NationStates Jolt Archive

I swear, if you people were the real UN, you'd manage to catch the earth on fire by the sheer force of your concentrated stupidity.

I'm honestly curious if anyone who has voted "yes" can outline the US Army/NATO policy on land mine use, and if so, why on EARTH you could vote "no" on such a measure.

Given that this isn't the real world, I won't even bother with the implications of developed nations agreeing to such a resolution, as I find it dubious at best to assume the rest of the world would follow suit.

At any rate, this isn't akin to reality (thank god), so it won't have any real effect on your nation. Were it reality, your military officers would be pooing a brick (assuming you were still planning on paying your military officers).

I agree with you. When I read the proposal I thought about how idiotic it was. Just think about your nation being attacked. It obviously wouldn't be an attack from a fellow UN nation. It'd be from a non-UN member who supports the use of landmines creating a distinct advantage on their part.

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.
They would no more protect a modern territory from invasion than a farmer with a pitchfork. They have been proven time and again to cause more harm than good. Obviously, it has become a celebrity cause which makes people become wary of wether all facts are being presented. This is natural and understandable, but despite celebrity involvement, the fact is land mines are cruel, inhumane and unnecessary.
They offer no deterrent to invading countries and will inevitably, in future times of peace, cause injury to civilians.

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.
They offer no deterrent to invading countries and will inevitably

Tell that to South Korea, right before North Korea decides it wants to "reuninte" both countries through the use of military force. :roll:

:roll: The Empire of Morgain has duly mined its beachheads. Yeah, mines are useless in modern warfare. Uh huh, keep telling yourself that poindexter, you and your great military experience over there. The next Clausewitz I hear.

Quite frankly we could care less as after the last UN boon-doggle we left. The other nations in our region were so racked with economic problems (unions) that Morgain was able to conquer whole new industries.

After the passing of this measure we plan on offering our illegal mining services to poor UN nations that can no longer legally mine their own territory. It's a whole new cottage industry!

What a buncha goobers.

-Morgan, Emperor of Morgain

I see this in two ways, landmines are bad, but I also see them as a good weapon, true there are other weapons that are more advanced, but what is the most cost effective for a developing nation? I'm torn on this issue, I'll have to think it over before I vote.

I encourage all states to reject the landmine proposal. It affects only those states belonging to the UN, not the 67.6% of NationStates not belonging.

Also, those who have not experienced the dogs of war know not the price of the freedom you so freely and easily barter away in exchange for some feel good notion equal to voiding one's bladder in the front row of a darkened movie theatre - it gives you a warm feeling initially but no one notices.

The lion will lie down with the lamb when the lion is drugged.

We in Zangistan deplore the use of landmines. Our scientific department however would like to acquire 500 active landmines for purely scientific purposes.

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.
They would no more protect a modern territory from invasion than a farmer with a pitchfork. They have been proven time and again to cause more harm than good. Obviously, it has become a celebrity cause which makes people become wary of wether all facts are being presented. This is natural and understandable, but despite celebrity involvement, the fact is land mines are cruel, inhumane and unnecessary.
They offer no deterrent to invading countries and will inevitably, in future times of peace, cause injury to civilians.

These are the types of people who are ignorant on the uses and effective uses of landmines. Claymore mines are specifically detonated usually with a clicker mechanism that must be activated by the people deploying and using them against the enemy, usually during an ambush. As for the effectiveness, if you are so blind as to see that North Korea would not be able to invade the South because of the large minefield between them and their objective.

Just think about your nation being attacked. It obviously wouldn't be an attack from a fellow UN nation. It'd be from a non-UN member who supports the use of landmines creating a distinct advantage on their part.

Landmines are useless for attack purposes, unless you're mining the territory you've already taken, which assumes that there is NO other defense possible for a country than landmines, and they'd get in fine if you didn't have any. Which is of course, entirely untrue. There are many more effective and more targetable modes of defense, including perimeters of remote controlled machineguns, such as the USSF utilizes in our own defense. Such defenses, instead of killing indiscriminately, give a human being the chance to decide whether or not the approaching being is an enemy.

Also, a nation which does not produce landmines can use the money which goes toward their production for R&D when it comes to anti-mine technology, such as metal detectors, trace particle detection systems, and underground sonar, both detection and triggering.

Wow. There are a few folks that are making decisions based on little information. First, war is ugly. NATO has tried to devise more "humane" ways of killing someone, but the bottom line is still grey matter all over the place. Second, landmines are still very effective, in the right situation. Saying they are outdated would lead someone to believe they are not a viable weapon. This is not the case. Yes, there are mine detectors, but not many people want to be walking around that slowly out in the open of, say, a beach they are trying to secure. Yes, they are still a viable weapon. Yes, they are "dumb" and innocent people can get hurt. That is unfortunate. That is, however, the reason for the term "collateral damage". The UN does not need to gimp its forces by not allowing them to use this weapon.

The Confederacy of Wichichaka

Landmines do not need to be banned- merely updated. Give them features such as remote arming/disarming(pardon the pun) instead. I bet half the people that say they are wrong have never had to defend their country from invaders.

Anacanapuna border is 100% mined. All Fields are Marked on the fences just before the field begins. There is a button on the signs marking the fields that when pushed gives a verbal warning in Esperanto.

Anacanapuna border is 100% mined. All Fields are Marked on the fences just before the field begins. There is a button on the signs marking the fields that when pushed gives a verbal warning in Esperanto.

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.

Actually, they are still a vital part of both US Army and NATO doctrine, both tactically and strategically.


They offer no deterrent to invading countries and will inevitably, in future times of peace, cause injury to civilians.

Your thinking of them solely as a strategic deterrent is an excellent indicator of your ignorance on the subject.

dont vote yes, because there are new mines in this day and age that have timers that detonate them selves after a certin period of time or by remote (i.e after the war is over). So that civilians walking in there rice paddy dont step on them 30 years latter....

Thank goodness there are other national leaders at this forum that, like me, don't wish to hamstring their ability to defend themselves to make some silly do-gooder happy.

Landmines are a DEFENSIVE weapon by nature. Always have been, always will be. They deter aggression, as some of our colleagues have astutely pointed out through use of the Korean example.

*DELETED BY THE REPUBLIC OF DAHAKA*

Landmines are useless for attack purposes, unless you're mining the territory you've already taken, which assumes that there is NO other defense possible for a country than landmines, and they'd get in fine if you didn't have any. Which is of course, entirely untrue. There are many more effective and more targetable modes of defense, including perimeters of remote controlled machineguns, such as the USSF utilizes in our own defense. Such defenses, instead of killing indiscriminately, give a human being the chance to decide whether or not the approaching being is an enemy.

Landsend, you obviously did not read my post which happened to be directly before yours. If you were to know anything about offensive maneuvers by reading Army FM7-8, you'd find that in ambushing the use of mass casualty producing weapons (claymore mines specifically) are highly effective and suggested to use in attacking the enemy. If you were you have any BASIC knowledge on Claymore mines, you'd find that they are targeted towards enemies and can usually only be detonated by a 'clicker' mechanism which would be in the hand of the side which deployed it. As for the USSF remote bulls**t, it's the same concept of allied controled claymore mines which MUST be detonated by those persons and are not automated nor triggered by the enemy. If you people were to have any KNOWLEDGE on the subject, than maybe you could speak on the subject. As has been brought up before, you people focus on anti-personnel mines which are fairly out of date as compared to modern ones and which are solely used for defensive purposes. You COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that there are anti-tank and TARGETED mines which do NOT KILL INDESCRIMINATELY. Please gain some knowledge on the subject before you speak.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

I'm gravely sorry for not censoring my profanity in my previous message. I noticed it too late, yet I've tried to correct it by sensoring out certain letters. It must have been my rage at the blatent ignorance that riled me to such an extend.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

I voted against the land mine issue.

They are an excellent defensive weapon, especially since they are cheap. No sort of high tech gadgetry will help you if you step on a land mines. Its a pure and simple fact that without the huge minefield in the DMZ there would be no nation of S. Korea.

Vote against the ban. Landmines are crucial elements of poorer nations' national defense. Without this they are threatened by invasion from more powerful neighboring nations. Smart mines are in current use and are being developed which self-deactivate after a certain amount of time, after their use has passed. They can be removed and used elsewhere. And as a few have pointed out before. Some of you who are telling others to vote against the use of landmines and preaching their evils have shown a gross ignorance of military tacts and the way in which landmines work and are used.

This should be a proposal to increase UN funding to help remove OLD mines which are no longer functional and only server to maim and kill civilians.

-Imperator Godwin of The Northern Expanse

There seems to be some misconception as to what constitutes a land mine. From my point of view disarmable defensive weapons (ones that can be easily moved and reused ) do not fall into the traditional landmine catagory (your beloved Claymore would not thus be a landmine, Dahaka). The focus of most anti-landmine movements is on your typical 'plant and forget' variety. These remain long after conflicts are resolved and usually cause more casualties among the innocent than combatives. Contrary to what others have stated both the US and NATO forces have discontinued using this type of ordinance, probably less due to its ravages upon civilians but because they have been replaced with newer technologies that do not restrict freindly access to areas as well as unfreindly, are reusable and thus do not waste resources, and are much more effective and lethal. The cries of those Nations that have yet learned to work and play well with others and simply must have their weapons of destruction are unfounded. The type of weapon at issue here has a high cost in terms of innocent human lives but a low cost in monetary terms. Those nations that insist on using these weapons are usually those that place little value on the individual human life and instead focus on the bottom line.

I believe that this resolution is just the next in a long line of resolutions that whittle away at each of our nations' rights to self determination. Sure we make it illegal to use landmines- but who are we stopping from using landmines? The people who probably wouldn't employ them illegitimately in the first place. The scumbags who employ landmines in such a fashion as to maim and kill civilians aren't going to follow this resolution anyway. So what are we really doing here? This is just another example of the UN sticking its nose into my country's affairs where it doesn't belong. Stick to passing out rice to starving kids- that's what you're good at. Let me worry about what weapons I will and won't make war with- and if you feel that I use those weapons in an evil or indiscriminant way, invade. But don't tell me how to run my country.

Lost Planet has a very good point here, any decently advanced military won't use the "plant and forget" mines. Yes yes, there is the north/south korea situation at this point in time, but south korea isn't very well going to spend the cash to go out and replace their dummy mines with more advanced models, though I'm sure if they could they would. Also, claymores etc wouldn't be included, as stated before, as they are not the kind of mines discussed in the resolution. Also, anti-tank mines technically wouldn't be included either, as per the wording of the resolution at hand.

The resolution states "These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable" and thus is defining "landmines" to be any weapon that causes these effects. Therefore, anti-tank mines, which don't generally kill civilian targets, and arn't really all that dangerous to people (unless that person is driving a tank) would not be included.

I voted against the land mine issue.

They are an excellent defensive weapon, especially since they are cheap. No sort of high tech gadgetry will help you if you step on a land mines. Its a pure and simple fact that without the huge minefield in the DMZ there would be no nation of S. Korea.

Yes.I agree completely

I believe that this resolution is just the next in a long line of resolutions that whittle away at each of our nations' rights to self determination.
yes.before you know it we're going to have to disarm other weapons. Peace is nice but in this world it isn't going to work.If I get rid of my weapons and some terrorist freak invades my nation won't have as good of a chance of defeating them.

Let me worry about what weapons I will and won't make war with- and if you feel that I use those weapons in an evil or indiscriminant way, invade. But don't tell me how to run my country.
What else can be said?

[wonders how Korean minefields are meant to stop artillery shells, airborn units, tunnels (reportedly sufficient to put entire infantry divisions behind enemy lines inside an hour), and so on while covering an entire (yet at least partially navigable) border and coastline]

Plenty of armies do fine without anti-personnel mines, at least.

..The Choson Republic People's Army of Dra-pol isn't one of them, mind.

Personally, I feel the UN should not pursue the abolishment of land mine usage, but rather pursue the use of temporary land mines. If we could begin to use land mines with a high decomposition rate theywould last for the duration of the war and pose no threat to post-war civilians. Can we not raise this issue instead? Can we not amend the current resolution?

Can we not raise this issue instead? Can we not amend the current resolution?

Not likely- seeing as it's already being voted on. The best thing we can do is submit a new resolution to committee and pray it's introduced. Again, not likely. I think we're pretty much whistling into the wind on this one. Not everyone looks this deeply into the issue (or really looks into it at all). It is unfortunate that these people are so willing to give up their own sovreignty for the illusion of safety. "Those who give up their liberties for safety deserve neither."

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.
They offer no deterrent to invading countries

Tell that to South Korea, right before North Korea decides it wants to "reuninte" both countries through the use of military force. :roll:



:lol: *falls off chair laughing* :lol:

[wonders how Korean minefields are meant to stop artillery shells, airborn units, tunnels (reportedly sufficient to put entire infantry divisions behind enemy lines inside an hour), and so on while covering an entire (yet at least partially navigable) border and coastline]


Would you rather have the Koreans coming out of a tunnel shoulder to shoulder and bunched all together, or spread out over a five hundred mile front? I pick shoulder to shoulder so we can concentrate our fire and kill them even faster. And that's assuming these tunnels actually exist in such numbers. It is highly doubtful they could perform that kind of engineering feat right under our noses without us picking up on it. And come to thinkof it, if you know about it, probably somebody over there has looked into it. I would assume that that eventuality has been planned for.
Land mines are an area denial weapon. You either go in and disarm them or go around. That being said, the 437,000 Allied troops on the DMZ aren't meant to stop the KorComms. They are a speed bump of sorts- to hold them off long enough for the big boys to show up. That's all meaningless if NK starts touching off nukes. The least of anyone's worries will be whether or not there are mines on the DMZ.

Hey fellow semantics lovers-check this out:

For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Which,if any of us, is a county?

Land mines are an area denial weapon. You either go in and disarm them or go around. That being said, the 437,000 Allied troops on the DMZ aren't meant to stop the KorComms. They are a speed bump of sorts- to hold them off long enough for the big boys to show up.
Finally someone here grasps the concept. Furthermore situations like N. Korea are not common so stop using it as an example.

Yeah.. if it's a minority group getting blown to hell, who the darn fool heck cares anyway?
:?

Yeah.. if it's a minority group getting blown to hell, who the darn fool heck cares anyway?
:?

Minority group? There are 37,000 US Soldiers on the DMZ- and a majority of them are white kids from lower middle class families. Stop trying to confuse the issue. We're talking about landmines.

Large tunnels would easily be spotted from the air as the snow above them would melt. If you put in a cooling system it's going to be noticed and you could figure out where the tunnel was from there.

This resolution seriously needed someone to go back through and edit out most of the unnecessary stuff and actually talk about ALL of the issues concerning landmines and not make such broad statements. Landmines are not evil, people are evill. Why don't we simply pass a resolution to ban all evil people?

Besides, on top of everything most NationStates countries invading a country with landmines would just come up with some technology to bypass the mines.

Edit - Northen Expanse, what a genius resolution! :)

:roll: The Empire of Morgain has duly mined its beachheads. Yeah, mines are useless in modern warfare. Uh huh, keep telling yourself that poindexter, you and your great military experience over there. The next Clausewitz I hear.

Quite frankly we could care less as after the last UN boon-doggle we left. The other nations in our region were so racked with economic problems (unions) that Morgain was able to conquer whole new industries.

After the passing of this measure we plan on offering our illegal mining services to poor UN nations that can no longer legally mine their own territory. It's a whole new cottage industry!

What a buncha goobers.

-Morgan, Emperor of Morgain

Morgain makes an excellent point. While this resolution may be good for the ban of landmines, they arent going to go away.

This is just rediculous. Why on earth is this even brought up as a resolution? Are LANDMINES our most important issue? How often is a UN country going to go against another UN country? By voting "yes" on this issue, you are giving non-UN countries an upper hand in warfar, and that is completely stupid.

This resolution will be passed, of course, because there are too many delegates who are voting based on how awesome it would be if there were world peace!

Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

The resolution should have been more specific, like ANTI-PERSONELL mines instead of land-mines. Tank mines are still used, effective, and "harmless" to civilians.

"Those who give up their liberties for safety deserve neither."

Hmm. That's funny. I never considered my liberty to blow up civilians before... :roll:

So, I'm guessing you live in a country where there are no laws? Newsflash: all laws are people giving up their liberties for safety. The liberty to kill, the liberty to rape, the liberty to steal whatever you like...

Those are liberties we have given up for our own safety. That is basically what government decides: which liberties a person is still allowed.

Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

You should know that N. Korea has a far larger standing army than there are U.S./S. Korean forces combined. Even if the entire U.S. army & marine corps were deployed to S. Korea, they'd be HEAVILY outnumbered (somewhere in the ballpark of 10 to 1)

Not so much scared, concerned for our S. Korean allies......

I'm proud of my military. I should have the right to blow up anyone I want by ANY means I wish.

While landmines are nasty little buggers they can also be extremely valuable. I agree, landmines can be a great deterrent....but one must ask-are they needed if there is no one to deter? The Utilitarian argument for use of landmines must be closely examined here--what is the greatest good? Certainly a degree of stupidity is involved when a farmer/miner walks into a clearly marked hazardous landmine zone. Keep the landmines, but if they no longer serve a purpose and it is not very economical to remove them make sure they are clearly marked to minimize danger to your own citizens.

Would you prefer we resort to nuclear weapons?

I can't help but think that this entire proposal would make more sense if there had ever really been a war in this World, or was a way to do it. Am I right in believing that the only way to use landmines currently is to blow up immigrants?

I mean, that's sad and all, but not exactly the widespread use the proposal might have us believe.

Once you ban landmines, who is going to get rid of them? Who is going to pay for it? I doubt the UN could no matter how much they wanted to do it.

i do have several question upon which i am no expert on the answers to

1)does anyone invade on foot anymore?
2)is a cleymore mine effective aganst armour?
3)what about mines that look like toy airplanes?

if the answer to 1 and 2 is positive perhapse a narrower focus charicterised by 3 might be worthy of consideration.

i was named after a homophobe who 'found' a land mine in north africa during wwii so my feelings are not unmixed.

and by 'mines' i'm presuming we are refering exclusively to explosive devises, exclusive of other sorts of vehicular traps and such things, which i've heard can be implimented with such tactics as concealed pits and so on, perhaps lined with sharpened bits of scrap mettal and other forms of tactical ingenuity.

not to mention other ways of making big holes that could still be triggered by possition or proximity, which, would these not in a tactical sense be as or more effective at least against armour?

the notion that a modern fighting force would be crippled without the use of concealable explosive anti-personelle devices i must concur as to finding not overly compelling, granted they might be effective against unarmoured datsun pickups and donkey carts

still their primary victums do seem to be civilian population

as for that matter with much of modern contemporary warfare, making it distiguishable from terrorism only by the overt wearing of uniforms

=^^=
.../\...

well.....to clear a landmine field I suppose we could use any prisoners on death row, and run them through the land mine. That way it should be not only efficient (kills our inmate and clears some mines) but it would also be entertaining....and maybe we could charge admission! LOL

There seems to be some misconception as to what constitutes a land mine. From my point of view disarmable defensive weapons (ones that can be easily moved and reused ) do not fall into the traditional landmine catagory (your beloved Claymore would not thus be a landmine, Dahaka). The focus of most anti-landmine movements is on your typical 'plant and forget' variety. These remain long after conflicts are resolved and usually cause more casualties among the innocent than combatives. Contrary to what others have stated both the US and NATO forces have discontinued using this type of ordinance, probably less due to its ravages upon civilians but because they have been replaced with newer technologies that do not restrict freindly access to areas as well as unfreindly, are reusable and thus do not waste resources, and are much more effective and lethal. The cries of those Nations that have yet learned to work and play well with others and simply must have their weapons of destruction are unfounded. The type of weapon at issue here has a high cost in terms of innocent human lives but a low cost in monetary terms. Those nations that insist on using these weapons are usually those that place little value on the individual human life and instead focus on the bottom line.

No where did the resolution restrict the definition of landmines. And since you have the option of placing the claymore mine in the same fashion as your 'traditional' land mines, it is qualified as beloning in that catagory. Poorly written resolution, such as this, do not define, thus I cannot agree with your ignorance to this issure. As for your blatent stupidity of the US policies, it is one of the FEW nations NOT to ban the use of landmines... or are you completely blind to the fact that landmines have been deployed in mass quantities in the DMZ inbetween the Koreas? As for my background in this realm, I am in the US Army in the real world and have such information because I am required to know this... what's your background you ingnorant fiend? As for Carlemnaria's post, the answer to the 3 questions are as followed. 1- Yes, we did it from the South into Iraq in both wars, the Serbian army did it to Kosovo, and the N. Korean Army would do it if there weren't a huge landmine field in the way... 2- It depends upon what type of armor your talking about. For light armor, most likely... steel ball berings flying at high velocities could do damage to this classification... as for the other, that's why you have anti-tank landmines and ATW's 3- What about them? Then there is still the question of the 'victims' of an indescriminate mine. Civillian casualties happen in war, it's an unfortunate side effect, but it is one that cannot be eliminated and if landmines were to be used to prevent an invading army from comming in and subjugating your population, I sure hope to hell that you'd use them. Also, where are your facts listing the statistics of numbers of casualties produced by landmines with a comparison of the different categories which they would fall under?

Padishah Newby

Would you prefer we resort to nuclear weapons?
i would cheerfully resourt to having opposing national leaders duel with davey crocketts!

(the davey crockette is as i understand it, a sholder fired nuclear tipped rocket. this has the unique virtue of having a trajectory range roughly equal to its blast radius)

=^^=
.../\...

This new resoloution is absolutely idiotic. If it passes I encourage everyone against it to immediatly leave the UN dictatorship.

Bayorta will leave the United Nations if this stupid resoloution passes.

Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

Wouldn't you at least be a little nervous about a country with a huge standing army, nuclear weapons, and an unstable meglomaniacal leader? If not, then you're even dumber than your post indicates.

i would cheerfully resourt to having opposing national leaders duel with davey crocketts!

(the davey crockette is as i understand it, a sholder fired nuclear tipped rocket. this has the unique virtue of having a trajectory range roughly equal to its blast radius)

Information on the Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device))

Seems kind of suicidal, doesn't it?

This new resoloution is absolutely idiotic. If it passes I encourage everyone against it to immediatly leave the UN dictatorship.

Bayorta will leave the United Nations if this stupid resoloution passes.

Or you can just ignore the resolution. Pretend it never happened.

Lets just all realize that the only reason the real UN exists is because member nations get to ignore it at their leisure, eg: US invades Iraq, Iraq has chemical weapons(?) North Korea has ABCs (?), the Sudan still has slaves...about the only place UN resolutions are taken seriously are in the salons of Europe. Appropriate since all the UN resolutions that pass tend to be written in the salons of Europe based on philosophy created in the salons of Europe. (I use hyperbole to make the point).

In nationstates we don't have that ability.

Someone made a statement in one of the forums "all laws are giving up liberty for security." This is both a misquote and bad philosophy. The Franklin quote is giving up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY for TEMPORARY SAFETY. Law is the giving up of Police Power to the state. I have no right to rape anyone. Law, however, is the society saying "We will give up our right to shoot said rapist on the spot, in return for the government doing it for us." Reference John Locke's Second Treatise on government.

The real UN and the Nation States UN do not agree with Mr. Locke. The agree with that narrow minded Frenchman Roussue (may I spell his name correctly one day). The Frenchman believed man could only have rights if he gave all power to the government. Locke believed man only had rights if he had power. The Frenchman believed the state could be benevelent with all power and that people would be safe and happy alone. Locke believed man could only be safe and happy in groups (that's why we live in families) and that necesitated separating police power for large civilizations, but the people still had power (the franchise).
Reference Russue's book that starts with "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

This is why the US and England (Locke countries) are always at odds with the UN (a Russue organization).

What's this got to do with landmines and national sovereignty.

The UN is taking away power (landmines, economy, civil rights, et al) and assuming we will be free. Those of a conservative Liberal (Locke) bent feel this is wrong. The whole of these issues comes from a liberal Liberal (Russeau) idea that if we take all power from the people (the nations) they will be happy and safe. Locke nations think that if you take the people's (nations') power, they will be neither happy nor safe. This is the true meaning of Franklin's quote.

Landmines are simply one facet of this argument. Like the cold war, we would rather fight over landmines than the real issue because it is easier to force your view (Locke or Russuea) on someone else one issue at a time. Problem: Locke is at serious disadvantage because he wants the people to be in charge, Russuea wants the people subserviant to the State.

Cheers to Dahaka, by the way, for his excelent discertation on the uses of landmines. I would be honored if he would review my five strategic uses of landmines at

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99263&start=20

at the bottom of the page.

My apologies for being so longwinded. Philosophy is never concise.

First Blame... er. Citizen Matt
Governor of all things St. Georgian Isles-ish.

mines are not bad sure tey the old relics of the the old wars are bad but now we have mines that can self-distruck and/or armed/disarm so see we do not need to band mines

To St. Georges Isles: Excellent post. I couldn't have said it better myself, and I doubt I could have said it as well.

NB: It's Rousseau, I believe. :)

Thank you for that complement St. Georges Isles, at least someone reads my posts... hehe. And kudos to you on your philosophy piece and excellent previous post about landmines!

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

I must say that I don't know if I am allowed to post here since I am not a UN member, yet I felt going through the debate that most of you lack some knowledge of modern warfare.
First of all most of the problem reside around what are called the anti personnal mines. Those mines are meant to work against foot soldiers. They are generally highly sensetive and can even be activated by bunnies and other small animals. The trully mean part about those mines is that they are not meant to killm, but to wound. Why? because when another soldier has to carry his moining legless and bleeding to death friend, it saps his moral and renders him also unable to fight. That is the first cruel aspect of this weapon.
Another type of mines, is meant for vehicules. This mines cannot be triggered by human beings when they walk on them. They need a more substantial weight for that. This category of mines can hurt catle for exemple. Evedently these mines are easier to get ride of.
Those of you that claimed that mines are an archaic weapon these days were completely right. These days any buldozer equiped army can go through any well mined area. This type of weapon cause absolutly no slow down an a well prepared army. Along this exist an arsenal of weapons whose only objective is to open up any terrain from mines. My country use what is called a climagor bomb that open up a 100*25 meters window of terrain in less then a second from any type of mines. It has become as time effective, in times of war to get ride of them as to use them.
The other problem with mines is that when the war is finished they stay around , because everybody has forgot about them. After all they are meant to be a use and forget weapon. That's the trully mean part about them. A mine can wound and kill, well after the war is finished. It can be a mine left from either sides because it is so easy to lay them around. today, a mine field can be created by the air or by the use of an artillery bomb. My army has what is called a grenade bomb. You shoot it and close to impact it catually open up in mid air "ploing" the field with small grenades that with the help of simple gravity dug in the ground just enough to turn into anti-personnal mines (it is impossible to "clean" them up even if you wish too, unless if you use the weapon given above).
The only reason a country would use mines these days would be for these reasons:
1. It is govern by dumb people who do not understand new technology
2. Your neighbors are as dumb as the stated 1. Then they do not know that you pose no true threat to them by using this weapon. Then you save money.
3. You are desperate in a time of war. You are actually loosing bad. Everything is fair since you are loosing, and this type of obselete weapon is still in your arsenal so you start reusing it hoping to slow down the ennemy (you won't since they are actually kicking you around before you used it, so it was pointless to do it in the first place, but then who trully thinks correclty out of desperation).
Now the main problem of mines is when war is over. It doesn't matter then who won. Those getting mostly armed by this weapons are civilians. No country in the world ever get's ride of this plague. It is like the left over weapons in northen france from WWI. They still cause death after 90 years. It always cost more to you afterwards then what ever was gained by using them.
I haven't read the propasal for the ban on mines has it is written here, but it will be a good propasal if it include a UN found to improve mine removal weapons or technologies, that would be given to all UN members, and therefor helping them against non-UN members state that do wish to keep using this weapon. Second there should be another UN found for helping countries to clean mine from there land. Since this land would be know open up for investment it would turn back in profit in the future. The added clause would be that the second fund is a loan to be payed back in time.

yes well said georges. and i read something about attacking on foot true but there are still the 3rd worlds that arent advanced as the others and still rely on infintry rather than air attacks or armoured vehicles

fuck

fuck

fuck

fuck

fuck

ur kweer

ur kweer

ur kweer

ur kweer

ur kweer

ur kweer

ur kweer

Urr... MODALERT

However stupid, this resolution is going to get passed. Unless by some miracle the other members decide to think, we will all be landmine-less. :(

The only reason a country would use mines these days would be for these reasons:
1. It is govern by dumb people who do not understand new technology
2. Your neighbors are as dumb as the stated 1. Then they do not know that you pose no true threat to them by using this weapon. Then you save money.
3. You are desperate in a time of war. You are actually loosing bad. Everything is fair since you are loosing, and this type of obselete weapon is still in your arsenal so you start reusing it hoping to slow down the ennemy (you won't since they are actually kicking you around before you used it, so it was pointless to do it in the first place, but then who trully thinks correclty out of desperation).
HA... HAHA... HA... you make me laugh boy. What experience or background do you have on the subject of landmines in war? As for a modern country that effectively uses landmines, that would be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I don't believe that they fall under any of the proscribed categories. In addition, you have a good point about the bulldozers... well, that doesn't fair so well when going thru an actual minefield that has a mix of anti-personnel and anti-tank mines. They would destroy that bulldozer. Simply put, if landmines weren't effective, we wouldn't use them in the DMZ inbetween the Koreas that or the Koreas would be united. Landmines are not archaic weapons. Oh, and since you know so much, please do try to enlighten this Army grunt on the use of claymore mines and their trigger mechanisms... especially since they fall under the anti-personnel category. Your all inclusive two categories for landmines are full of holes left by your ignorance and you should really rethink about what you think you know.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

War is for killing people, period. Anyways, who really cares about what the UN thinks? Anyone who thinks they can make war more humane, do it without actually restricting things like the use of land mines. Otherwise, no one will care what you say. And what's the sadest? Someone actually asked who still invaded over land. How many times has that happened in the last two decades? Even the US fights over land. You cannot fight a war with just planes. You need ground forces at the front holding the line, defending each other, and actually advancing. We all saw all badly the NATO forces were tricked in Yugoslavia when they used mostly air power. The simple truth is, we need soldiers on the ground fighting. And as to using bulldozers taking out mines. Well, I agree with my other distinguished colleagues. That only works if the dozer itself isn't destroyed by the anti-tank mines. But of course the UN has no authority in the real world and here so who cares what they think? Any state without a military is not a state at all.

As far as I've seen, everyone who said anything for the resolution has been shot down and none of them had an argument that was effective or even realistic. Come out into the real world for once and see what is happening around the world. Otherwise, do some research before opening your mouth ever again.

We in Zangistan deplore the use of landmines. Our scientific department however would like to acquire 500 active landmines for purely scientific purposes.

Of course they're just for scienitific purposes (yeah, right!).

People have been saying that we can use landmines that can be disarmed by remote, ie. after the war is over. Isn't it very likely though that if the loser of the war, who originally planted the mines, might be angry and attempt revenge through leaving the mines armed?? Or there's the possibility that control of the landmines might somehow be overturned to a terrorist group or some such other individual/group? For a war that lasts only a year, there's a distinct possiblity that the landmines might remain there for a hundred years or something, the nation which has them might not know of their whereabouts or not be able to disarm them, just find them through a hell of a lot of trial and error!

it doesn't really matter...it just says you can't use land mines during a conflict. just plant them defensively before the conflict, and there you go, once the conflict starts, you can't just "turn them off."

also, there's no mention of anti-personnel mines, or sea mines.

I'm still voting NO.

-

What would the reprocussions be if a UN Member nation refused to abide by this, or any other resolution?

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.
They would no more protect a modern territory from invasion than a farmer with a pitchfork. They have been proven time and again to cause more harm than good. Obviously, it has become a celebrity cause which makes people become wary of wether all facts are being presented. This is natural and understandable, but despite celebrity involvement, the fact is land mines are cruel, inhumane and unnecessary.
They offer no deterrent to invading countries and will inevitably, in future times of peace, cause injury to civilians.

Landmines are far from useless. As I have stated before nearly 20% of all American deaths in Vietnam were from landmines. That's anything but useless. Landmines can help make the difference in an entire battle. Please do some research on a subject before you begin to discuss it.

New technology is being developed for the removal for mines. Some become duds over an extended period of time. Most are layed in strategic locations and are then marked, both for future removal and to make sure they dont go through their own mine fields. There is testing for an ariel photograph showing the positions of mines with infared and satellite imaging. Specially trained dogs are able to detect the scent of mines. More and more techniques are being tested for the removal and mapping of landmines.

Once again the UN proves its arrogance.

Since landmines are a {mainly} defensive weapon, it would stand to reason that the only countries not using them would be non-UN members. And, since the UN is an organization which {should} promote global peace, it stands to reason that there would be no real reason for UN nations to individually attack another nation. The money we get from selling landmines to non-UN members would allow us to finance a whole new range of defensive weaponry {such as space-based tactical missile platforms}. As well, the defensive issues of not having landmines would be negated if the UN formed a self-defense pact {ie. any member state attacked by a non-member state would face immediate sanctions and automatically bring up a declaration of war resolution for the governing body of the nation to decide on}. I'd say that the entire UN {or the nations that would declare war} would have a pretty good chance of beating the aggressors unless THEY formed a coalition, which we would need to destroy, resulting in a rather large war {and excellent documentaries afterwards}. Sorry if this has already been mentioned.

Hey, why you people wanna mess mith me and my land mines. If i wanna blow up a few of the little people laying around its my business. I mean, theres never anything on cable anymore, whats a guy to do.

So when did we let the UN take over and dictate personal Military and Defence poloicy to us? That what rules of warfare are for. Besides I'd be ever so pleased to have the UN forces defend me with thier "We dont shoot back poloicy" with the baby blue helmets for target practice.

I think these people fail to realize that their resolutions do not affect non-UN nations and that they will continue to use landmines. The fact is that if this passes it will probably cause more nations to withdraw, meaning more nations will be using land mines. In other words, this resolution is going to worsen the problem it is trying to solve. How ironic, and yet how like these stupidly blind liberal resolutions the ignorant goody-goodies try to force down the throats of those UN members that know what the UN stands for and how it REALLY works. Fact is this resolution breaks every part of the UN charter, and blantantly throws national sovereignity out the window. Even in the treaties of the Disarmament committee of the real UN, over 90% of the nations that signed the treaty did not ratify the land mine protoccols. In the real UN, nations can pick to ratify only portions of the "treaty resolutions" passed by the UN. And besides, in the real UN nations break the resolutions quite frequently. This can be pointed out in several cases: the US, the UK, Israel, most of the Arabian nations, China, Russia, Southeast Asian communist community, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia, almost every country in Africa, and the list goes on and on and on. And the UN can do NOTHING about it except possible deny them their right to vote, and that rarely happens. In fact, it has only happened 6 times in UN history, and usually the states in question were under scrutiny from the Security Council anyway and that is the only reason the motions got through. Take all this into account when you are voting about this resolution.

This resolution is CLEARLY a way to limit the power of smaller and emerging nations. We newer peoples NEED landmines for our defences, as we have not yet achieved the technological level required for your so called "remote controlled" weaponery. Landmines are the ONLY means of wide range defences that the smaller nations control, and thus is a pinical part of my defense stragity. Anyway, if a civilian were dumb enough to walk into a minefield, which are clearly outlined by crater marks, then they deserve to die. It is cullin the bad genes from the pool. VOTE NO!

I :!: MUST :!: also stress the fact that if this proposal goes through, many will abandon the UN, myself included.

Based on my expertise, landmines are not only outdated, but impractical. The last time landmine technology had a breakthrough, Nixon was in college.

Avoiding mine fields is laughably easy, to the extent that 95% of landmines are never exploded for the simple reason that, after the first mine goes off, everyone backs up and drives around them. Or the enemy just sees the signs that say "WARNING: LANDMINES" while surveying the area.

I must say that I don't know if I am allowed to post here since I am not a UN member, yet I felt going through the debate that most of you lack some knowledge of modern warfare...

I have to disagree on most of the points brought upin your post
Sensitivity of anti-personnel mines - agreed. They are sensitive as hell.

Anti-Tank Mines - They can be triggered by humans as well. It is just how hard you step on them. They are generally easier to clear than anti-personnel mines, but not much easier.

Mines are archaic? not true. The modern mine is well engineered and built. yes, it is basically a lump of explosives that blow up when triggered. But it is the triggering mechanisms thave have improved tremendously. Proximity sensors, anti-disposal measures, etc. A bulldozer will have a lot of trouble clearing the minefield. Barring external factors (support forces protecting the minefield) it would probably be desroyed by the mines it was meant to clear.

The reason why people use mines is not because they do not understand new technology. In fact, contries that understand technology and its limitations will want to use mines. They are virtually undetectable (E.g. Russians built their mines from wood and TNT, and that was in WWII!), quite difficult to dispose, and easy to control and manage as a defensive weapon. They can even be turned into offensive weapons if you fit the appropriate trigger mechanisms to them.

Mines are deterrents. The strategy is to stop the enemy from going though a certain area and to funnel them to a 'killing zone'. It presents the enemy with hard choices. To breach the minefield and risk blowing myself up, or to walk into the killing zone and slug it out?

The doctrines of well prepared armies will prefer to conduct a breach. Its usually easier especially with area clearance esplosives and artillery support, but it still slows the enemy down. This gives the defenders time to move in reinforcements

And yes, if you are desperate, the landmine is a gosend. Planting unmarked mines all over the place will give the enemy nightmares. Yours will begin later

Based on my expertise, landmines are not only outdated, but impractical.

Which expertise would that be? The 'I declare myself the god of landmines and all your landmines fall under my rule' expertise? If you were in the military, which I find you to not be, then you'd understand that they are still used and are a fair deterrent. If you wish for examples, please note the 5 pages of discussion in which myself and other nations with a grain of knowledge on the subject (unlike you) have venomately stated that you are wrong and have given extensive examples. Please read the threads before you post, or at least have some general knowledge on the subject you unintelligent fiend.

Padishah Newby of Dahaka

i do have several question upon which i am no expert on the answers to

1)does anyone invade on foot anymore?
2)is a cleymore mine effective aganst armour?
3)what about mines that look like toy airplanes?

1) You need the ground to move your tanks over to the "other side". And tanks cannot operate without infantry support, and infantry need to walk ...

2) Not really effective against armour. It an anti-personnel weapon.

3) The inventors should be drawn and quartered!

Based on my expertise, landmines are not only outdated, but impractical. The last time landmine technology had a breakthrough, Nixon was in college.

Avoiding mine fields is laughably easy, to the extent that 95% of landmines are never exploded for the simple reason that, after the first mine goes off, everyone backs up and drives around them. Or the enemy just sees the signs that say "WARNING: LANDMINES" while surveying the area.

Yes, you are right. Most landmines are not exploded for the follwong reasons:
1. because everyone drives around them... into the killing zone which the defender wants you to go. Incidently, it is usually free of landmines.
2. Most armies breaching a minefield will try to open up a passage through the minefield that is as narrow as possible thereby leaving the rest of the minefield untouched until much later. when they can be removed at leisure.

Based on my expertise, landmines are not only outdated, but impractical. The last time landmine technology had a breakthrough, Nixon was in college.

Avoiding mine fields is laughably easy, to the extent that 95% of landmines are never exploded for the simple reason that, after the first mine goes off, everyone backs up and drives around them. Or the enemy just sees the signs that say "WARNING: LANDMINES" while surveying the area.

Somehow I doubt you have much "experience" in this area, as what you are saying is common of the typically misinformed response.

The US Army, the most modern and most tactically proficient fighting force in the world's history, still uses land mines as a matter of doctrine. They are incredibly useful in defensive missions, as they can be used to channel enemy forces into avenues of the defender's choice.

Yes, avoiding mine fields is very easy, but more often than not, that is the POINT of the minefield.

Also, regarding mine technology, there have been many important advances. If you'd like to look less ignorant, you might look some of them up.

Landmines are an archaic form of defense, completely useless in today's world.
They offer no deterrent to invading countries and will inevitably

Tell that to South Korea, right before North Korea decides it wants to "reuninte" both countries through the use of military force. :roll:

As others mentioned, the DMZ's mines are only a small detterent for the North Koreans. Nuclear weapons are probably bigger, our airforce is probably bigger.

Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

You should know that N. Korea has a far larger standing army than there are U.S./S. Korean forces combined. Even if the entire U.S. army & marine corps were deployed to S. Korea, they'd be HEAVILY outnumbered (somewhere in the ballpark of 10 to 1)

Not so much scared, concerned for our S. Korean allies......

If you call a 12 year old girl drilled with propaganda, and armed with a kalishnikov, marching on foot and nearly out of rations a soldier in a standing army then yes you are right. If you look at causualty rates you will find our army gets more than 10 to one, and the South Korean army probably isn't much worse.

The real threat from North Korea are its missiles, its few nuclear warheads, and its huge artillery batteries that could level Seoul. It's 'standing army' really isn't an issue, even without the minefield.

The US Army Infantry School at Ft Benning taught soviet doctrine re landmine barriers encountered when attacking:

1. Sov units moved en masse preceded by a massive artillery barrage
2. The barrage frequently rendered portions or entire minefields ineffective either through direct hits or subsequent fratricidal explosions.
3. Nuclear mines in the Fulda Gap were viewed as stopgap and highly frowned upon by Germans [naturalich]
4. Soviet client states used the same doctrine with combined arms movement preceded again by heavy artillery barrages frequently along the entire FEBA disrupting defense formations and obstacles.

Eventually, the US abandoned mines in Europe employing them instead on the Korean peninsula and the DMZ.

my $0.02 from the 60s...

Nilserb of Monacatootha

landmines are not cruel devises of war. They are made to protect your borders without risking sending in troops. Land mines are nearly esential in war and banning them would be idiocy.

Let's have a resolution banning conflict and war. It will be much simpler. And we can invade and destroy those who disagree

:D

heh use explosive surprise beanbag things then -.-

explosive surprise explosive beanbags :D

What military officers?

I fired all of them about 6 months ago.

i also voted for this resolution.

It is stupidity to ban the use of landmines. What next? Shall the U.N attempt to take away the rifles of our armies? This is a mad issue and should of never gotten the endorsement required if the leaders of nations thought practical thoughts not some sort of dream land solution. Land mines are key to a nations defence, land mines give nations the ability to use less manpower to guard a certain area and at the same time deter other nations from attacking them! Why? Because land mines pose a threat to other armies thats why! A threat signifcant enough to make another nation not attack as they realise that landmines and mine fields can destory their invasion. If you ban landmines you make the world a more dangerous place due to the fact that now its easier for countries to invade each other. Invasions are where the deaths will occur. Those of you who have voted for this madness have all signed a contract of death for people around the world.

It is stupidity to ban the use of landmines. What next? Shall the U.N attempt to take away the rifles of our armies? This is a mad issue and should of never gotten the endorsement required if the leaders of nations thought practical thoughts not some sort of dream land solution. Land mines are key to a nations defence, land mines give nations the ability to use less manpower to guard a certain area and at the same time deter other nations from attacking them! Why? Because land mines pose a threat to other armies thats why! A threat signifcant enough to make another nation not attack as they realise that landmines and mine fields can destory their invasion. If you ban landmines you make the world a more dangerous place due to the fact that now its easier for countries to invade each other. Invasions are where the deaths will occur. Those of you who have voted for this madness have all signed a contract of death for people around the world.

What military officers?

I fired all of them about 6 months ago.

i also voted for this resolution.

Say hello to the first supporter of the "ban war" resolution.

You people....you sit there and talk about Locke when you should be reading J.S. Mill!

The Commonwealth of Billthecat would like to point out the simple fact that this proposal, if passed to become a resolution, would be utterly unenforceable. The proposal is a nice photo-op for countries leaders to support and say that they feel really bad for all the poor one-legged farmers in a far-flung war zone.

However, mines will not become any less available, and with no obvious alternative for poor nations in a defensive role, they will continue to be used. Even if the poor nation is a UN member, who is going to forcibly stop them from using land mines? Nobody. There is no mechanism for the UN to actually police and enforce the resolution.

While the proposal is a nice sentiment, it is at its core, pointless. So the Commonwealth of Billthecat wonders what all the arguing is about.

although the people of Salafae do feel this is a silly, and ill-thought out resolution, we do feel that as land mines really only target anyone who happens to stand in their general region, and this oftentimes means civilians, we have voted for this resolution, as no innocent should die depending on where they stand.

I've read Mill. He's an ethicist, not a political theorist. What political theories he came up with are all dirivative of Locke (Mill being a conservative).

There are many utilitarians out there, and I can respect the fact that they exist, but in two hundred years no utilitarian had ever come up with a way around the "perverted pleasure" problem. Under Mill, gladiator combat is not only moral but morally required because it makes 90 people happy at the expense of a mere ten.

It's a similar problem to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. (which I read four years ago and as such am a little rusty). Ayn Rand has to do all manner of mental gymnastics to get around perverted or stupid people. That is, if someone see the same evidence as an Objectivist, but comes to a different conclusion that is still logical, the Objectivist must accept it. Objectivists get around it by saying that if people knew all the facts they would agree. This is like Mill saying if people were snobs there would be no perverted pleasure. People are not snobs, and people never have all the facts.

The fact that both of them conclude that Democracy is best does not mean their philosophies are best. Rousseau believed in democracy, but only as a stepping stone to the total control of the state. Marx thought of democracy as a stepping stone to the ascendency of the proletariat. That Marx was wrong drove Lenin to push revolution.

All these philosophies depend absolutely on the ruling of the Better Angels of Our Natures. As you can see, Rousseau's beloved state developed the guilletine, Marx brought about nothing more than a fizzle in "inevitable history," and Lenin brought about the Soviet Union.

Of political scholars and ethicists, only Locke envisioned a society that worked even when the lesser angels took over the world. From him came England and the United States.

For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.
The resolution only bans the deployment of mines during conflicts. There is nothing wrong with a little proactive deployment.

Are you kiddin'?!?!?! Landmines are an important part of the defence system of my nation. If I could, I would vote a hundret times AGAINST banning them!

Landmines are really an archaic form of defense, damaging most people after wars and that is really horrible (been in cambodia the last years?)

So if wars then wars between soldiers, not civilians.

And bans are only working within countries that have a judicial system that works, that means: bans first, then long walks through institutions and introducing new forms of political pressures to such states as North K.

Are you kiddin'?!?!?! Landmines are an important part of the defence system of my nation. If I could, I would vote a hundret times AGAINST banning them!
I mearly stated that even if the proposal passes we could still legally deploy land mines. As the proposal itself clearly stated, it only bans the use of mines during conflict.

land mines have historically had their uses in self defence of a country from foreign invaders and still have their uses today, if everyone is so much against land mines it would be better to look at the motives of the countries advocating the elimination of a self defence mechanism, could it possibly be that these countries are in truth plotting a major offensive and using the UN to remove a very affective self defence? are we all unwittingly giving our protection away because some other country tells us to, do we KNOW they wont attack us as soon as we are disarmed, will they march into our country looting andd burning, leaving it in shambles? Will we let our country that we have so long strived to prosper and develope fall to ruin under the snake's tounge will we give up our right to bare arms because sone countries are trying to make this a more peaceful place and does anyone have any proof that once these weopons are gone we will not have tyranny? are we going to be subjected to horrors and atrocities because we have no weapons to fight back? will we, bereft of our defence facing an army equipped with weapons we ourselves destroyed will we be able to resist, stand up and say nay you may not enter our country, you may not inforce your rule hear, I will not let you take my lands, take my livlyhood, stand up and say No on this vote against this disarment of our self defence
--Shabalobadingdong

Yay! My armed forces thank the person who made up that resolution.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=100363&highlight=
MWAHAHAHAHA! That is why you should vote no, you're losing one of the best weapons ever created, the landmine.

Yay! My armed forces thank the person who made up that resolution.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=100363&highlight=
MWAHAHAHAHA! That is why you should vote no, you're losing one of the best weapons ever created, the landmine.
Only during conflict.

Why the hell would you want to use landmines in peace time? Seriously, if you're at war and you need a makeshift defense, lay down some damn mines!
(I know you could plant them at peacetime, but still, what kind of dumba$$ rule is that? They were CREATED for conflict.)

Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

The resolution should have been more specific, like ANTI-PERSONELL mines instead of land-mines. Tank mines are still used, effective, and "harmless" to civilians.

hmmm you bump thin rod coming out of ground more than 15 Degrees and well you won't have to worry about a burial plot, there won't be enough of you left.

M21 Anti-Tank Mine.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/atm.htm

but still, i don't think you should ban them. Even though they are detectable they are a cheap way of Slowing down enemy forces.

The mines can be laid just before the conflict, and they will still be there during the battle.

The mines can be laid just before the conflict, and they will still be there during the battle.
So how do you predict a conflict? It's not like you know where the enemy will attack, and it takes a long time to mine your whole border. This is really stupid. Landmines are a makeshift defence that is put down during conflict to slow down an oncoming force. Unless you have a Korea-type relationship, there really is no point of laying mines during peace.

Unless you have a Korea-type relationship, there really is no point of laying mines during peace.
And, which two countries are mentioned the most in this forum.

In addition the resolution didn't just say conflift. It said "Conflifts between counties." I was just reasoning that even if the resolution was applied to coutries, it would still exclude Korea, the region everyone is talking about.

Unless you have a Korea-type relationship, there really is no point of laying mines during peace.
And, which two countries are mentioned the most in this forum.

In addition the resolution didn't just say conflift. It said "Conflifts between counties." I was just reasoning that even if the resolution was applied coutries, it would still exclude Korea.
Damn, didn't catch that typo. This is going to be disappointing to participants in the annual "Swerving Truck County vs. Squirrell county reigonal population control games" (No, I'm not serious).

it doesn't really matter if there gotten rid of someone will only make something that is just as dangerous and harder to get rid of or just that much more powerful. and the only way to postpone something of that nature is to keep the landmines around for as long as possible and find a way of removing them from a field that would not put anyone in danger. and yes there are ways to do that they just havent been discovered.

I'm sorry. I misquoted the resolution. It actually said confict not conflicft.

the absense of landmines will only lead to the development of another weapon of destruction that will be more dangerous to our society. It will do no good to ban landmines.

I'm voting no in protest of the stupidity of the resolution rather than it's good intentions.

I vote yes to good intentions when they can follow through to tangible improvement.

Fact is, it's intentions that place mines in the ground and leave them there.
Perhaps it's the intentions that are not good that should be focused on. How about nations that refuse to take responsibility for cleaning up their deployed landmines in areas intended for habitation when they can provably afford it, get their governments removed with decisive UN millitary force.
If they can't afford it, I wouldn't mind if the UN members paid for it. Or is that too atruistic?

What is the U.N. thinking??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Land mines are necesary to the land defence of every nation, :idea: How else are they supposed to defend there borders if the goverment won,t garnt the military funding to put troops there? :o ??? Oh, No one KNOWS!!!!!!! I Realy hope that this does'nt pass!!! :wink:






Nathanael supported by Nate rico

watching the votes so far it doesn't look good for those that want to keep and yes i agree some contries need their ground defences so if you want to keep them start to raise more hell about it

Monacatootha: "I encourage all states to reject the landmine proposal. It affects only those states belonging to the UN, not the 67.6% of NationStates not belonging."

In my naivete it is my assumption that an alliance, if the UN could be in any fashion be considered one, of nearly a third of the world is hardly threatened by the remaining 67.6% which isn't remotely allied in a meaningful way. Please produce a list of those alliances large enough to be considered credible threats. Also, by your reasoning, if any one country in the world has even one nuclear weapon than the rest of the world must protect itself with its own nuclear deterrents. Great idea.

Dahaka: "As for the effectiveness, if you are so blind as to see that North Korea would not be able to invade the South because of the large minefield between them and their objective."

Strange wording, but in the context of your post it appears your suggestion is that landmines are an effective deterrent. Wow, it's that simple to stop an invasion. Who would have thought the North Korean menace would so easily be foiled?

Pooistan: "Your thinking of them solely as a strategic deterrent is an excellent indicator of your ignorance on the subject."

Well please share with us your expertise and not your unsubstantiated blather. There are many countries that are not using 'modern' landmines, but instead old 'dumb' anti-personnel mines. These hurt innocent civilians. Anyone with even the most BASIC understanding and KNOWLEDGE of the topic would be able to appreciate this. Thanks:)

(I'm having a impossible time with my computer, hence the old-school and improper quotation methodology)

"]Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

You should know that N. Korea has a far larger standing army than there are U.S./S. Korean forces combined. Even if the entire U.S. army & marine corps were deployed to S. Korea, they'd be HEAVILY outnumbered (somewhere in the ballpark of 10 to 1)

Not so much scared, concerned for our S. Korean allies......

If you call a 12 year old girl drilled with propaganda, and armed with a kalishnikov, marching on foot and nearly out of rations a soldier in a standing army then yes you are right. If you look at causualty rates you will find our army gets more than 10 to one, and the South Korean army probably isn't much worse.

The real threat from North Korea are its missiles, its few nuclear warheads, and its huge artillery batteries that could level Seoul. It's 'standing army' really isn't an issue, even without the minefield.

The UN has no right to decide how it's nations conduct and make policies on their national defense. If a nation want's to use land mines, fine. They have the right to do as they please, no one every said war was a good thing. Making a ban on landmine's to me is saying that every nation can only use ONE type of assault rifle in their armies, and banning all others. Hopefully, more people will come to their senses and vote against the ban of land mines.

Man, you guys sure are scared of north-korea.
wassamatter? Big, bad, bully america is scared? awwww........

You should know that N. Korea has a far larger standing army than there are U.S./S. Korean forces combined. Even if the entire U.S. army & marine corps were deployed to S. Korea, they'd be HEAVILY outnumbered (somewhere in the ballpark of 10 to 1)

Not so much scared, concerned for our S. Korean allies......

If you call a 12 year old girl drilled with propaganda, and armed with a kalishnikov, marching on foot and nearly out of rations a soldier in a standing army then yes you are right. If you look at causualty rates you will find our army gets more than 10 to one, and the South Korean army probably isn't much worse.

The real threat from North Korea are its missiles, its few nuclear warheads, and its huge artillery batteries that could level Seoul. It's 'standing army' really isn't an issue, even without the minefield.

Actually, in referring to N.Korea's standing army, I was not thinking of the 12-year-olds, they are in something called the "Red Guards", a paramilitary organization run by the communist party of the DPRK. I was however referring to the 6000-or-so individual peices of armor, and approximately 10500 gun & rocket systems that comprise the artillery brigades of the ARMY (you can insert "standing" if you like) of the DPRK, a large portion of which (about 700,000 personnel) are deployed along the DMZ. .

Could the artillery level Seoul? Yes. Are the nukes a strategic issue? Yes. But what would the point be to an invasion of a country you've already obliterated? The N.Koreans don't want to destroy S. Korea, they want it BACK. The landmines are one part of a defensive network designed to keep them from taking it. Oh, and while I'm at it, don't you suppose the effective use of landmines might account for some of those casualties (be they directly, or indirectly due to the effect area denial creates) the US inflicts?

So, that said, is there anything else you feel the need to teach me?

Oh I'm all for the resolution! Easier to defend myself! And I can still use them!

Oh I'm all for the resolution! Easier to defend myself! And I can still use them!

Heh, I skipped six and a half pages, so if everyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, it's from the first page...


I agree with you. When I read the proposal I thought about how idiotic it was. Just think about your nation being attacked. It obviously wouldn't be an attack from a fellow UN nation. It'd be from a non-UN member who supports the use of landmines creating a distinct advantage on their part.

Generally, I agree that landmines are very destructive. I understand that in border disputes or in invasions, the non-UN nation would have a distinct advantage, with land mines. But I don't agree with this quote ^.

If another nation attacks yours, what are they going to do, invade your cities and plant land mines?

that does sound quite dumb but you will never know what happens. and getting rid of them is a bad idea because if you think that banning landmines will solve the problem your wrong because i've said before that banning them will only bring around the invention of an even stronger type of land mine or something new that is worse than that of an explosive that doesn't move.

No where did the resolution restrict the definition of landmines. And since you have the option of placing the claymore mine in the same fashion as your 'traditional' land mines, it is qualified as beloning in that catagory. Poorly written resolution, such as this, do not define, thus I cannot agree with your ignorance to this issure. As for your blatent stupidity of the US policies, it is one of the FEW nations NOT to ban the use of landmines... or are you completely blind to the fact that landmines have been deployed in mass quantities in the DMZ inbetween the Koreas? As for my background in this realm, I am in the US Army in the real world and have such information because I am required to know this... what's your background you ingnorant fiend? As for Carlemnaria's post, the answer to the 3 questions are as followed. 1- Yes, we did it from the South into Iraq in both wars, the Serbian army did it to Kosovo, and the N. Korean Army would do it if there weren't a huge landmine field in the way... 2- It depends upon what type of armor your talking about. For light armor, most likely... steel ball berings flying at high velocities could do damage to this classification... as for the other, that's why you have anti-tank landmines and ATW's 3- What about them? Then there is still the question of the 'victims' of an indescriminate mine. Civillian casualties happen in war, it's an unfortunate side effect, but it is one that cannot be eliminated and if landmines were to be used to prevent an invading army from comming in and subjugating your population, I sure hope to hell that you'd use them. Also, where are your facts listing the statistics of numbers of casualties produced by landmines with a comparison of the different categories which they would fall under?

Padishah NewbyInsults are the last resort of the ignorant mind, Dahaka, Please refrain from using them and try to maintain some civility in your arguements. If as you say the resolution does not define landmines and your afraid your beloved claymore would be thus banned simply reclassify it in your arsenal. Real nations do this all the time to get around weapon bans. As for your claims on US use of mines, while I do not claim to be an expert, it was my understanding that the US has adopted a policy to not deploy non removable ordinance. This does not effect the vast minefields that are already in place in the Korean DMZ and other areas it simply means they will refrain from doing so in the future. If I am incorrect, please inform me and cite your source, I would be obliged to know.

In RL, almost all NATO countries have in fact accepted the ban on land mines, with the notable exception of the US. The case for doing so is not a bad one. A research report¨by the notable Dupuy Institute has also concluded that from a strictly military point of view, such a ban would be an advantage to the US. The land mine is a poor man¨s weapon, and will always favour the side with the least ability to manouver and the side without possession of the initiative.

A ban on landmines is a good idea, but as many have previously mentioned, it will make NO difference. North Korea and such would never comply with such a ban, and currently they are the only military country that could cause a threat to the stability of the world if it wanted to.

Vote against it so this ridicolous motion is not passed. It is making a mockery of the UN and that is not what the UN is for! Shoreham does not care for background knowledge, the past at this time is not what matters. This is fact. This resolution is not a good idea.

With the pending passing of the banning of land mines resolution, Bad Ass Land resigns from the United Nations in disgust. It's become painfully obvious that members vote with their irrational emotions without research of the resolutions at hand.

Not that it would have mattered whether I stayed in the U.N. or not. You guys don't even have a way to enforce resolutions. Whatcha gonna do, invade? You couldn't anyway, because I have landmines!!! :lol:

They're weapons. Weapons are for killing things. There is no right or wrong way to kill things. War is for killing people. Anyone that tries to make war more humane is a wishful thinker. If someone invaded my country, I'd unload all of my nukes right away and damn consequences. Of course, we aren't talking about nukes but this is centered around making one type of weapon a taboo for UN members. And seriously, the UN couldn't get its act together to defend against an outside threat. I'm actually pretty sure that if a war did break out between the non-UN and UN nations, fifty percent of the UN members would have been taken out before a resolution to organize a multinational force is passed. And with no landmines, well, that's just how much time the invaders don't have to waste going around or disarming the landmines. Of course I'm out of the UN. Ah, it's nice to be free.