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

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.


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:

Mauritius does not possess antipersonnel landmines. It co-sponsored UNGA Resolution 51/45S and endorsed the Brussels Declaration. It participated in the Oslo negotiations and is expected to sign the treaty in December.
http://www.hrw.org/reports97/common/Common3.htm


Definitely something very iffy about that report Buff. Wherever did you find it?

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.


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

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.

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

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.

India is one of a small number of countries still producing antipersonnel mines. India claims that all production is vested with government agencies.[11] However, some of the production process appears to be carried out by commercial entities. In October 2006, when the Criminal Investigation Department in Kolkata arrested three brothers for stockpiling weapons, it was reported that two of them were sub-contractors who manufacture plastic shells for antipersonnel mines at their Behala factory and then supply the shells to the ordnance factory through a contractor. Officials seized 543 partially completed mines, among other weapons.
http://www.icbl.org/lm/2007/india.html

I think we should all support a global ban on landmines.

Here is a UN ad which was not aired (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/07/un-landmine-commeric.html) in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXVCYQ1qix8

I think we should all support a global ban on landmines.

Here is a UN ad which was not aired (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/07/un-landmine-commeric.html) in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXVCYQ1qix8
I think we should all support a global ban on North Korea first.

I think we should all support a global ban on North Korea first.

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/

I think the people of North Korea have suffered enough.

How about the rather radical notion of dialogue?
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?

President Clinton, in 1994, was the first leader to call for an international ban on anti-personnel landmines. Yet in 1997 when they all met in Ottawa, Canada, to sign a treaty to ban the use, the USA weren’t there. There concern was along the lines of wanting to be able to have the option to use landmines in some cases, such as along the delimitarized zone between North and South Korea. This, they say would help to defend South Korea. Yet, as Human Rights Watch reports, “Nearly half of the antipersonnel mines retained by the United States for use in Korea are actually stored in the United States”
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 (http://www.banminesusa.org/archives/newsletters/83_Dec_19_2001.html):
Several of us are former commanders of elements of I-Corps (USA/ROK group), and believe that APM are not in any way critical or decisive in maintaining the peninsula's security. In fact, freshly scattered mixed systems would slow a US and ROK counter-invasion by inhibiting the operational tempo of friendly armor and dismounted infantry units.

"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 (http://www.icbl.org/problem/what)

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.

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.

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
I am, but my point stands.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Watch your step, then: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
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.

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.
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.

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.

Actually they have landmines under their seats so if they get up they are blown up!:eek:

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.
You might want to read the thread again if you think I hold these opinions, because I've said nothing of the sort.

What I said, initially, was that minefields have their uses as area denial munitions. Like razor wire or dragons teeth, they can shape the battlefield to a defender's advantage by creating canalization zones that direct advancing enemy forces into the beaten zone of preregistered artillery or terrain that leaves them vulnerable to air attack. This is the case on the Korean peninsula, where the five main invasion corridors through the DMZ are mined in such a way that nKPA armor would end up rolling almost single-file through long canyons, getting hammered to shit by UN artillery assets and CAS aircraft. In maneuver warfare, a minefield is a force multiplier, because it increases the lethality of the defender without requiring any additonal manpower. Minefields are not the ultimate, impenetrable defense. However, they are stunningly effective at slowing or deflecting the advance of an aggressor, which is why they have been used to such effect for hundreds and hundreds of years. There are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon.

The same thing applies to cluster munitions. They are far more effective than unitary munitions in a number of key applications, which is why we keep using them.

To me, it seems that most people really don't have a problem with these weapons, per se, but the haphazard and irresponsible way they are sometimes employed by certain governments. I can certainly agree with that. My question is, why not hold these governments accountable, instead of fighting to ban a weapon system that can't be uninvented?

There are numerous deterrents to any North Korean mobilization or invasion against the South, far more significant than nuisance minefields. I've already referred to the opinions (http://www.banminesusa.org/archives/newsletters/87_June_12_01.html) of senior former I-Corps officers and commanders, who have thoroughly debunked the myth of US landmines holding back the Commie hordes.

"[Anti-personnel mines] are stunningly effective at slowing or deflecting the advance of an aggressor, which is why they have been used to such effect for hundreds and hundreds of years. There are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon."

Yes, there is. It's called the Ottawa Accord (http://www.icbl.org/treaty/text/english). It's resulted in the removal and destruction of tens of millions of landmines, and a resounding majority (http://www.icbl.org/treaty/members) of the world's nations have ratified it. The United States is alone among developed Western nations in refusing the ban.

"why not hold these governments accountable, instead of fighting to ban a weapon system that can't be uninvented?"

The Ottawa Accord is all about accountability, and it doesn't pretend to "uninvent" anything. It has provided millions of people with relief from a reprehensible weapons-deployment philosophy that has done overwhelmingly more harm than good.

There are numerous deterrents to any North Korean mobilization or invasion against the South, far more significant than nuisance minefields. I've already referred to the opinions (http://www.banminesusa.org/archives/newsletters/87_June_12_01.html) of senior former I-Corps officers and commanders, who have thoroughly debunked the myth of US landmines holding back the Commie hordes.
Their opinion is just that: opinion. It debunks nothing. They are certainly qualified to opine on the subject, but the majority of opinion pervading the UNSK garrison brass has been that the minefield should stay. And there it is. No, it wouldn't hold back the nKPA forever, but that is a strawman argument that I've already explained twice in this thread already.

Yes, there is. It's called the Ottawa Accord (http://www.icbl.org/treaty/text/english). It's resulted in the removal and destruction of tens of millions of landmines, and a resounding majority (http://www.icbl.org/treaty/members) of the world's nations have ratified it. The United States is alone among developed Western nations in refusing the ban.
Yes, I am aware of all of this. The publicly cited version for why US didn't ratify Ottawa was because of our commitments to the UNSK garrison, but it goes further than that. The text of the treaty was dreadfully unrealistic. It does not discriminate between mines that persist indefinitely and mines that have preset self destruct timers that destroy or deactivate the mine after a preset time period (hours to days). Or mines that are laid preemptively and rapid dispersal systems that only deploy when an attack is imminent. Further, it would have effectively banned the antitank mines in the US arsenal because our mixed systems interlace AP and AT mines in order to prevent the field from being quickly disarmed by enemy engineers. A wide majority of mine systems in the US arsenal are rapid dispersal smart mines. They present no lingering hazard to noncombatants and are a useful part of our military's arsenal, yet they would have been banned for no reason other than the wording of the treaty being inadequate with respect to the reality of technology and mission.

For some further recommended reading, the following essay is from the USAWC's quarterly that gives a good primer on this subject: http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/00spring/troxell.htm

A wide majority of mine systems in the US arsenal are rapid dispersal smart mines. They present no lingering hazard to noncombatants and are a useful part of our military's arsenal,

Interesting...How does a mine distinguish noncombatant?

Interesting...How does a mine distinguish noncombatant?

Maybe they detect skincolor.. wouldn't that be something :(

Oh...you could make mines smart, but it will cost a lot of money. I think the semi smart M93 Hornet costs $100,000. The next wars are mostly insurgency type like Iraq and Afghanistan...how much mines will help there is debatable.

Oh...you could make mines smart, but it will cost a lot of money. I think the semi smart M93 Hornet costs $100,000. The next wars are mostly insurgency type like Iraq and Afghanistan...how much mines will help there is debatable.
Well, the M93 is really in a class by itself. I mean we're talking about a mine that listens for enemy armor with a mic and a seismograph, then fires a IR guided projectile from a football field away from a popup launcher when it hears something.

Of course, smart mines can't pick and choose who triggers them. They are considered "smart" because they have fuzes that can be set to expire after a preset time limit and self-destruct the mine. This allows for a tactical commander to coordinate a counterattack through territory that was mined defensively, but it also means that the mines won't hang around for years and maim civilians. If the self-destruct timer doesn't work, their batteries run out thereafter and the fuze won't have a firing voltage. They're normally deployed by air using a CBU-78 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GATOR_mine_system) cluster munition dispenser or from a 155mm artillery tube as part of the ADAM system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Denial_Artillery_Munition). I have no idea what they cost compared to the old school dumb mines, but I can't imagine it being a big difference.

Enmos: "Maybe they detect skincolor.. wouldn't that be something :("

Once Upon A Time, when Men were Men, and Wars were whores, there was a stealthy little air-dropped sensor (not normally explosive) made in a large Western country, that could "smell" people who cooked or ate a Vietnamese diet and trigger a locator beacon (or trigger some rolling thunder). Tragically, the food-preparers and eaters, and the pissers weren't always the same people. All the smellier. We killed them, all the same. Shrimp paste, anyone?

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/6434/1104igloo11xd.jpg

Cool, huh E3R? Mines that call in airstrikes. I won't repeat verbatim what a pilot buddy of mine called them: "G***-Detectors". Somehow, these little miracles of compassionate democracy-building didn't win the war- but it wasn't for lack of wide dispersal of scentsors, frequent triggering, and merciless, murderous "area denial" deliveries. Have you ever wondered why?

Oh: Can you hear? Aye, me mine, I, me my, aye, me mine.