U.S. says "Landmines are O.K."

[Tricky]

I can't say I'm not disappointed by this.

US won't join landmines ban, Administration decides.

The United States won't join its NATO allies and many other countries in formally banning landmines, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said during his midday briefing Tuesday.

"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect," Kelly said in response to a question. "We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention."

I'm sure there are some subtle reasons for this, but I hate it that the US joins only China and Russia in refusing to sign the ban, but I can't see anything but weasel words in that article. Maybe I'll feel differently when I learn more, but I'm more disappointed in Obama than I've ever been before.

 

[Wolfman]

I can't say I'm not disappointed by this.

US won't join landmines ban, Administration decides.



I'm sure there are some subtle reasons for this, but I hate it that the US joins only China and Russia in refusing to sign the ban, but I can't see anything but weasel words in that article. Maybe I'll feel differently when I learn more, but I'm more disappointed in Obama than I've ever been before.

Yeah, I agree. Although I'm fairly sure that N. Korea also has not signed the ban, either.

It is sad/disgusting that a weapon which by its nature cannot be targeted, and has been proven to be a significant threat to civilians (often long after the original conflict that caused the mines to be planted in the first place has finished) is still considered a legitimate option by a country like the U.S. Even worse, they give legitimacy to other countries that want to use such weapons -- "The U.S. won't stop using them, so why should we?"

 

[Policenaut]

Land mines seem to be obsolete from a modern military perspective. I suppose they are useful in some situations but I am not a military person so I wouldn't know what those scenarios are.

 

[Bikewer]

Defending fixed positions, slowing the advance of enemy forces, that sort of thing....The usual employment for such devices.
We have in the works highly-advance area-defense munitions which are essentially autonomous. They can be set up, activated remotely, and will detect, identify, and destroy enemy vehicles or troops without any further input. I suppose such weapons might qualify as "land mines" of a sort.

 

[Pardalis]

Misleading thread title.

I thought scare quotes usually were used to quote what people actually have said, not to quote what you interpret wrongly them to have said.

 

[Tricky]

Misleading thread title.

I thought scare quotes usually were used to quote what people actually have said, not to quote what you interpret wrongly them to have said.

Okay, maybe I misused the quotes. However, the position that people can still keep using landmines amouts to the same thing, even if the words were different. If they felt landmines were not okay, they would have signed the treaty.

 

[Pardalis]

If they felt landmines were not okay, they would have signed the treaty.

False dichotomy. Maybe they had completely different reasons not to sign the treaty.

One would have to dig deeper and read what the actual treaty says and consists of, and not just rely on your initial gut reaction to the news. "Critical thinking", remember?

 

[Pardalis]

Here's one possible explanation:

The United States refuses to sign the treaty because it does not offer a "Korean exception", as landmines are said to be a crucial component of the U.S. military strategy in South Korea. According to the US government, the one million mines along the DMZ between North and South help maintain the delicate peace by deterring a North Korean attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty#Signatories

Which ties in with the reasons given in the OP's link about the US' commitment to its allies (in this case SK).

 

[Tricky]

False dichotomy. Maybe they had completely different reasons not to sign the treaty.

One would have to dig deeper and read what the actual treaty says and consists of, and not just rely on your initial gut reaction to the news. "Critical thinking", remember?

Here's one possible explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty#Signatories

Which ties in with the reasons given in the OP's link about the US' commitment to its allies (in this case SK).

If they feel that there are situations that call for landmines, then they feel that landmines are "okay" in those situations. As I indicated in my initial post, there may be reasons why they feel that they are okay, but that does not make my statement incorrect.

Certainly they are a cheap and effective means of keeping people out of where you don't want them, which is one reason why roadside bombs are one of the favored tools of the insurgents in Iraq, but are they worth the cost in innocent lives? Most of the world says "no". The US says "yes". This does not make me proud.

 

[Pardalis]

The South Koreans disagree with you.

 

[Tricky]

The South Koreans disagree with you.

I'm sure they do. They have no reason to cross the DMZ. They are much more wealthy than NK and have enough food for their people.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm sure they do. They have no reason to cross the DMZ. They are much more wealthy than NK and have enough food for their people.

North Korea also has enough food for their own people (most of which comes from the US, btw), they just don't give it to them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't say I'm not disappointed by this.

US won't join landmines ban, Administration decides.



I'm sure there are some subtle reasons for this, but I hate it that the US joins only China and Russia in refusing to sign the ban, but I can't see anything but weasel words in that article. Maybe I'll feel differently when I learn more, but I'm more disappointed in Obama than I've ever been before.

You do know this has been the position in the US for decades, don't you? Supposedly since we have placed miles of landmines in the Korean DMZ, the US claims it has no better alternative there.

This country is run by war mongers, what else is new?

 

[Pardalis]

This country is run by war mongers, what else is new?

The mines are there to avoid war.

 

[Algebra34]

But how will we defend the homeland from intruders should we need to? Surely you people haven't gone mad have you? Beside plenty of people depend on the landmine industry to live a decent God fearing life. What do you wanna do pinko? Sink the economy? Oh I get it. You all are just a bunch of pseudo communists posting on your fancy computers purchased by your rich capitalist arms industry employed parents. So? Why don't you just go live someplace else huh? Like where they have landmines or something? I bet you wouldn't like that!

 

[gtc]

How many civilians have been killed by the mines in the DMZ?

It seems they are perfectly legitimate weapon in the correct circumstances. If the US wants to limit their use to those circumstances the US because landmines used in the wrong circumstances are bad is a strawman argument.

 

[Ladewig]

I can't say I'm not disappointed by this.

US won't join landmines ban, Administration decides.

The quoted article also includes this statement ...

"The U.S. is proud to be the world's single largest supporter of humanitarian mine action," Kelly said. "Since 1993 the U.S. has provided more than $1.5 billion worldwide dedicated to building new partnerships with more than 50 post-conflict countries and supporting efforts by dozens of NGOs to promote stability and set the stage for recovery and development through mine clearance and conventional-weapons destruction programs."

... which shows that the subject is not a simple as the thread title implies.

 

[Algebra34]

How many civilians have been killed by the mines in the DMZ?

It seems they are perfectly legitimate weapon in the correct circumstances. If the US wants to limit their use to those circumstances the US because landmines used in the wrong circumstances are bad is a strawman argument.

Come again with that please? "limit their use to those circumstances the US because..." what?

 

[SezMe]

I'm with Tricky. If the Korean situation is the justification, it is too weak to justify the havoc wreaked elsewhere.

Change we used to believe in.

 

[Tricky]

How many civilians have been killed by the mines in the DMZ?

I seriously doubt if either country wants to release those kinds of statistics. The North, because they don't want to show that people are fleeing to the South. The South, because they don't want to show that they are killing the people fleeing.

But to be honest, I don't know. Do you?

It seems they are perfectly legitimate weapon in the correct circumstances. If the US wants to limit their use to those circumstances the US because landmines used in the wrong circumstances are bad is a strawman argument.

In Korea, they're being used to keep a poor country from allowing their people to escape poverty to a richer country. So if that is the "correct circumstances", then we ought to mine the US border with Mexico, should we not?