landmine ban

[desi]

Here's some stats on landmines:

In 1993 there were an estimated 26,000 landmine casualties. This had dropped by 1999-2000 to an estimated 8,500 victims annually (though some estimates are as high as 3 times that number). 30-40% of these casualties were women and children, and the casualties were spread over 55 countries. Of these 55, 39 were not engaged in any sort of conflict at the time.
Landmines and other UXO (unexploded ordinance) affect 88 countries. In some there is land still too dangerous to farm due to mines laid during WW2. The only continents free of landmines are Australia and the Antarctic.
A landmine costs approximately $3 to make, and in excess of $1000 to clear. That is $1000 per individual mine. There are an estimated 100 - 120 million mines currently in the ground and mine clearance operations happening in 65 countries.
A study by the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) found that there is no clear evidence that AP mines are of high military value. They studied the use of mines in 26 conflicts since 1940, and concluded the following:
'...properly establishing and maintaining an extensive border minefield is time consuming, expensive and dangerous and has rarely occurred in actual conflicts. In order to have any efficacy at all they need to be under continuous observation and direct fire, which is not always possible and is often not done. Under battlefield conditions the use, marking, and mapping of mines in accordance with classical military doctrine and international humanitarian law is extremely difficult, even for professional armed forces.'
'...the use of anti-personnel mines in accordance with the military doctrine which has justified their use has occurred infrequently and only when certain conditions were met: (a) both parties to the conflict were disciplined professional armies with high sense of responsibility and engaged in a short - lived international conflict; (b) the tactical situation was fairly static; (c) forces possessed adequate time and resources to mark, monitor and maintain minefields in accordance with law and doctrine, (d) mined areas were of sufficient economic or military value to ensure that mine clearance occurred and (e) sufficient political will existed to implement the above conditions.'
They also found that there is a high cost to the forces using AP mines in terms of casualties and limitations of tactical flexibility.
I don't know if I've moved 'beyond the obvious' (that they kill and maim innocents with no descrimination), but I've certainly picked my side. May have even justified my position with a couple of facts.:woohoo:

So you are referencing the Red Cross as it pertains to tactical use of landmines.:sarcastic Run a Google search and find a military position, read it, post it, and comment on it.

 

[Pah]

Sure, the fact that every modern army either uses them or has them readily available.

Data, man, data. What justifies "every modern army" for having them. What's the kill ratio to ground fire? How does it compare to close air support? Show me it's better than high electric fencing, watch towers and bunkers with a good field of fire. Don't assume because everyone does it means it's the best defensive posture. I don't and you should be able to prove I'm wrong - can't you?

Bob

 

[Quoth The Raven]

So you are referencing the Red Cross as it pertains to tactical use of landmines.:sarcastic Run a Google search and find a military position, read it, post it, and comment on it.

Ok, bearing in mind that you cite the fact that every modern army has landmines as a statistic relating to their effectiveness in battle, I can see where you're arguing from a stronger position than I am.
Would Norman Shwartzkopf (sp?) be a good enough source for you? His attitude after the first Gulf war was that a minefield can be easily breached in a number of hours, as was cleary shown during that conflict, because it was done.
The Red Cross study? Well the people who came up with the conclusions found were a group of 8 high ranking military experts from 8 countries, and were drawn up by Brigadier Patrick Blagden, a former combat engineer and weapons expert with the British Royal Army. The conclusions were based on a survey of the actual use and effectiveness of landmines in 26 conflicts over 55 years. There have been virtually no published military studies of the effectiveness of mines in ACTUAL CONFLICT. If we're working on a controlled conditions and best case scenario, well then of course they're brilliant! This study was based on REAL LIFE.
I have a sneaky suspicion those 10 people above have a better idea than you as to how effective landmines are in conflict.
Now how about you get off your butt and do some research that proves your position, rather than bagging me because I actually went out and found some information on the topic rather than just wiping it off my chin and calling it fact.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Data, man, data. What justifies "every modern army" for having them. What's the kill ratio to ground fire? How does it compare to close air support? Show me it's better than high electric fencing, watch towers and bunkers with a good field of fire. Don't assume because everyone does it means it's the best defensive posture. I don't and you should be able to prove I'm wrong - can't you?

Bob

Actually, the study I cited found that the minefields had to be under constant observation and direct fire in order to be effective, so it seems they're more like a 'you want fries with that' weapon than anything else.

 

[painted wolf]

Nine of the 15 mine producers are in Asia (Burma, China, India, Nepal, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam), three in the Middle East (Egypt, Iran, and Iraq), two in the Americas (Cuba and United States), and one in Europe (Russia).

The U.S. has the third largest stockpile in the world (after China and Russia), with 11.2 million antipersonnel mines.

information from "The International Campain to ban Land Mines" or ICBL: http://www.icbl.org/

wa:do

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Sure, the fact that every modern army either uses them or has them readily available.

Every modern restaurant kitchen uses or has readily available a whisk. Doesn't mean you couldn't achieve exactly the same end result with a fork.

 

[desi]

Data, man, data. What justifies "every modern army" for having them. What's the kill ratio to ground fire? How does it compare to close air support? Show me it's better than high electric fencing, watch towers and bunkers with a good field of fire. Don't assume because everyone does it means it's the best defensive posture. I don't and you should be able to prove I'm wrong - can't you?

Bob

You're the one saying we should do away with them. Make your case for it. If they're not necessary do your homework before irresponsibly espousing an idea which may or may not have merit.

 

[desi]

Every modern restaurant kitchen uses or has readily available a whisk. Doesn't mean you couldn't achieve exactly the same end result with a fork.

Sure and you could use a pocket knife for a screw driver.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Sure and you could use a pocket knife for a screw driver.

My pocket knife HAS a screwdriver. Hence I am not likely to stab myself in the hand whilst trying to take the battery cover off a childs plaything this Christmas Day. However, it's hardly comparable, as using a fork to beat an egg is not likely to end up in the application of a bandaid and some antiseptic to the injured idiot.
I notice, however, that you've stayed right away from my other post, as to the actual people who compiled the Red Cross study. Why is that? Could it be that they were military people, and military people saying that landmines are not a powerful weapon disagrees with your standpoint.

You're the one saying we should do away with them. Make your case for it. If they're not necessary do your homework before irresponsibly espousing an idea which may or may not have merit.

I believe that is what people have been doing here. The best you can come up with is everyone has them. My grandfather went to war with a Lee Enfield. Everyone had them. I don't think you'll find everyone having them now.

So the position you're taking is that you don't have to support said position because you're all for maintaining the status quo?

Wow! Way to form an opinion. Spose it saves on all the pesky research and actually having to think about it though, doesn't it?

 

[Pah]

You're the one saying we should do away with them. Make your case for it. If they're not necessary do your homework before irresponsibly espousing an idea which may or may not have merit.

You are mistaken.

I have only spoken about a poor argument that cites no data. You have made assertions and not backed them up.

Would you care to try now?

Bob