Mines

[ysabetwordsmith]

The Mine Ban Convention (the 1997 Landmine Convention) ban is one of the greatest humanitarian achievements of our time. Yet now, this legacy is under threat.

Poland, Finland, and Estonia are now discussing quitting the global landmine ban. Latvia and Lithuania have already voted to leave but could still reconsider their decision. If we stay silent, more may follow—and Europe could unravel 25 years of progress in protecting civilian life. More lives and limbs will be lost.


Well, look at the context. Finland, Estonia, and Latvia all border Russia. Lithuania borders Latvia and Poland, while Poland borders Ukraine. These are all places that Russia could overrun in the foreseeable future. So it looks like area denial to me. Landmines would make the territory much less attractive to Russia. And given that Europe hasn't done enough to keep Russia out of Ukraine, i can't really blame other countries for wanting to find cheap, accessible, effective methods to protect themselves. Landmines may be heinous but they do a damn good job of defending boundaries.

If Europe wanted to keep the landmine ban, and for that matter other bans along the lines of "this is hideous, let's not do it anymore because we're more civilized now," then they should've put boots on the ground immediately rather than letting Russia fuck Ukraine over a bench. Sure I'd like to have a world with less war and less gruesome weapons. But I don't feel that it's ethical to demand other countries give up weapons they might need to defend themselves. Like Ukraine gave up the nukes it inherited from the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

You know, there has to be a better solution really. I mean, area denial as you rightly point out, is still a valid tactical choice and still necessary. The problem is that mines are indiscriminate. If bullets can have someone's name on them, landmines are addressed "to whom it may concern."

I dunno, A.I driven sentry bots perhaps? I'd trust an A.I to not start shooting civilians just because it was bored.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

Certainly there are more refined options. They're also more expensive and require a higher level of technology. Mines are cheap. For that matter, so are various types of noxious gas, also customarily banned.

Smaller countries looking at a much bigger, vicious neighbor must be concerned with cost -- and also how to continue defending borders after their infrastructure has been flattened.

I don't like the idea of reviving landmines, but I can see why those countries are looking into it.

Re: Thoughts

[siliconshaman]

Hm... apparently landmines cost between $3 to $75 to make and place (and a whole order or two of magnitude more to remove)

Drones aren't that cheap, yet. Typically around £350 to make. But if you factor in the cost of removal then they work out cheaper. An array of HK drones driven by an A.I with solar powered base stations could be just as effective at area denial, but be a lot more selective and lot easier to disarm and remove. They'd also be more versatile and a lot easier to pack up and redeploy depending on battlefield exigencies.

I think the problem is that military strategists tends towards being conservative. They know and understand how landmines work, and drone warfare is a whole new ballgame they're still figuring out.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Drones aren't that cheap, yet. <<

Nor that easy. They can't be hidden near as well and are easily shot down. They can be hacked, too, whereas dumb mines cannot.

>> But if you factor in the cost of removal then they work out cheaper. <<

You have to hang onto your territory long enough for that to matter.

>>I think the problem is that military strategists tends towards being conservative.<<

That's one reason, but mines have a lot of other advantages.