Yes India the leader in all things correct and proper, well they are still stock pileing, and it looks like mahbe even still selling a few land mines. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Analysis_India_rejects_ban_on_landmines_999.html MILTECH Analysis: India rejects ban on landmines by Kushal Jeena New Delhi (UPI) Jan 18, 2007 A U.N.-backed world body campaigning against the use of landmines has urged the Indian government to sign a global treaty to ban the weapons. "An estimated 4 (million) to 5 million anti-personnel mines exist in India, which is the sixth-largest stockpile in the world. Despite India banning export of landmines, the footprints of its weapons have been found in countries like Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Tanzania and Sudan," said the Landmine Monitor Report 2007 released by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines in New Delhi. The government said it has not used any landmines last year. Many of the landmines remain in Indian soil from past conflicts. In this past year alone, there have been an estimated 107 casualties of landmines and other explosive remnants of war in the country. India has not yet joined the international treaty on banning landmines. India, along with Russia, China and Pakistan, remains one of the largest producers of landmines, even if not an active user. Globally, 13 countries produce anti-personnel mines, many of which are taking measures to reduce their mine production. With the sixth-largest stockpile in the world, India is far from becoming a mine-free nation. "We have been participating in the meeting of the Ottawa Convention as an observer since we share the humanitarian concerns, even though we are not a party to it and have certain reservations on it," the Indian government told the Landmine Monitor in a letter. "Our legitimate security concerns necessitate the use of anti-personnel mines. India remains committed to the objective of eventual elimination of anti-personnel mines through a non-discriminatory, universal and global ban on APLs that addresses the legitimate defense requirements of the states."
Land mines can be a good advantage, or at least a concept land mine which can be deactivated or activated remotely. Therefore, a nation can place unactive land mines on their borders and around areas they want to protect, and if their is an invasion or hostile attack, the land mines can be activated
Ermm there's something a bit iffy about that report. Mauritius does not have landmines. It's a small tropical island in the Indian Ocean filled to the brim with tourist resorts. Also: Definitely something very iffy about that report Buff. Wherever did you find it?
I think the reference to Indian mine footprints is this: "Key developments since May 2003: In November 2003, Mauritius destroyed its stockpile of 93 antipersonnel mines; these were initially declared as retained for training purposes." http://www.icbl.org/lm/2004/mauritius
Ah ok. Bizarre. 93 for training purposes is hardly a 'footprint'. Lets face it, there is nowhere on that tiny island where land mines could actually be used. The article posted by Buffalo made the 'footprint' reference as though they had actually been used for the purposes for which they had originally been intended. And seeing they destroyed all of those in 2003, I find it strange that a 2007 report would report on it in such a fashion.
Its not strange when you realize that India has always denied exporting mines to any place. The point in the article was India says these things but there is evidence Indian made landmines ARE showing up in these various places. ...According to the government, “India has never exported landmines and has formally announced [a] moratorium, of unlimited duration, prohibiting the export of landmines.” http://www.icbl.org/lm/2000/india
True. My mistake. It is interesting to note that some of their landmine production is from the commercial sector.
I think we should all support a global ban on landmines. Here is a UN ad which was not aired in the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXVCYQ1qix8
I think the people of North Korea have suffered enough. How about the rather radical notion of dialogue?
Excerpts: The Pentagon has requested a total of $1.3 billion for development and production activities for another new antipersonnel mine called the Intelligent Munitions System, with a full production decision expected in 2008. Future use, production, or export of antipersonnel mines by the United States will of course not constitute a violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since the United States is not party to the treaty. According to a media report, which the Pentagon has yet to confirm or deny, in May 2005 the U.S. Army was to begin deploying to Iraq a new remote-controlled landmine system called Matrix, which relies on technology developed for Spider. Link: http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/
The obvious point here is that landmines have their uses. Area denial in the invasion corridors through the Korean DMZ is one of these uses. If you are going to argue for a complete ban of a weapon system because it chafes your delicate personal sensibilities, you might want to consider what would need to be done to fill its niche.
Perhaps you are aware that half of the landmines purportedly for use in Korea are stored in the US? http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Landmines.asp
E3R: "The obvious point here is that landmines have their uses." Oh yes: Indescriminate maiming/killing at random. "If you are going to argue for a complete ban of a weapon system because it chafes your delicate personal sensibilities..." This will obviously chafe your own delicate personal fetishes, E3R, but landmines are not what's holding back the NK hordes- Any army of any consequence can swiftly deal with minefields. You might recall how US forces crossed Iraqi minefields without delays or casualties- using equipment and tactics that are not mysterious to NK, or to any other armies we wish to deter. Greece and Turkey dropped their delicate sensibilities about fields of screams, and de-mined their contentious borders. Guess what? Things got quieter. Imagine that. Consider the "delicate sensibilities" of the signers to a letter to President Bush, urging the US to join the community of nations signatory to the ban: "you might want to consider what would need to be done to fill its niche." You might want to consider that an imaginary "niche" stuffed with bullshit (like an unecessary minefield) is just as well left empty. You will notice that most borders, even many contentious ones, have never been mined, and that many are being de-mined today. Delicate militarist sensibilities, and their most common arguments (like "guns don't kill people, people kill people") don't hold up well when it comes to landmines. Landmines are undeniably effective for making life hell for local residents, livestock, and wildlife. But the military value of dumb mines for "area denial" in standing maginot minefields is history- just a nostalgic vision for those with sensitive personal fetishes about acres of booby-traps. If your delicate personal sensibilities extend to warm-and-fuzzy feelings about mines in a more dispersed role (such as commonly used by insurgents against occupiers) you will find the defense of your mobile position more emotionally satisfying. The landmines still being churned out by industrial nations not signatory to the ban will always be gratefully snapped up by insurgents (they can dig it, man)- not for laying out minefields- but for targeting columns of regular troops on their patrols: In other words, mass-produced IED kits. That's the most effective tactical application for these devices in today's conflicts. Put aside your delicate toy-soldier feelings E3R, and you'll get the real picture. International Campaign to Ban Landmines
WOW. I would hate to work in a land mine factory, how do they get people to work there? They probably chain them to tables.
I am, but my point stands. This is inaccurate. Just a few Soviet TM-46 AT mines scattered haphazardly on asphalt can stop a column for over half an hour while a line charge gets set. Longer if there isn't a MICLIC-equipped vehicle present and the engineers have to inch their way in and disarm each mine manually. Longer still if no engineers are on-scene and you've got to send out a nine line for EOD. All the while the column is delayed and open to be flanked or hit by enemy air. This is a very disadvantegeous position to be in during maneuver warfare. Mines have their uses in shaping the battlefield, an effect that is greatly magnified over fatal terrain like that along the DMZ. QED. Right. Anyone whose conclusions don't align with your comically ignorant and laughably uninformed viewpoint is secretly grappling with personal emotional issues. How typical.
Watch your step, then: Don't dish it out if you can't take it. E3R: "If you are going to argue for a complete ban of a weapon system because it chafes your delicate personal sensibilities..." "Anyone whose conclusions don't align with your comically ignorant and laughably uninformed viewpoint is secretly grappling with personal emotional issues."
One more thing, Soldier. When I give you a linked military opinion from commanders in the field you are advocating mining, don't come back with your own dismissal, without corroboration, and "QED" me. Diss missed. You can do better than that. Diss me where I'm standing.
Mostly, I just wish your posts had a higher signal to noise ratio, and were more on-topic. It gets bothersome sifting through a page of text to absorb an amount of information that could be adequately communicated in a few sentences. I already have. I would suggest that you try addressing the merits of my arguments instead of making an appeal to authority. If you need something clarified I would be happy to explain further.
Thank you for the offer. Please clarify why every contentious, hotzone border does not conform with your ghoulish footie-Maginot-line fetish; clarify why the borders lacking landmines have not been over-run. Clarify why it is acceptable to you that landmines consistently maim and kill more innocents (man and "beast") than invaders. Clarify why it is acceptable to you that minefields curse and impoverish rural people, and not the officials of enemy governments. Be a gentleman, and please clarify these things also for the next real, live kid, when she gets her foot shredded tomorrow. While you're at it, please clarify the same issues with respect to cluster munitions, which have similar inconveniences.
