What would Israel know of such a thing?
Just so.
Note, too, that for the United States’ purposes, a large, temporarily-effective, but well-marked minefield is much more effective than a hidden, lethal, long-term one. Many poorly-led or disorganized miltiaries tend to think of having a big slaughter and killing and maiming lots of people. But the major purpose of a landmine is not to cause some fatality, but rather to soak up time and resources. So our landmines are meant to wound and/or warn off our enemies, who may not be capable of clearing it in a reasonable timeframe.
You make it sound like South Korea can’t buy or manufacture its own landmines.
It is quite possible that S Korea could do so. While the US is playing the role of big brother, it is on us to do so.
Is it. I must have missed that rule. I suppose some might even think it a convenience.
I would have to also say that because of Korea, we can’t outlaw land mines:
-
We are still at war with North Korea, although we have been in a cease-fire for 50 years.
-
The land mines there are in the neutral zone between the two countries. Removal of the land mines would a) be a declaration of the resumption of hostilities, and b) require cooperation between both countries, which can’t happen because of 1.
“Feel Good” treaties, which everyone knows will never be honored but which everyone signs so they can bask in world opinion, are, indeed, useless, if not worse than that.
Meh. We could dig them all up, tear down the fences and withdraw our troops. SK would still be just as safe. Kim Jong Il knows there’s no invasion scenario that wouldn’t be suicide for him and his regime. In fact, making him look ridiculous that way might precipitate his downfall.
Speaking as the resident expert on land mines, there are pluses and minuses to a land mine ‘ban.’
First as noted, it will not work. 1941, the Germans are marching on London, ought Churchill say no to manufacturing crude mines to stop the Nazi? Obviously, and semi-industrial country can make mines on short notice if it would be to their advantage.
Next, there is no problem with “advanced” countries using mines. When they plant mines, they keep records. After all, since we are going to win the war, we will have to pick the fool things up. But of course mines are nasty little things much beloved by all sorts of untrained fighters who do not keep records. (Even worse are civilians who use mines to settle family disputes. People are really nasty.)
Then of course is the issue of compliant self-safing mines, vice old-fashioned mines that just sit there waiting to cause trouble. Add into that the comparatively safe anti-tank mine against anti-tank mines with stick fuses. Really grim are the mines made and sold by those lovely Europeans. (The US has no private producers of mines and has not transferred mines to other government in memory.) They are nice to their children and dogs, but see no reason not sell scatterable, noncompliant mines just the right size to kill a child. Same for other countries that export mines that are modern enough to be deadly, but primitive enough to lack self-safing features.
The US has mines only in Korea (the ones in Cuba were lifted long ago). The US also reserved the right under the ban to use mines to protect certain weapons of great importance to the US. Further the US is the most mobile military in the world. Banning mines would work in America’s favor.
So why did the US say no to the ban?
I have no idea. The Engineer School came out against it despite my best efforts.
Mines; nasty things.
The experience with the USSR suggests just waiting for the other guy to collapse on his own, not inviting him to go out in a suicidal blaze of glory.
Interesting, thanks.
The only exemption in the Ottawa Treaty is in Article 3: “1. Notwithstanding the general obligations under Article 1, the retention or transfer of a number of anti-personnel mines for the development of and training in mine detection, mine clearance, or mine destruction techniques is permitted. The amount of such mines shall not exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary for the above-mentioned purposes.
2. The transfer of anti-personnel mines for the purpose of destruction is permitted.”
Nothing about protecting weapons of great importance.
Convenient that while we are there, we can play with land mines?
Claymore mines are fantastic. They say “This Side To Enemy” on one side. Really, they do. With smart placement, they can stop an infantry attack right now by throwing a whole lot of ball bearings in the bad guy’s path. These things are command activated and will not go off if stumbled upon. We were taught to hide them well so those same baddies don’t have the opportunity to sneak in at night and turn them around.
Not sure if they would be classified as land mines, but I for one do not want them removed from the supply system.
As for plain old victim triggered pressure mines, they are a great method of area denial and channeling of the enemy to where you want them to go. Right into kill zones and the Claymores.
And tell the Chinese to stop selling land mines to third world countries. The French, too.
And the Italians.
Claymores, as with all remote/command-triggered mine, are not covered by the Ottawa Conventions.
As noted elseware in the thread , the States does not sell landmines. What they do sell is cluster bombs, which can drop and spread a variety of munitions that either drop and bounce to a preset height , or lay dormant with delayed fuses.
The land mine treaty folks want clusterbombs banned as well.
Declan
So Finland won’t feel all alone?