CNN: Nobel PEACE Prize Winner Abstains from Landmine Ban

[sacase]

because they have fewer alternatives. Our military might shouldneasily have alternatives to compensate.

Like I said, what tactical solution do you present? What is your easy solution?

[sacase]

I wasn't talking about the US. We act very responsibly in this area.

I was explaining why people are pushing for this threaty in general. Because landmines kill many more civilians than soldiers around the world, and always have.

But this whole topic has been about US banning them. You admit that we act responsibly so why should we lose a capability because other countries can't?

[Predicto]

Right. But in order to sign on, Obama would have pledged to do away with the US' use of landmines. I actually support his refusal to sign. If you outlaw landmines, you accomplish the same thing as outlawing guns: only rogues have them and use them. If anyone thinks this treaty will stop any insurgent group from throwing landmines out the back of a jeep, they are sorely mistaken.

I think that is true, up to a point.

On the other hand, if there is a ban, it will curtail mass production of landmines. As I understand it, American munitions countries make most of the world's landmines, and the remainder of them are made by other industrialized countries that would be parties to this treaty. Insurgents don't make much of anything, certianly not in mass quantities.

[Mooka]

You would be "butt wrong" with that guess. I actually don't care who won the Peace Prize and who didn't. Just found it a little ironic that cnn.com had the headlines of "Pentagon preparing to send 34,00 additional troops to Afghanistan" and "U.S. Won't Join Ban on Landmines" side by side while having a sitting Peace Prize winner as President.

Sorry your panties are in a bunch over the thread title. Lighten up Francis

You are miss-quoting CNN. I guarantee you they wouldn't just say lighten up francis.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is going to sound cold, but its war, a lot of unpleasent things happen in wartime and sometimes innocent people die.

Which is one of the main reasons that I'm a pacifist, so that whole line of reasoning simply doesn't carry much water with me.

[JMS]

I'm fine with tying that hand until there is a country that could invade us

but I do think you make a good argument about how in theory we are more responsible at recovering them than others (including ourselves in the past).

We have 30,000 troops in South Korea. about 10,000 right on the boarder. Invasion and the threat of South Korea being over run are very real possibilities. Taiwan also uses mines to avert a potential invasion from china.

It's not like we are using land mines on the boarders with Canada and Mexico.

It's not a farsical or wimsical decision to not sign up to this treaty. It's really something that has the potential to seriously compromise the saftey of our troops.

[JMS]

what about them?

Clearly they're useful, but that's not the main point is it?

I think that really is the main point. It's the reason we have not and will not sign this treaty.

[JMS]

You know, if it weren't for landmines we wouldn't have things like The Miss Landmine Pageant

Couldn't you use that argument against pretty much every weapon? Including rocks, knives and spears? I'm not being pedantic. Weapons are horrable dangerous things. But they exist for real and practical reasons. The fact they have and will always hurt people is not a pursuasive argment to not employ them.

[JMS]

Right. But in order to sign on, Obama would have pledged to do away with the US' use of landmines. I actually support his refusal to sign. If you outlaw landmines, you accomplish the same thing as outlawing guns: only rogues have them and use them. If anyone thinks this treaty will stop any insurgent group from throwing landmines out the back of a jeep, they are sorely mistaken.

I don't think we are refusing to sign because we want to reserve the right in order to have parity with terrorists.

Our refusal has everything to do with the business we are in. Globally we are in the security business. We give peace of mind to military weak countries who rely upon us to safe guard them. In part, we accomplish this task with fewer men and expense than otherwise would be necessary because we use mines.

[nonniey]

sounds more like a tactic that our enemies would find useful. You would think our military might could find alternatives that dont involve landmines.

Channeling enemy forces is a tactic any military finds usefull. But just to point out we only use mines in Korea. The military has essentially probited their use anywhere else (note this does not include command detonated systems that are not considered to be in the same catagory - and I think are not covered by the treaty anyway).

[JMS]

Which is one of the main reasons that I'm a pacifist, so that whole line of reasoning simply doesn't carry much water with me.

I think if you want to let pacifics dictate the policy we as a nation use to defend ourselves; that openns up an entirely diffrent debate.

We spnd a lot of money as a contry on defense because we have decided it is better to do so than trust ourselves and our futures ot the likes of

Hitler, Stalin, Moa, or the Khemar Rouge. That same arguments applies to landmines only on a smaller scale.

[JMS]

Channeling enemy forces is a tactic any military finds usefull. But just to point out we only use mines in Korea. The military has essentially probited their use anywhere else (note this does not include command detonated systems that are not considered to be in the same catagory - and I think are not covered by the treaty anyway).

We used to use them in Europe when we were facing the Soviet Union.

We still use them extensively in Gitmo too. These are standing mine fields

But any platoon will carry claymores and other types of mines with them for force security on any wartime deployment. Those would also be illegal if we signed the bill.

[JMS]

Like I said, what tactical solution do you present? What is your easy solution?

There are several alternatives.

• Recordings of angry dogs growling?
  
• Phasers set to stun, rigged to motion detectors?
  
• Cardboard figures crazy glued to popcycle sticks on springs.
  
• Large foam fly swatters rigged to indiginous shrubbery to spring on anybody who walks by?
  
• Chemically dependant Darlicks who roam a perimeter with toilet plundgers chanting, "we will destry you"?
  

In reality and not jesting. We do have alternatives. They just aren't practical or cost effective. We could dramatically increase our forces to give us numerical superiority in any fight, increase our footprints for deployed troops, change our global mission away from security and defense and exclusively towards offense, and rewrite our entire military doctrine towards larger self defendable groups of men away from smaller lighter forces which have worked so well for us throughout our history.

[Prosperity]

We have 30,000 troops in South Korea. about 10,000 right on the boarder. Invasion and the threat of South Korea being over run are very real possibilities. Taiwan also uses mines to avert a potential invasion from china.

It's not like we are using land mines on the boarders with Canada and Mexico.

It's not a farsical or wimsical decision to not sign up to this treaty. It's really something that has the potential to seriously compromise the saftey of our troops.

North Korea successfully invading South Korea sounds... well kind of farsical

[GhostofSparta]

North Korea successfully invading South Korea sounds... well kind of farsical

Well to be fair, since we've spent 50 years doing everything we can to make it impossible, I would HOPE it sounds farsical. It means we're doing something right.

But that's just my opinion.

[nonniey]

North Korea successfully invading South Korea sounds... well kind of farsical

That is kind of true but the mines do serve as part of the defensive lines that deter any notion of an Invasion. The nKoreans know they probably couldn't penetrate all the defensive lines between Seoul and the DMZ so they won't even try. But if you weaken those lines (ie take away the mines) the deterence value is reduced.

[Midnight Judges]

You would be "butt wrong" with that guess. I actually don't care who won the Peace Prize and who didn't. Just found it a little ironic that cnn.com had the headlines of "Pentagon preparing to send 34,00 additional troops to Afghanistan" and "U.S. Won't Join Ban on Landmines" side by side while having a sitting Peace Prize winner as President.

Sorry your panties are in a bunch over the thread title. Lighten up Francis

That's nice that the moderators are allowing you to get your Republican talking points in the thread title even if it breaks the rules. I'll keep that in mind next time I start a thread.

[JMS]

North Korea successfully invading South Korea sounds... well kind of farsical

You are a very smart guy, but I have to say with all due respect..Are you kidding me? What possible deterance do you think exists for an invasion of South Korea by North Korea? There is only one. That is the will of the American people to retaliate and come to South Korea's aid as we did in the 1940's. That will is currently embodied in the 30,000 American troops we still have in South Korea, as pathetic as that commitment is when compared to the 1100 thousand north korean troops arrayed against them.

It's not like North Korea has moved on and forgotten about taking over the South!!..

Clearly South Korea which has paid for our continuel deployment there for decades disagrees with you and believes invasion remains a very real threat.

You do realize that we never signed an armestance with North Korea, and that we are still technically in a state of war with them today. That North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world. Even with the land mines the 30,000 US troops we have there are little more than human trip wires to draw US retaliation in the event of a North Korean invasion.

North Korean invasion is and has been a very real possibility since the end of the korean war in the 50's.

[Prosperity]

look, I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not South Korea + the US deployment could defend against a North Korean invasion. I have a very hard time believing North Korea, a country which is as destitute as it gets, outside of Africa, could successfully invade a place that has been preparing for such a scenario for 50 years.

[JMS]

Redskins Diehard you really need to change the title. Mis titleing threads like this is a ban able offense which the mods adhere too pretty strictly. You should change the thread before they zap you and change it for you....

Seriously.

[frostyj]

You are a very smart guy, but I have to say with all due respect..Are you kidding me?

Clearly South Korea which has paid for our continuel deployment there for decades disagrees with you.

You do realize that we never signed an armestance with North Korea, and that North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world. Even with the land mines the 30,000 troops we have there are little more than human trip wires to draw US retaliation in the event of a North Korean invasion.

North Korean invasion is and has been a very real possibility since the end of the korean war in the 50's.

Was thinking the same.

1.4million is NK's Army. It would take weeks/months to build up troops to rival them. Also of the 30,000 less than half are combat roles. The AF and Navy would have to take up the slack. Now, I would assume we would see any kind of build up on their side and would take action acordingly.

[Redskins Diehard]

You are miss-quoting CNN. I guarantee you they wouldn't just say lighten up francis.

Good old Miss Quoting...I hear she has something spectacular planned for the talent portion of the competition.

I'll take my chances that CNN doesn't contact me regarding the thread title. Perhaps you have some thoughts on the topic?

[Redskins Diehard]

That's nice that the moderators are allowing you to get your Republican talking points in the thread title even if it breaks the rules. I'll keep that in mind next time I start a thread.

Please do keep that in mind. Surprise of the day....MJ has nothing to add other than some talking points drivel.

[frostyj]

look, I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not South Korea + the US deployment could defend against a North Korean invasion. I have a very hard time believing North Korea, a country which is as destitute as it gets, outside of Africa, could successfully invade a place that has been preparing for such a scenario for 50 years.

Sound statement and I agree, but never be complacent, or take the it can/will never happen.

[nonniey]

.....

You do realize that we never signed an armestance with North Korea, and that we are still technically in a state of war with them today. That North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world. Even with the land mines the 30,000 US troops we have there are little more than human trip wires to draw US retaliation in the event of a North Korean invasion.

North Korean invasion is and has been a very real possibility since the end of the korean war in the 50's.

Well, in reality the the North Koreans would never get past the third main defensive line (There are five north or Seoul). They would be real lucky to get past the 2d line (and unlike the Maginot line they can't go around them). So although the 30,000 Us troops are still a trip wire to ensure US involvement it is no longer a suicide mission.