From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Dec 23 2001 - 01:35:09 MST
James Rogers wrote:
>
> On 12/20/01 6:50 PM, "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is also very much
> > needed, as Amara mentioned, to clean up the outrageous amount
> > of landminds and other unexploded ordinance in Afghanistan. The
> > US has consistently refused to sign landmine treaties and
> > produces much of the landmines in the world. Laos and Cambodia
> > are also to this day suffering from landmines and various
> > unexploded ordinance from the Vietnam war. The US still refuses
> > to share much of its data about how specific devices from that
> > era work with those attempting to find and defuse the landmines.
>
> As the closest thing to an expert on landmine warfare on this list (in all
> likelihood at least), the above paragraph is so full of invalid assumptions
> that it can effectively be discarded. Very few people who have opinions on
> this topic know anything about the doctrine, technology, and deployment of
> landmines in warfare. To try to paint the US as a bad guy on the topic of
> landmines suggests great ignorance of some fundamental history and facts on
> this subject.
Nor do I care to. Blowing body parts off of civilians for
decades after original deployment can not be excused by any
amount of "expertise".
>
> First of all, landmines have very legitimate and essentially irreplaceable
> uses in conventional land warfare. Furthermore, they are almost purely
> defensive weapons. Almost all the arguments against landmine warfare do not
How so when the go bang for many many years afterwards and
against people who you then have nearly offensive of defensive
grievances with?
> apply to the US military, though most people assume this is the case. The
> primary purpose of landmines is to impede an offensive action, giving time
> to the defenders to launch a defense and/or counterassault. This is
> particularly useful when the defenders expect to be badly outnumbered.
Fine, if you clear all the ordinance out afterward. Otherwise,
not fine at all.
> Because the US military has a history of setting up holding positions
> against a numerically superior force, landmines have been an essential tool
> for preventing a blitzkrieg style overrunning of our positions in those
> environs. In regions where the US forces do not face a credible threat of
> overwhelming numbers, landmines are not deployed. The reason so many
No, instead we drop cluster bombs heh? Do you deny that there
is a lot of unexploded ordinance in Laos and Cambodia that is
from us? If so, what do you believe should be done about it?
> countries have no problem banning landmines is that most countries do not
> have troops currently in positions where landmines could legitimately be
> used. The US *does* have troops in places where landmines are an essential
> part of the defensive strategy and therefore have no interest in increasing
> the vulnerability of their soldiers. The wholesale banning of landmines is
> not in the interest of the US and arguably not in the interest of others
> insofar as it applies to the US.
No. I have an interest in banning inhumane hardware.
>
> Second, unlike a great many third-world and other militaries, the US
> military documents, with great detail and precision (in triplicate), the
> location of every single mine it places. For every mine laid in the field,
> there is a massive paper trail. Every minefield is precisely mapped and
> archived for posterity. Many (if not most) militaries in the world do not
> do this, and many of the problems of undocumented minefields and random
> landmines are a direct result of this. The US military has people whose job
> is to clear the minefields that the US has laid, one of the many reasons
> they spend so much time on minefield documentation. Absent an ongoing
> conflict, the locations of US laid minefields is not considered a secret and
> the US will typically make great efforts to recover the mines it has laid.
> Obviously, the US cannot be reasonably held responsible for mines that it
> has not laid, though I've seen many people attempt to do this.
>
See and please answer the above question.
> Third, don't confuse the primitive first generation mine technology that is
> frequently deployed in the third world with state-of-the-art third
> generation technology that the US typically deploys. US military mines,
> depending on their deployment method and mission, typically contain active
> electronics that can 1) use a range of sensors to accurately identify
> probable military targets as a condition of detonation, and 2) are designed
> to become inert under a wide range of conditions, both explicitly triggered
> and automatic (such as the basic timeout where a mine becomes inert a
> certain amount of time after it has been laid). The US military has
> expended an extraordinary amount of effort and expense to make their
> landmines as "friendly" as possible.
>
Since some of the ordinance is from the 60s in Southeast Asia, I
doubt it is state-of-the-art. But wouldn't that be all the more
reason we wouldn't mind publishing the details of each types
characteristics sufficient to disarm them? Well, according to a
fairly recent article in Scientific American we do not do this.
Why?
> In conclusion, the vast majority of landmine problems in the world are a
> result of the irresponsible use of first and second generation landmine
> technologies, landmines which are still being produced in vast quantities by
Sometimes by us.
> the Chinese and to a lesser extent the Russians and some European countries.
> To blame the US for problems caused by the irresponsible use by other
> militaries and other regimes that are using landmines that are
> technologically inferior with respect to civilian safety is disingenuous.
I blame us when we could help the situation or the technology
was produced by us and we refuse.
> Your brush is *way* too broad. The US has expended vast quantities of money
> in an effort to make landmine warfare safe; to condemn them for the sins of
> others is exactly like condemning a private citizen who has defended their
They are still filthy weapons.
> life with a firearm merely because thugs use firearms to commit crimes also.
> As with all things, landmines are merely a tool and the character of their
> usage reflects the character of the user.
>
Such tools will never ever be approved of by me.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:44 MST