Landmines and Cluster Bombs

[ponderingturtle]

With Finland leaving the treaty against antipersonnel landmines and the experiences in Ukraine do people think Landmines and Cluster Munitions are just too effective in a peer conflict to ban?

 

[SpitfireIX]

That's about the size of it.

ETA: Especially when you're facing an adversary with much larger ground forces.

 

[ahhell]

Pretty much that. If I were in charge of Finland, I'd establish a Kilometer wide zone of landmines between me and Russia right now. Cluster bombs are less defensible.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I don't see anything wrong with cluster munitions as long as they're not used indiscriminately.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Pretty much that. If I were in charge of Finland, I'd establish a Kilometer wide zone of landmines between me and Russia right now. Cluster bombs are less defensible.

Cluster bombs are incredibly effective though, far more than unitary explosives especially when electronic warfare degrades things like GPS. The GPS guided artillery shells the US makes for example were useful only for a short while in Ukraine until the Russians got their jamming in order.

One problem with Europe supporting Ukraine without the US thanks to Trump is that they don't have cluster munitions leaving Ukraine's domestic production the only source. The US might not make cluster bombs at the moment but we have a lot of them in stock and they are an important weapon system.

To me the big difference is scale of a conflict, in insurgency operations you don't need them but for a peer fight they seem to be pretty important.

 

[ahhell]

Part of the problem with cluster munitions is that they have a certain base level of indiscriminately. Throw a bunch at the enemy and you've got a field full of unexploded bombs. Mines at least are a bit less difficult to track the location of. I understand the utility, I just think they are quite as discriminate as mines.

In either case they more subject to a treaty on account of their tendency kill civilians and kids long after a war. Lots of caveats about my lack of expertise but it seems to me that cluster bombs are just harder to track after they've been deployed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Part of the problem with cluster munitions is that they have a certain base level of indiscriminately. Throw a bunch at the enemy and you've got a field full of unexploded bombs. Mines at least are a bit less difficult to track the location of. I understand the utility, I just think they are quite as discriminate as mines.

In either case they more subject to a treaty on account of their tendency kill civilians and kids long after a war. Lots of caveats about my lack of expertise but it seems to me that cluster bombs are just harder to track after they've been deployed.

And artilery scattered mines, or drone scattered mines and other such techniques are not just as inherently indiscriminate?

 

[ahhell]

I don't know.

 

[sackett]

Minefields are supposed to be mapped and documented; a modern army will do that until the situation becomes too urgent.

Cluster munitions are inherently much more difficult to map. I doubt that many armies even try. Of course, the density of unexplored cluster bombs will be lower, since the great majority detonate on impact (or proximity): 90% in most cases. But clusters are still regarded as areal denial weapons simply because that 10% UEX is so dangerous.

A minefield is easier to clear if it's mapped and recorded, of course.

But I wonder: how many cluster bombs are deliberately fused to work as mines?

ETA: Modern mines and cluster bombs can be built to disarm themselves after a period of time, lessening the risk from uncleared fields. How long a period of time? Well, ask the army that deployed them. Ask nicely.

But not quite completely. There's always a few that don't function as designed; no engineer will ever pretend there aren't.

If I now would like to be done with this topic, I know you'll understand.