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

[Dissonance]

@smiling bandit

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

It will receive the same enforcement as all international conventions. If the logic is that enforcement of international treaties is lax, then there is no reason to be a signatory to the Geneva or Hague conventions.

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.

They weren’t harder to make, and have been designed to maim for 60 years. The toe-popper originates with the German Shuh-mine of World War II which was developed to use less resources by making a mine with only enough explosives to blow a foot or a leg off. The bouncing-betty variety or bounding AP mine is designed to kill, and also dates back to a German mine of WWII, the S-mine. All nations that manufacture AP mines today use these two varieties.

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

The treaty has been in place for 7 years now. If it is going to be universally ignored, then surely you have some evidence that signatories have failed to stop production or export of AP mines, or have failed to start destroying existing stocks of them, or that signatories who have been involved in conflicts have cheated and used them.

[smiling_bandit]

It will receive the same enforcement as all international conventions.

IE, none.

If the logic is that enforcement of international treaties is lax, then there is no reason to be a signatory to the Geneva or Hague conventions.

I can’t comment about the Hague, but the Geneva convention contains a very simple reason for abiding by it: it has a little clause that says we don’t have to if our opponents don’t do the same or didn’t sign it.

They weren’t harder to make, and have been designed to maim for 60 years.

For industrial countries, sure. A lot of the third-world nations were, if you can believe it, poorer then they are today and had even smaller industrial bases, largely because most of them were colonies.

The treaty has been in place for 7 years now. If it is going to be universally ignored, then surely you have some evidence that signatories have failed to stop production or export of AP mines, or have failed to start destroying existing stocks of them, or that signatories who have been involved in conflicts have cheated and used them.

Do you have any evidence that countries have complied? I see none so far. And if all the countries arec complying so far it doesn’t matter whether the US signs or not!

[Ravenman]

@smiling bandit

Do you have any evidence that countries have complied? **I see none so far. **

Have you even bothered to look? If you have evidence that countries are not complying, by all means post it.

But I suspect that you have no such evidence, because out of your last three posts on this subject, you have repeatedly made appeals to ignorance to argue against the landmine treaty.

To wit, you have asked who would be in charge of enforcing the treaty, indicating that you haven’t taken the time to read it.

You have said that there have been fewer third world conflicts in the last seven years, as compared to the period right after World War II. This is wrong, and frankly it is silly.

You have argued that countries could just rename anti-personnel mines as anti-tank mines and skirt the treaty. This is laughable as well, not to mention that it reinforces the idea that you haven’t bothered to read the treaty.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the treaty. If we are to debate this subject in an informed and interesting way, please put some thought into what you post.