evil military types snuff it.

As to your 5 year old girl analogy, its meaningless. 5 year old girls die every day in car crashes and from myriad other bad things. I’ve actually lost a child so don’t even try and talk to me about what it means. Shit happens, and its bad and terrible and horribly painful to the parents. But when wars happen, bad things happen too. And its best to win them as quickly as possible to get the pain over with so the healing can begin. I wish the US and everyone else would never have to go to war again. But wishing in one hand and shitting in another, the shit hand is gona fill up faster. And I’ll tell you…if my country is going to put my son’s and cousins in harms way (ya, I have family in the military…you?) I want them to have the best equipment to do the job the fastest and most efficient way they can. I know you aren’t getting this as you seem incapable of understanding that war is a bad and dirty business. You have some kind of fantasy about what it is and should be. I’ll try one more time: If you HAVE to go to war, you go to war to win with everything you have that will make that goal a reality, as quickly and even as brutally as you can (within reason and limit which the US DOES). You attempt, as well as you can, to limit the ‘collateral’ damage suffered by non combatants, and you clean up your mess afterward by cleaning up the battlefield of all the unused deadly toys scattered about. Which the US does in case it slipped your notice.

@Roland Saul

We remain distant and safe from any harm while atrocities are committed in our names, and we justify the killing of innocents as “necessary” and “because it’s war, and bad things happen”.

I served in the first Gulf War. You? I have 2 cousins stationed in Iraq, one who was there for most of the fighting in Bagdad. You? My son is a Marine. Yours? Bad things DO happen. Can you stop them? War is a bad business and should be undertaken only in the gravest of circumstances IMO…but when it IS undertaken (at least by the US) then it should be undertaken to win and win quickly. To do that you need to use the best weapons at our disposal even if there are possibilities that civilians might be injured or even killed. Sound cold? Welcome to the real world.

Atrocities committed in our names? Well, I’ll admit I’m not keen on the Iraq war, but I saw no ‘atrocities’ committed in our names. Did we deliberatly bomb civilians, gass civilians, line civilians up and shoot them, etc? Not that I saw. I saw a military that did its best to limit civilian casualties. I seriously doubt whether there is a nation on earth that could have done what the US did in Iraq and not doubled (or more) the amount of civilian casualties there…and the amount of combat battle deaths for both sides too.

Now, whether it was wise of the US to GO into Iraq…I won’t defend that as I think its not defensable. But the actual mechanics of warfare US style…no, I don’t think the US commits ‘atrocities’ (some exceptions, as with all things) by and large, and I think the US strives always to limit civilian casualties whenever its possible to do so and to the best of its abilities.

As to your arguements that mines are not needed, well they are mostly talking about fixed minefields in your cite (and how much you want to bet I could find a cite somewhere that takes the exact opposite position and says they still ARE valuable and necessary?)…which the US doesn’t really use (with few exceptions like in Korea). I doubt anyone with a clue would dispute that variable deployed mine fields aren’t useful. And those other horror weapons you brought up like cluster munitions are VERY useful on the battlefield still. Again, it comes down to: If you are going to war, you fight to win and win as quickly and efficiently as you can. Civilians are GOING to die in a war. You try your best to minimize those civilian casualties while balancing the need to win as quickly and at as little cost to your side as you can.

-XT

[Paul_in_Qatar]

It is worth remembering that the Treaty bans antipersonnel mines only.

The nations of the world were unwilling to give up anti-tank mines.

[Wesley_Clark]

I didn’t bother to read every word of every reply to this post but has anyone commented on the fact that the US uses smart mines that self destruct and/or disable themselves after 120 days and that this is a major reason why we haven’t signed the treaty? I do not think its logical to lump US smart mines that self destruct or deactivate themselves with the types of mines in Afghanistan that are left over from the Soviet Invasion and still kill civilians 15 years after the war ended.

@Roland Saul

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.

[Roland_Saul]

Wesley, it’ll take you about 10 minutes to find out all you need to know about “smart” mines. They are about as reliable as the patriot missile, and we all know how effective that turned out to be.

There has been no attempt whatsoever to “lump” America in with the manufacturers of cheaper and “dumber” landmines. The point of the original post, which for some reason you felt necessary to re-post in its’ entirety, was to debate about the impact of the perceived American ideology regarding the humane expense of landmine usage.

At a time when anti-American sentiment is at the highest levels in history and growing, it seems to me that the decision to once again go against the humane efforts of the world at large in the interests of an perceived military expediency is ill-advised, and causes millions of people worldwide including myself to notch our respect for American policy downward. Again.

It would appear also that there has been no further reference on the part of the pro-landmine crowd to the VietNam Vets stance on the efficacy and real expense of landmine use as a tactical battlefield weapon. This viewpoint, (which carries more credibility than any I’ve seen here including mine), points directly to the fallacy that the landmine in a tactical sense is useful to anyone on either side.
It is outrageously expensive to control, and any studies I can find from any sources seem to indicate that historically, landmines have proven to be a stupid tactical idea.

Xtisme, I regret that I can’t participate in any slanderous and dull discussions about “living in a fantasy world”, but if you must, fill your boots… my military experience was in EW, but I left in '81 when I realized how full of shit the military actually is, and how any dissenting opinion on the effectiveness of the latest and greatest weapon or tactic is instantly and profoundly crushed at all levels.
Sorta like here sometimes…

[Roland_Saul]

P.S. Xtisme, the U.S. is by no means any more guilty than any country at war.
I fail to see how death by landmine or “smart” bomb of any civilians is any less of an atrocity because it is accidental or incidental to the claimed target.

Perhaps that is one of our core differences. I see the death and maiming of children as atrocities regardless of the perceived altruistic motivations of the deliverer of the mine. Just because you’re chasing bad guys doesn’t make the victims any less dead, or perhaps more to the point, any less hateful of the system that caused them the suffering.

[Ravenman]

Oh, sure, the whole damn landmine problem would go away if the US just signed the Ottawa Treaty. Whatever. Let’s just look at some facts:

The United States is doing more than any other country to demine Third World countries. It has provided roughly half a billion dollars over the past ten years to do this, as well as investing in new demining technologies.

The United States has established its own endowment of roughly $100 million to compensate those who have suffered at the vicious hand of landmines, whether or not the landmine was US made.

The United States has banned the transfer of antipersonnel landmines since 1992.

The United States has not made an antipersonnel landmine since 1997.

The United States has roughly 37,000 troops in South Korea that would be on the front line of some really bad stuff if the North Koreans chose to invade, and the primary speedbump up there is well-marked fields of landmines.

The United States continues to spend significant sums researching alternatives to landmines.

The United States has proposed a global prohibition on the sale of non-self destructing landmines. No, it wasn’t Clinton that suggested this, the proposal was made in February 2003 by guess-who’s administration.

For cites on all this, see 404 | ICBL

Further, the last time that the US deployed landmines, the 1991 Gulf War, all of those mines were of the self-destructing variety, and a contractor was hired to clean them up. But, indiciating that the utility of landmines in combat is on the wane, the US military couldn’t point to a single enemy casualty due to landmines. That gives me hope that sometime in the future, the US will basically have no interest in using landmines during combat.

By the way, the dud rate for those self-destructing mines was about 1%, meaning that 1,900 of 118,000 mines deployed did not “turn off” at the proper time. The technology used in those mines is supposed to yield a dud rate of .01 percent. Clearly there’s some work to do there.

Center for Defense Information

That the US has not signed the Ottawa Treaty is not, in any way whatsoever, contributing to the scourge of landmines. The problem is due to irresponsible use of landmines by many countries, fueled by irresponsible transfers of landmines to those who used them – and yes, the US should answer for its past mistakes in this area. But it clearly is with its demining and compensation programs.

When someone can stand up and say that they have a better way to make sure that the DMZ in the Koreas remains a real barrier to military attack, I’ll be fully on board the US joining a complete ban on landmines. But until that time, there are other countries with legitimate security interests that also know that signing up to a ban is easy for countries that do not have strong reasons to defend their own borders – or the borders of allies – with potentially dangerous countries. Such as the United States, and Finland, to name two with such compelling interests.

The real problem with the Ottawa Treaty is that those who negotiated it were intent on getting their way, damning whoever stood in their way, and not enough time to listening to countries with very legitimate reservations about the content of the treaty. If, in the course of diplomacy, you are not willing to listen to what the other side is saying, arrogance and short-sightedness are too often the result.

Ironically, it is arrogance and short-sightedness that has also been the main problem with Bush’s foreign policy. Perhaps the most zealous anti-landmine activists have more in common with the neocons than they are willing to admit.

[Wesley_Clark]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10711-2004Feb26.html

http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/smart.htm

The safety problem stems from dumb bombs, which kill as many as 10,000 civilians a year, the official said. Smart bombs, he added, “are not contributors to this humanitarian crisis.”

Bush’s decision drew expressions of outrage and surprise from representatives of humanitarian organizations that have pressed for a more comprehensive U.S. ban on land mines. They say the danger to civilians and allied soldiers during and after a war outweighs the benefits of such weapons. They also dispute the contention that unexploded smart mines are safe, saying there isn’t enough evidence to know.
So as of yet we don’t know if smart mines will lead to death but i tend to doubt it for a couple reasons.

1. smart mines are dropped from planes, and as a result are above ground. Dumb mines are buried underground and impossible to spot w/o detection equiptment.

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. Smart mines have already been laid in highly populated areas. Russian mines that are supposed to self-destruct are now causing civilian casualties in Chechnya.
2. dumb mines stay armed for decades, smart mines deactivate after 120 days.

So far we don’t know, but i would assume logically that mines that are above ground and detonate/deactivate are less of a threat than mines that never dearm and that are hidden from public view.
Also, the patriot had a 10% success rate in Gulf war 1, smart mines have at least a 90% success rate. You can’t compare a 10% & 90% success rate.

[Kimstu]

Ravenman: *The United States is doing more than any other country to demine Third World countries.[…]

The United States has established its own endowment of roughly $100 million to compensate those who have suffered […]

The United States has banned the transfer of antipersonnel landmines since 1992.

The United States has not made an antipersonnel landmine since 1997.

The United States has roughly 37,000 troops in South Korea that would be on the front line […]

The United States continues to spend significant sums researching alternatives to landmines.

The United States has proposed a global prohibition on the sale of non-self destructing landmines.
*

Right Ravenman, all of these points are addressed in the HRW reports I linked to. But my question remains: if we don’t like landmines and are working to eradicate them, then what is the point of the course reversal in Bush’s new policy? Can someone point to any specific, practical benefits of reversing direction on the previous policy in so many ways? Seems to me the new policy isn’t really accomplishing anything significant except to piss a lot of people off.

[XT]

Excellent post, as always, Ravenman. I think you pretty much hit all the high points with that.

I think, Roland Saul that you are drawing false comparisons. Your stance seems to be “but the children and innocents are dieing!” as if I’m saying “kill em all, let god sort em out” or some such drivel. I’m not saying anything like that…simply trying to be realistic. War is a terrible things. Bad things happen when men unleash war upon each other. There is no way to make it nice and clean and only kill those people who are participants…unfortunately. Its all well and good to wish that such things wouldn’t happen…hell to wish that there would BE no more wars. But its only a wish…we have to live in the real world.

In the real world, the US DOES strive to keep non combatant casualties to a bare minimum. It constantly strives to improve its technology (again, at great cost) to make it better and better at keeping those casualties down. As Ravenman pointed out, we have a ways to go. Thats why they keep working on it.

I think the real difference between us Roland is that, while I dislike war, I’m realistic about it. I realize what can and can’t be done, and also I realize that sometimes decisions have to be made on a battlefield that will result in the deaths of innocents. Its a fact of life, though unfortunate. As long as nation states are out there with militaries and the will to use them to achieve their political goals, there will be wars…and as long as there are wars, the innocent will die.

-XT

[Wesley_Clark]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/EM466.cfm

Today, the U.S. manufactures only mines that self-destruct, and the self-destruct rate of 32,000 smart mines tested since 1976 is 99.996 percent. Furthermore, there are no reported cases of unintended civilian injury or death by U.S. APLs in either 1995 or 1996. The mines used by the U.S. armed forces are rigidly controlled and responsibly used, and have had no identifiable impact on civilians. In other words, the use of mines by American forces is not part of the land mine problem that the President seeks to solve.

[Kimstu]

Fine Wesley, xt, but I repeat: if we’re not actually using or proliferating landmines, then why did we bother to change our policy? Seems to me like a lose-lose situation: we get all kinds of negative publicity for the 27 Feb. policy shift and we don’t get any significant useful benefit from it.

[Ravenman]

@Kimstu

But my question remains: if we don’t like landmines and are working to eradicate them, then what is the point of the course reversal in Bush’s new policy? Can someone point to any specific, practical benefits of reversing direction on the previous policy in so many ways?

I have not heard any skinny on why this particular decision was made at this time, but my WAG is that it relates to the situation of the US armed forces in Iraq.

Let’s face it: the Iraqi armed forces are not going to be a real fighting force capable of self-defense against external aggression for several more years. The Iraqi border patrol isn’t exactly a very numerous force at this moment either, and you can just plain forget about US forces sitting out in the Western Desert waiting for something to happen for years and years from now. That being the case, mined borders begin to look like a real possibility.

Again, this is just my guess, but there certainly is a connection there, although I’m quite dubious as to whether this is a good idea.

Then again, we’re talking about the same Administration that actually thinks that low-yield nuclear weapons are worthy of investment, so perhaps there is no deep thoughts going on in the E-Ring of the Pentagon at this particular moment.

While I am very opposed to the US signing the landmine treaty at this point, I do take solice in that there is a significant number of military leaders who think that landmines are rapidly losing their utility on the battlefield, what with brilliant munitions and better intelligence collection becoming closer to reality with every passing moment. (I point to the willingness of Generals Schwarzkopf, Shelton, and Shalikashvili to entertain a ban on landmines, with certain reservations.)

[Dissonance]

@Wesley Clark

Today, the U.S. manufactures only mines that self-destruct, and the self-destruct rate of 32,000 smart mines tested since 1976 is 99.996 percent. Furthermore, there are no reported cases of unintended civilian injury or death by U.S. APLs in either 1995 or 1996. The mines used by the U.S. armed forces are rigidly controlled and responsibly used, and have had no identifiable impact on civilians. In other words, the use of mines by American forces is not part of the land mine problem that the President seeks to solve.

To dispute the figure given of 99.996% in an actual live environment, a GAO accounting from the 1990/91 Gulf War (which the DoD disputes) using figures provided by a US civilian contractor involved in unexploded ordinance removal lists 1,997 land mine duds out of 118,000 self-destruct land mines used in the conflict, link to the report is here, warning, pdf file. While the US certainly does better than most in trying to minimize the impact of anti-personnel land mines on the post war environment and does its best to clean them up afterwards, I’d like to see the US sign on to the treaty if for no other reason than the fact that a most nations have signed on, and the US hasn’t been in a militarily defensive posture in some time, which is where land mines have their real value. The mines deployed on the DMZ in Korea would have a 20 year grace period as per the treaty, see article 5.

[artemis]

@Dissonance

…the US hasn’t been in a militarily defensive posture in some time…

The mines deployed on the DMZ in Korea would have a 20 year grace period as per the treaty, see article 5.

The US has been in a militarily defensive posture in Korea for a half-century. As we have no way of knowing when (if ever) the situation in Korea will be resolved, a 20-year grace period simply isn’t good enough. The current cease-fire has already been going on longer than that! The exemption for the Korean penninsula needs to be indefinite (or rather, it needs to be in place until an actual peace treaty is in effect rather than a mere cease-fire).

[smiling_bandit]

But far fewer. The aim is to reduce the number of casualties. Regardless of whether there is a legitimate use, bandit, the argument here is that these weapons do so much collateral damage that, like WMDs, the world would be a better place without them being deployed in future wars.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think this treaty will in any way alter the number of mines laying around. People will simply ignore the treaty when it becomes inconvienient. Legal law != natural law.

And I don’t think the world will be a better place with more or fewer mines. Mines are an advantage of the defender, primarily, and I state that usually, a defending state is in the right. Sure, if there were mines that might save some lives in the future. It might also lead to bloodier wars.

In other words, I don’t think the case has been proven even in theory, much less in practice.

[Dissonance]

@artemis

The US has been in a militarily defensive posture in Korea for a half-century. As we have no way of knowing when (if ever) the situation in Korea will be resolved, a 20-year grace period simply isn’t good enough. The current cease-fire has already been going on longer than that! The exemption for the Korean penninsula needs to be indefinite (or rather, it needs to be in place until an actual peace treaty is in effect rather than a mere cease-fire).

I apologize if my language was not precise enough, I meant that the US has not been in a strategically defensive posture during wartime since 1952. We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on the likely need to maintain anti-personnel minefields in Korea past the 20 year grace period, but I’d note that only anti-personnel mines would be covered after the 20 years have expired. Anti-tank mines would still be allowed, as would command detonated anti-personnel mines, such as the claymore.

[Eolbo]

Assorted comments to assorted posters:

1. Anti-tank mines aren’t a significant humanitarian problem, as they require too much pressure to detonate them, certainly more then a child can generate. I’ve read an account of US marines in the first gulf war crossing an Iraqi minefield by walking on the anti-tank mines as that was safer then walking around them and losing their legs to surrounding anti-personnel mines.

2. Despite some disbelief in this thread the US was in the past a heavy user of anti-personnel mines (Korea, Vietnam etc), and did not always map fields. In particular the US made wise use of scatterable mines in Vietnam which have since posed major problems. Mines were also removed from minefields and re-laid elsewhere by guerillas so they remain a problem regardless of any original mapping or intention to remove them.

3. The Europeans stopping exporting mines back in the 1990s as did the US

4. The minefields in South Korea are not under US jurisdiction, they belong to the South Korean military so the Korean objection is rather a red herring. In any event the threatened state on the Korean peninsula is the North not the South, and its been pointed out before including by the engineer in this thread that the minefields will simply get in the way of US forces conducting mobile and offensive operations. Since the “protection” that anti-personnel mines supposedly provide US forces has been an argument in their favour its perhaps worth highlighting that:

Scatterables were first introduced by the United States during the Vietnam War. However, they had severe consequences for U.S. troops, who often found themselves retreating through their own, unmarked minefields. Nearly one-third of all U.S. casualties during the war were due to landmines deployed by U.S. troops themselves.

http://www.canadianlandmine.org/landmineprob_history.cfm

5. A useful overview of the Korean mine issue is here:

http://www.icbl.org/lm/2001/south_korea/

Which points out among other things that even along the DMZ not all minefields are mapped or marked.

According to the Ministry of National Defense, 155 people have died of mine accidents since 1990, including 75 civilians.[38] The number of injured victims is likely to be much higher than the number of deaths. The Ministry of National Defense reported that in 2000 one soldier died and 12 were injured in landmine incidents in the DMZ area and Korean Army bases.[39] In 2000, there were six civilian casualties in Korea, including two children; none of the accidents occurred in acknowledged minefields

Also an indication of the view of some former senior US military commanders in Korea as to the value of the mines:

A 19 May 2001 letter to President Bush from six retired US generals and two admirals said, “Several of us are former commanders of elements of I-Corps (USA/ROK group), and believe that APM [antipersonnel mines] are not in any way critical or decisive in maintaining the peninsula’s security… It is our understanding that the standing response plan to a North Korean attack does not call for these weapons to be used to counter an initial attack.”

[smiling_bandit]

1. Anti-tank mines aren’t a significant humanitarian problem, as they require too much pressure to detonate them, certainly more then a child can generate. I’ve read an account of US marines in the first gulf war crossing an Iraqi minefield by walking on the anti-tank mines as that was safer then walking around them and losing their legs to surrounding anti-personnel mines.

Ah, but it’s a matter of definition. A third-world nation can call their new mines design (a blatant copy of its old anti-personell design) anti-tank mines, but the mines won’t change. And maybe it shouldn’t. You could quite plausibly call older mines anti-tank since they are much more powerful than the mines of today.

[Dissonance]

@smiling bandit

Ah, but it’s a matter of definition. A third-world nation can call their new mines design (a blatant copy of its old anti-personell design) anti-tank mines, but the mines won’t change. And maybe it shouldn’t. You could quite plausibly call older mines anti-tank since they are much more powerful than the mines of today.

Again: No they couldn’t, at least not without being in blatant violation of the treaty. I provided the language of the treaty earlier, in short any mine that is designed to be “exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons,” is an anti-personnel mine. The only anti-personnel component allowed on an anti-tank mine without having it classified as an anti-personnel mine are anti-handling devices, which are also clearly defined in the treaty.

Older anti-personnel mines aren’t necessarily any more powerful than the ones of today. The toe-popper and the bouncing betty designs, the staples of AP mines, date back to World War II. Even more basic older AP mines couldn’t simply be classified as anti-tank mines as they are designed to be detonated by people, not by vehicles.

If your argument is that the treaty will be violated by some when it is inconvenient, this logic can be applied to any treaty that has ever existed. There would be no particular reason to be a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the chemical weapons convention, for example. The treaty has now been in effect for 7 years, I haven’t seen evidence yet of nations trying to find ways to do end runs around the language.

[smiling_bandit]

Ah, but who’s going to enforce the treaty or the definitions?

The toe-popper and the bouncing betty designs, the staples of AP mines, date back to World War II.

But they were harder to make and most countries didn’t have the resources to get them. I suspect most could nowadays. As to the power of mines, the fact of the matter is that mines are no longer made to kill, but to wound.

If your argument is that the treaty will be violated by some when it is inconvenient, this logic can be applied to any treaty that has ever existed.

No, I’m arguing this one will be ignored virtually universally. Not cheated on when convenient but signed and forgotten by everyone.

There would be no particular reason to be a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the chemical weapons convention, for example.

That’s not true. At the time, we didn’t need all those weapons, and the Cold War had, umm, cooled [warmed?] significantly. In any event, we had no reason to use so many weapons in the foreseeable future.

The treaty has now been in effect for 7 years, I haven’t seen evidence yet of nations trying to find ways to do end runs around the language.

There haven’t been as many major third-world conflicts in the last 7 years, not compared to the post WW2 era. But there will be again, and the worst violaters will cheat if they see any advantage in doing so.