Should the U.S. ban the use of land mines?

I'd like to know what you all think. Does it make a difference if they are used offensively or defensively? Yes, some mines do have offensive capabilities. I'm for the little buggers (with reasonable deployment). I'll spare you the tactical muttering of a blood and guts former U.S. Marine until after you've had your good say.

God Bless America,
ISDAMan

My biggest consideration regarding land mines is that they simply are unnecessary. The world has gathered before and agreed to ban certain weapons and chemical agents previously used in warfare on the grounds that these things were simply too cruel to employ in a fight over principles.

Since Reagan, at least, I've heard stories about the terrible weapons hidden in the United States' secret arsenal. From the days of satellites that could read your license plate, or hit a ball-point pen with a laser, I now hear of over-the-horizon radar and atmospheric manipulation. Our fighter jets, in 1987 or so, engaged the Libyans from 23 miles away, and destroyed them.

Given American firepower, strategy, and numbers, it almost seems absurd to use something like a land-mine, so restricted in its role.

When your best weapons are rifles, jellied gasoline, and machine guns on airplanes, then land-mines present a good local-defense option. But the age of this defense is behind us in the United States.

And so I think that yes, Americans should agree to a conventional ban on land mines.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Religion isn't dead either. The AntiChrist will have access to computers, television, radio, and compact disc. If he walks among us already, the chances are that he has a walkman. I just hope it's not Christ himself, disillusioned after two thousand years in a cosmic sitting room full of magazines and cheeseplants, turned malignant and rotting in despair at the way his message has been perverted." (Robyn Hitchcock, 11/1987)

ISDAMan,

I am against anti-personal land mines. Thses land mines are not intended to kill but maime and they have maimed more civilans the soldiers. Ati-tank mines can not be set off by a person steping on them and kept to thier original role.

Land mines should be banned, in fact, everybody that deploys them, or even thinks that this is a good idear should step on one themselves.

When they have a amputated limb and maybe a prothese, then they should be allowed to vote again.

Land mines should be banned, in fact, everybody that deploys them, or even thinks that this is a good idear should step on one themselves.

When they have a amputated limb and maybe a prothese, then they should be allowed to vote again.

Agreed. They may volunteer their children as proxies since children are the most common victims of landmines.

Graphic image not for sissies
http://www.rawa.org/child1.jpg

De-mining
http://www.mineaction.org/org.asp?o=3


Countries with landmines
http://www.mineaction.org/countries.asp

How do you define ``land mine''?

I looks like there is already a policy regarding ``persistent'' land mines, presumably those which can stay undetonated indefinitely:

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c11735.htm

Given American firepower, strategy, and numbers, it almost seems absurd to use something like a land-mine, so restricted in its role.

But, would you not agree, that there are situations where such devices actually ARE useful?

But, would you not agree, that there are situations where such devices actually ARE useful?

Wwwwow. Forgive the pun, but talk about a blast from the past.

Theoretically there are still uses for such devices, but Americans especially have better toys. Hell, I can find a theoretic justification (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=173235&postcount=6) for chemical warfare. Doesn't make it right, though.

And that's the thing with land mines, and wars in general. Whatever happened to cleaning up after our own messes? We left a bunch of DU in Iraq after the first go-round, and while people still argue that the coincidental health problems in some regions are either purely coincidental or the result of the oil fires (blame it on Saddam, if we can), we certainly didn't attend to the issue by attempting a cleanup.

One easily accessible estimate (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_unexploded_land_mines_in_the_world) puts the number at 110 million unexploded land mines around the world. This is a huge mess sewn by many people that is still waiting to be cleaned up. I can't figure, with our sexy exploding toy chest, why Americans should add to the disaster.
_____________________

Notes:

"How many unexploded land mines in the world?" WikiAnswers. (n.d.) WikiAnswers.com. August 14, 2009. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_unexploded_land_mines_in_the_world

They don't quit when the war's over. Anything that doesn't quit when the war's over is dubious at best.

They blow up too many farm animals and little kids. They don't target enemy. They are irresponsible - far more of an essentially terroristic weapon than, say, the IEDs in Iraq.

They create too many discouraging scenes that lead to shame and guilt and loss of pride in one's country - like finding out the US blockaded prosthetic limbs and mine detection technology from both Vietnam and Nicaragua, during the aftermath phase of little kids getting blown up.

They should make ones that can be easily disarmed by remote control (with the correct codes).

Which would still leave large quantities of explosives laying about.
And a good number (most? all?) of explosive compounds become unstable after long periods anyway.

Then exploded by remote control.

Been tried. (Or at least they've tried self-detonating ones: after a set period they (supposedly) self-destruct).
The failure rate is unacceptable.
There's always a percentage that don't go off, and another percentage that do go off, but not at the time they're supposed to.

Been tried. (Or at least they've tried self-detonating ones: after a set period they (supposedly) self-destruct).
The failure rate is unacceptable.
There's always a percentage that don't go off, and another percentage that do go off, but not at the time they're supposed to.

My understanding is that the US has already stopped using non-self-destructing mines everywhere outside of Korea. And, likewise, has ceased using mines entirely in many areas they used to (Guantanamo, for example).

In my understanding, US objections to the Ottawa treaty are almost exclusively related to Korea; successive governments have at least claimed to be happy with the terms of the treaty in general, except they want an exception made for Korea.

So it seems the question here is not whether landmines are required in general (the US doesn't appear to think they are), but whether there's some compelling need for them in Korea in particular. I'm not expert enough in military strategy to say, and I've heard arguments both ways, but it seems to me that this is the actual relevant technical question here.

And we should note that several other important countries have not signed up for this treaty: India, China, Russia, Iran, Poland, Finland, Pakistan and Cuba being interesting examples. Also note that the treaty covers only anti-personnel mines; other types are not affected.

Since Reagan, at least, I've heard stories about the terrible weapons hidden in the United States' secret arsenal. From the days of satellites that could read your license plate, or hit a ball-point pen with a laser, I now hear of over-the-horizon radar and atmospheric manipulation. Our fighter jets, in 1987 or so, engaged the Libyans from 23 miles away, and destroyed them.

Given American firepower, strategy, and numbers, it almost seems absurd to use something like a land-mine, so restricted in its role.

Tiassa's sort of half-right here: mines are unnecessary in numerous 'modern' applications. Most of what catches the public eye these days is terrorist-baiting, so it's all too easy for the uninformed to forget the major conflicts that have any potential to start up: Korea is one such; Western Germany in the 'good old days' of Fulda Gap Forvartsteidigung (or whatever the term was) another. They have their uses in specific circumstances. But generally? No. These days, their useful application is essentially limited to South Korea. Perhaps this too will change.

Landmines are not discriminatory between Civilians and combatants. Therefore, morally on an equal footing with cluster bombs, and indiscriminate bombing. Plus, they're easy to plant, but no one really bothers to remove them afterwards.

Landmines are not discriminatory between Civilians and combatants. Therefore, morally on an equal footing with cluster bombs, and indiscriminate bombing.
Not quite: cluster weapons are generally aimed directly at military targets - civilians get caught as (here we go again) collateral.
Mines don't (by nature, unless we're talking about such things as command-detonated weapons) discriminate at all - they'll explode whenever anything off the set weight limit passes over them.
For the ultimate in non-discriminatory maybe the British chicken-"powered" Blue Peacock (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588465.stm) system is tops...

Plus, they're easy to plant
Not really (apart from FASCAM (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/fascam.htm)-type systems), to plant mines you need trained engineers/ sappers or very expensive vehicles.

I have no issue with the USA using landmines in the USA. We have ourselves to blame if something goes wrong. I'm not sure what the mine fields in Korea prevent that the thousands of soldiers, hundreds of jets, missiles, howitzers and tanks all augmented by numerous submarines, destroyers as well as nuke-yoo-lar, biological and chemical weapons don't already take care of. But sure, why not de-mine the entire area.

~String

I have no issue with the USA using landmines in the USA. We have ourselves to blame if something goes wrong.
You mean such as for border security ?

Too random.

Better to use robot machine gun turrets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5YftEAbmMQ), IMHO.
(South Korean design, ironically. heh )

I'm not sure what the mine fields in Korea prevent that the thousands of soldiers, hundreds of jets, missiles, howitzers and tanks all augmented by numerous submarines, destroyers as well as nuke-yoo-lar, biological and chemical weapons don't already take care of. But sure, why not de-mine the entire area.

~String


This:
NSD APLs** enable the Command to maintain an appropriate level of high readiness by having a portion of the mines installed today with minimal risk to non-combatants. The overwhelming majority of mine fields are in the General Outpost Line (GOP) and the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) areas, which are not accessible to noncombatants. Maintaining installed mine fields along the GOP allows ROK Army units to complete the defensive preparations of the remaining FEBAs in minimal time if hostilities occur. Again, the planning is based on the premise that we will get 1–3 days’ unambiguous warning of a North Korea attack. Without the existing mine fields being installed, there is absolutely no way that they could be installed in 24–72 hours. Further, the mine fields along the GOP serve as a visible and very real demonstration of UNC/CFC’s readiness and resolve to defend the ROK against aggression.

**Non-Self Destruct Anti-Personel Landmines


http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/6.1/notes/marin/marin.htm

I have no issue with the USA using landmines in the USA.

~String

Huh? For what?

The USA is one of the few countries that has not ratified the UN convention on the banning of land mines.

Landmines are not discriminatory between Civilians and combatants. Therefore, morally on an equal footing with cluster bombs, and indiscriminate bombing. Plus, they're easy to plant, but no one really bothers to remove them afterwards.

Yes and no. Like most weapons, it depends on the application. Landmines in the Korean theatre are essentially on the 38th parallel.

I have no issue with the USA using landmines in the USA. We have ourselves to blame if something goes wrong. I'm not sure what the mine fields in Korea prevent that the thousands of soldiers, hundreds of jets, missiles, howitzers and tanks all augmented by numerous submarines, destroyers as well as nuke-yoo-lar, biological and chemical weapons don't already take care of. But sure, why not de-mine the entire area.

~String

Weeell, you don't want to start trading nukes with North Korea, because IMHO they just don't fucking care and "tactical" to Kim Jung Bill means "capitalist running dogs in Seoul". The Navy is so-so: it's more the mass of personnel and land vehicles that the mines are intended to slow down or stop so that the Americans can lift some actual heavy units into Korea to stop the NKA. One Yank division, M1A1s or no, is not enough to stop the NKs, and the ROKs have enough cut out for themselves. Now, possibly it would go exactly as the Fulda yonks would like and the NKA would find itself burning on the border wondering exactly WTF happened. But the Soviet-style frontal movement strategy has yet to be really tested. I've no idea how it would really turn out.

The USA is one of the few countries that has not ratified the UN convention on the banning of land mines.

Korea.

Yes and no. Like most weapons, it depends on the application. Landmines in the Korean theatre are essentially on the 38th parallel.


I honestly doubt that trouble spots around the world will allow for precise deployment. When were the korean mines deployed?

We should be using the hell out of the cluster mine bombs in the mountain passes between Afghanistan and Waziristan/Pakistan. Have so many mine sin those passes we can spot them coming over with detonations.

In a few years they will be obsolete anyways. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Munitions_System)

We shouldn't limit our options. The US military believes they need the mines in Korea, and it's not inconceivable that other circumstances could arise where they'd be useful as well.

I honestly doubt that trouble spots around the world will allow for precise deployment.

Exactly. One can't go willy-nilly laying them about everywhere.

When were the korean mines deployed?

Ohh, ages ago I would think.

Should the U.S. ban the use of land mines?

I'd like to know what you all think. Does it make a difference if they are used offensively or defensively? Yes, some mines do have offensive capabilities. I'm for the little buggers (with reasonable deployment). I'll spare you the tactical muttering of a blood and guts former U.S. Marine until after you've had your good say.

God Bless America,
ISDAMan

Ah. So if you are for the little buggers, then you are also for drawing and quartering? If not, why not?

Huh? For what?

There are bases that may well need the higher level of automated security that a mine can provide. I can imagine better ways (with the advent of automated technology, those ways may not just be better for civilians, they might actually be better altogether).

The USA is one of the few countries that has not ratified the UN convention on the banning of land mines.

That misses a big point that neither has Russia, China, India or Korea. As was already pointed out, this has more to do with Korea than anything else. Neither the USA nor Korea will support removing the mine fields from the peninsula at present.

~String

Ah. So if you are for the little buggers, then you are also for drawing and quartering?

Only when appropriately sanctioned by a shura council, I'm sure. :D That is, if there are no stones about.

That misses a big point that neither has Russia, China, India or Korea.

But... But... we can't miss any chance to portray the US as backwards and immoral!

The US is backwards and immoral, there you said it.

There are bases that may well need the higher level of automated security that a mine can provide. I can imagine better ways (with the advent of automated technology, those ways may not just be better for civilians, they might actually be better altogether).

While this may be considered minor and irrelevant are there any statistics on animals victimised by landmines?

While this may be considered minor and irrelevant are there any statistics on animals victimised by landmines? I have seen numerical estimates of draft animal casualties in Vietnam and Lebanon, but I can't find them off hand. The problem has also been discussed in some hard detail for Indonesia, and a couple of other places. I remember reading about a village somewhere that lost all its cattle when some kind of flood or mudslide moved a minefield into their pastures.

Biologists have mentioned it in reference to migration routes (http://www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/35/15914) , but I haven't seen any statistical attempts with wild animals.

It was a serious problem in Vietnam, where draft buffalo were key farming power. The denial of farmland and pasture in Lebanon, by Israel's refusal to provide maps of its minefields after withdrawal, is naturally well known.

Ah. So if you are for the little buggers, then you are also for drawing and quartering? If not, why not?

I feel obliged to point out that you probably shouldn't expect an answer. The thread itself is nearly ten years old, and ISDAMan hasn't posted for over seven years.

• • •


While this may be considered minor and irrelevant are there any statistics on animals victimised by landmines?

I'm not finding any global statistics, but I did come across a couple of articles:

In some instances, land mines directly threaten both people and animals. Reuters reporter Roger Atwood wrote in 1997 that roughly 20,000 land mines are strewn acrossthe Falkland/Malvinas Islands, a remnant of Argentinean attemptsto keep British soldiers off the land 15 years ago. According to Atwood, "No [human] has been killed by the mines since the war .. but animals are regularly blown to pieces." The minefields are identified by fences and warning signs, but with "75,000 sheep, keeping the livestock from danger can be a struggle" ....

.... In Sri Lanka, as many as 20 Asian elephants are killed by mines every year, according to zoologist Charles Santiapillai of the University of Peradeniya. Thousands of miles away, in Africa, land mines have ravaged wildlife, including threatened and highly endangered species. Mines reportedly have killed more than 100 elephants in Mozambique. Scott Nathanson, a Disarmament Campaign organizer, writes that elephants in the Gorongosa national gamepark "have been maimed because of anti-personnel land mines or killed because of anti-tank mines."

In Zimbabwe, Lt. Col. Martin Rupiah, a lecturer at the Centerfor Defense Studies at the University of Zimbabwe, claims that "every village near Chiredzi has lost at least one animal to land mines ... In the Gonarezhou National Park, elephants and buffaloes have had to be killed after they were injured by landmines." In northwest Rwanda, one of the region's highly endangered mountain gorillas was killed by a land mine as a result of that country's recent civil war. According to the field staff of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme, the 20 year-old male silverback was named Mkono, which means "hand" in the Kiswahili language; he had already lost a hand to a poacher's snare.

In Croatia, wildlife fatalities due to land mines have been documented by Professor Djuro Huber of the University of Zagreb. His reports note the deaths of European brown bears, roe deer, lynxes, and foxes as a result of mines placed in the region from 1990 to 1996 ....

.... No one knows for sure how many animals are killed ....

(Roberts and Stewart (http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/1652/pid/714))

• • •

The elephant Mohey's year-old baby was oblivious, as babies can be when they are safely near their parents. "He was trying to eat and play with his mother," Mr. Dee Ngae said. "And she was in such pain that she kept pushing him away. The baby didn't know what was going on."

But Mr. Dee Ngae did. A dozen elephants from his village had already been killed by land mines as encroaching farmland edged loggers and their beasts of burden deeper and deeper into the jungle battlefields along the border between Thailand and Myanmar, the former Burma.

The elephants' deaths are part of a worldwide epidemic of land mine injuries to animals who stray into battlefields or former battlefields, joining some 25,000 humans who are also killed or injured every year by this most indiscriminate of weapons.

No one has counted—or is able to count—the toll on animals of the 100 million land mines that the International Campaign to Ban Landmines estimates have been sown throughout the world. But anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of animal victims—both in the wild and in grazing herds—is much higher than that of human victims ....

... The 29-year-old elephant and her baby were transported in the back of a small truck from the border to an elephant hospital here, just south of the northern city of Chiang Mai, a nine-hour ride that has become a sort of ambulance route for more than a dozen injured elephants in recent years.

Here, she joined another elephant from her village named Motola who lost a foot more than a year ago and is till waiting for it to heal enough to be fitted with an experimental prosthetic.

Chained inside an enclosure and sighing deeply, the 39-year-old Motola sways and hobbles in obvious discomfort, sometimes leaning the top of her trunk against an iron bar, sometimes lying on the ground, to ease the burden of her weight from her three remaining legs ....

.... One-third of potential agricultural land in Libya is considered unsafe for agriculture because of land mines and unexploded ordnance that dates from World War II, Mr. Gray said. He cited a report that 125,000 camels, sheep, goats and cattle had been killed by mines and other ordnance in Libya in the years between 1940 and 1980.

(New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/science/05ANIM.html))

They're both old articles, and the general idea seems to be that nobody really knows how many animals are killed by land mines each year. But it should be said that Motola was recently fitted with a permanent prosthesis. Very recently, in fact. She took it for a maiden stroll (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_lifestyle_animal/2009/08/elephant-hurt-by-land-mine-gets-artificial-leg.html) last weekend, after three years of preparation with a temporary prosthesis.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/.a/6a00d83451c3cb69e20120a5531940970c-320wi (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_lifestyle_animal/2009/08/elephant-hurt-by-land-mine-gets-artificial-leg.html)
Ten years after: Motola steps gingerly on a new prosthetic leg.
(Photo by Apichart Weerawong/AP)

Yeah. I can't quite figure out what to say to that.
____________________

Notes:

Roberts, Adam M. and Kevin Stewart. "Land Mines: Animal Casualties of the Underground War". Animals' Agenda, v. 18, n. 2. March/April, 1998. AWIonline.org. August 19, 2009. http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/1652/pid/714

"Mines Maim the Ultimate Civilians: Animals". The New York Times. March 5, 2001. NYTimes.com. August 19, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/science/05ANIM.html

Smith, Gail. "Elephant injured by land mine walks with artificial leg". Animal Cazy. August 16, 2009. OrlandoSentinel.com. August 19, 2009. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_lifestyle_animal/2009/08/elephant-hurt-by-land-mine-gets-artificial-leg.html

Doesn't this treaty only ban anti-personal mines? What are the majority of the mines in no-man's-land in the Koreas?

~String

For the ultimate in non-discriminatory maybe the British chicken-"powered" Blue Peacock (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588465.stm) system is tops...


Seems like war is tough on birds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon

:-)

Seems like war is tough on birds;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon

:-)

Great idea. Best use of a pigeon I can think of.

Thanks tiassa, I couldn't find any numbers to crunch. Its good that in a world where so many are willing to lay down mines, there is at least that one guy out there making a prosthesis for animal victims. They are the real "collateral damages" in these wars

They are the real "collateral damages" in these wars The buffalo in Southeast Asia, like the stock animals in Lebanon (and, earlier, the bison on the Great Plains of North America), were targeted.

I think the question that should be answered is has the US been irresponsible in its use of mines? Have there been any recent victims of US mines say in the last 30 years? There are none that I can remember.

The issue should be the irresponsible use of land mines. Land mines under any circumstances should not be a threat to non combatants and that includes wildlife.

Do the landmines on 16 million acres of Vietnam count?

HANOI, Vietnam - More than one-third of the land in six central Vietnamese provinces remains contaminated with land mines and unexploded bombs from the Vietnam War, according to a study released Friday.

Nearly 35 years after the war's end, Vietnamese civilians are still routinely killed and maimed by leftover mines and other explosives. Vietnam estimates that more than 42,000 people have been killed in such accidents since 1975.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32236846/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Doesn't this treaty only ban anti-personal mines? What are the majority of the mines in no-man's-land in the Koreas?

~String
There are apparently mixed anti-tank and anti-personel minefields, and anti-personel only minefields:

Note: NSD ATL and APL - Non Self Destruct Anti-tank Landmine and Anti-Personel Landmine
United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command (UNC/CFC) war plans depend heavily on the extensive employment of tactical obstacles to disrupt, turn, fix and block enemy-mounted maneuvers in ways that enhance our direct and indirect fire systems. The combat multiplication that the Korea Barrier System (KBS) affords our defending forces is fundamental to halting an attack north of Seoul with the forces currently available. Mixed mine fields consisting of both NSD ATL and APL are the backbone of the KBS. The effectiveness of these mixed mine fields is not derived from the ATL alone. It is erroneous to consider ATL as a pure system—they are doctrinally and pragmatically inseparable from their APL counterpart. Any discussion of a war plan requirement for ATL also carries an implicit requirement for APL. ATLs are rarely employed without accompanying APL...


...The employment of NSD APL-pure mine fields is absolutely essential to the success of the close fight. NSD APL-pure mine fields positioned along enemy dismounted avenues of approach allow the unit to disrupt, fix or block enemy infantry attacks in a way that enhances the effects of other direct and indirect fire systems. In the same way, employing NSD APL-pure mine fields as protective mine fields is critical to breaking and repelling an enemy infantry assault on a unit position. It enhances force protection and allows the unit to concentrate the bulk of its fire elsewhere to defeat the larger attack.

http://maic.jmu.edu/JOURNAL/6.1/notes/marin/marin.htm

Sam is (shudder!) right here: lots of abandoned US mines in Vietnam. It clearly isn't the same case as new fields in South Korea, but still a sobering reminder. The Soviets in Afghanistan have much to answer for also, as "insurgents" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think the question that should be answered is has the US been irresponsible in its use of mines? Have there been any recent victims of US mines say in the last 30 years? All over South and Central America, mines laid by US proxy militia and US equipped armies or paramilitaries have been a problem - minor by comparison with Vietnam or Korea, but serious enough to draw serious attention. The worst affected has been Nicaragua, with maybe 30,000 of the maybe 150,000 mines laid in that country the responsibility of US-backed and supplied forces. The US origin stuff in Nicaragua has been a bigger per-unit problem than the Nicaraguan government stuff, because no records were kept of location etc - also the case in other countries, such as Honduras and El Salvador and Peru, where the nature of US involvement in conflicts was not publicly admitted or documented.

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rpt/walkearth/2004/37231.htm

Do the landmines on 16 million acres of Vietnam count?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32236846/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

That is why I said 30 years. The US was out of Vietnam by 1976.

That is why I said 30 years. The US was out of Vietnam by 1976. The US not only left behind extensive minefields, but refused to supply maps and location or deployment records, refused to supply information about the mines, and interfered with the country's importing of mine clearing equipment, for many years.

The US also boycotted the country, at a time when the US controlled the main suppliers of prosthetic limbs and other rehabilitation stuff for mine injuries.

Similarly regarding Nicaragua. Nicaragua was famous for a while, for inventing a cheap artificial leg it could manufacture locally that allowed near-normal walking.

I don't know if the US is responsible for any mine-laying in Colombia these days, or if the persistent rumors about a very high rate of unexploded cluster bomblets being partly an engineered feature designed to create a deniable minefield (in Lebanon, Iraq, etc) have any truth to them, but the US has some issues here.