Redskins Diehard Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/us.landmines/index.html Washington (CNN) -- 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Dammit Obama get it together :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Stay classy America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Won't somebody think of the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Huh? WTF? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 They're the gift that keeps on giving. Okay, okay, I'll stop. They just keep popping in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why would we ban landmines, they are extreamly useful on the battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Isn't the border b/t North and South Korea full of mines still, most of which we are responsible for? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I thought the US was implementing mines that became inert after a period of time to avoid a cost to non-combatants after battles are over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I thought the US was implementing mines that became inert after a period of time to avoid a cost to non-combatants after battles are over? I doubt the proposed treaty makes that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Isn't the border b/t North and South Korea full of mines still, most of which we are responsible for? :whoknows: Yes. That is most likely the main source of our opposition to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why would we ban landmines, they are extreamly useful on the battlefield. Because they are completely indiscriminate. For every soldier they kill, they nail dozens of innocent civilians, sometimes many years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Yes. That is most likely the main source of our opposition to this. I had thought as much, I just wondered if anybody else held that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Because they are completely indiscriminate. For every soldier they kill, they nail dozens of innocent civilians, sometimes many years later. So how many hands do you want to tie behind our back? They are effective in what they do, deny the enemy from operating in certain areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So how many hands do you want to tie behind our back? They are effective in what they do, deny the enemy from operating in certain areas.Well shoot, why don't we just nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sure, we'd kill millions of innocents, but we'd also kill bin Laden.:doh::doh::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I think the Korean DMZ is the main driver on this. I don't know of anywhere else that the US currently uses land mines. Considering the political hay that will be made of the decision, there must be a fairly good reason for not doing so. I wonder what the real ramification of the US not signing onto this treaty? Is this giving the implicit green light for other nations to use land mines? Or if we had signed on - would we have, by doing so, signed on to clear out the Korean DMZ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 So how many hands do you want to tie behind our back? They are effective in what they do, deny the enemy from operating in certain areas. Poison gas is effective too. We still dont use it - only terrorists do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well shoot, why don't we just nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sure, we'd kill millions of innocents, but we'd also kill bin Laden.:doh::doh::doh: I suggest you read up on FASCAM's, but hey over react if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I suggest you read up on FASCAM's, but hey over react if it makes you feel better. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/fascam.htmAt lease those have a set detonation time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Poison gas is effective too. We still dont use it - only terrorists do. FM 20-32. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/index.html Check it out it might help you understand how and why landmines are employed in US Army Doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Aren't some cluster munitions designated as landmines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Aren't some cluster munitions designated as landmines? Certainly the same effects that I imagine this treaty are attempting to prevent. Again, I think our newer cluster bombs submunitions have the capability to self-detonate after a certain amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ex Army and i believe minefields are not cool at all.. We destroy those we go against unfettered, the use of landmines is such a leftover time. They probably kill more later than during? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Deploying landmines for defensive purposes isn't the problem; failing to remove landmines is the problem. I don't have a problem with the United States military using landmines because, at least in the recent past, it removes the landmines after they have served their useful purpose. EDIT: Obama just can't win with some people. Had he signed the treaty, people on the right would have blasted him for placing our soldiers' lives at risk. Now that he has opted not to sign the treaty, people on the right blast him for being a hypocrite (see, e.g., the thread title). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Because they are completely indiscriminate. For every soldier they kill, they nail dozens of innocent civilians, sometimes many years later. Mines can be used in a discriminate manner such as the Korean DMZ. They are mapped, maintained and the fields are guarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.