US and landmines

It seems that the US is not to ratify the international anti landmine treaty, as its against their strategic interests.
Since when was it in any country's interests, strategic or otherwise, to scatter around weapons which blow the limbs off innocent kids throughout the world.

Originally posted by Redmike
It seems that the US is not to ratify the international anti landmine treaty, as its against their strategic interests.
Since when was it in any country's interests, strategic or otherwise, to scatter around weapons which blow the limbs off innocent kids throughout the world.

Originally posted by Redmike
It seems that the US is not to ratify the international anti landmine treaty, as its against their strategic interests.
Since when was it in any country's interests, strategic or otherwise, to scatter around weapons which blow the limbs off innocent kids throughout the world.

Originally posted by chancremechanic
That's a valid question, Redmike. Why don't you go and ask the taliban regime, the combatants in Bosnia-Hertzegovena, the Iraqi Republican Guard, Al-Qaeda and Jamaal Islamya. Maybe the US doesn't want to ratify the treaty because in doing so the only countries/regimes in noncompliance would be the aforementioned thereby limiting the US response ...[text shortened]... t are still being found today...do you have another suggestion besides the laying of land mines?

Some pertinent information for this discussion:

47 countries have refused to sign the treaty banning landmines.

The US has agreed to use only landmines that 1) are detectable to US forces, and thus (in principle) removable at the end of hostilities, and 2) are "smart", or non-persistant, in that they are preset to blow up after some period of time, thus reducing the chance that innocents will stumble upon them.

In 2002, almost 12,000 innocents were killed by landmines, including almost 3000 children. There are between 15,000 and 20,000 casualties from landmines per year.

The United States has apparently not used antipersonnel mines since the 1991 Gulf War, has not exported since 1992, has not produced since 1997, has destroyed more than 3 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines, and has provided more funding for mine clearance, mine risk education and mine victim assistance than any other single nation. -Human Rights Watch

Although much of this is hopeful, it is still distressing that the Bush administration is taking a substantial step back from the previous US policy of phasing out landmines by 2006. The new policy mandates that "dumb" landmines be phased out by 2010, but that "smart" landmines may be used indefinitely.

Perhaps we should debate the relative merits of these policies as opposed to previous policies or alternative policies, rather than merely slinging insults back and forth.

http://www.icbl.org/treaty/nonsign.php3

In case anyone is curious.

Having been in the military for a short time in the U.S., my view is I could not imagine how difficult it would be to defend site for any extended period without the option to place mines around the perimeter. If all you had to count on was some bleary-eyed soldiers at night, it could be very difficult.

The U.S. military doesn't place land mines around at random. As far as I know, they are used mainly for perimeter security, and each one is mapped out so they can be removed later. Clamors are most common. They are placed above ground and triggered by a switch controlled by the soldier. They can be removed easily and placed somewhere else.

The modern U.S. military doesn't place land mines on roads or fields where civilians would be likely to trip them. Booby traps might be placed where you're sure the enemy is going to travel, but even that is not done since you can't control them. Clamors are usually controlled by personnel who trigger them when the enemy is in range. Mines that the enemy could trip, are just as likely to kill your own side or civilians.

It is part of the culture of the U.S. military to give the utmost priority to protecting the lives and welfare of civilians. It is instilled in basic training. Every new soldier is taught that the highest rank in the military is civilian. And a civilian is never the enemy no matter what county they are from. If they pick up a gun and start shooting at you, then they can be considered an enemy. But other than that, you kiss their feet.

bbarr, where did you get the info? Very interesting stuff.

Originally posted by Coletti
Having been in the military for a short time in the U.S., my view is I could not imagine how difficult it would be to defend site for any extended period without the option to place mines around the perimeter. If all you had to count on was some bleary-eyed soldiers at night, it could be very difficult.

The U.S. military doesn't place land mines around ...[text shortened]... at, you kiss their feet.

bbarr, where did you get the info? Very interesting stuff.

It seems that the US is not to ratify the international anti landmine treaty, as its against their strategic interests.
Since when was it in any country's interests, strategic or otherwise, to scatter around weapons which blow the limbs off innocent kids throughout the world.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
It's quite simple really, money.

America is the largest arms manufacturer, they sell their s**t to poor counties in Africa where children are expendable.