NationStates Jolt Archive

I protest against the unlogical banning of the landmines. They form a respectable part of defence arsenal of a lot of smaller nations. Yes, when used in an irresponsible way they can be devastating to civilian population and to overall development of the postwar-area, but most of the third world-countries doing this are allready on the black list for genocide, corruption, dictatorship and so on. And I don't see no-one banning scattermines that are either dropped from bombers, shot by artillery or distributed from missiles. Scatterbombs are small anti-personnell mines that are kept on special shells that explode before contact, thus scattering mines to suprisingly large area. Due to their small size they are hard to detect and seldomly lethal. They only severely damage living tissue, in other words unarmored and -armed civilians. Scatters also slow rebuilding, because only the enemy military has the vaguest of idea of where the scatters are and they just might not tell it!

This stupid desicion makes smaller countries weaker and encourages to pre-emptive strikes, more aggressive war and the using of scatters that ensure even more suffering to civilian populace!

Therefore Artola demands the removal of this ill-thinked, idiotic restriction for the common good!

I agree.

Why should the new be forced to suffer for what the primitive has done?

In an era of largely diverse governments, in an era where war is not a tragedy, but a necessity - the necessity to keep your nation free of the primitive, we must not let our needs be ruined by moral worries.

good thing mines are banned. If you don't like the decision, live with it or quit the UN.

Mines are used, of cource, to kill people. It is very logical that in a civilized society, gradually fire weapons are eliminated, untill we find ourselved in the superb situation of peace.

Mines are one of the worse weapons there are. People could accidentally go into a mine field and never come back. A land should not be with mines for the rest of the soil's existance. Lands are more productive in agriculture, building space and settlement. So to enable that kind of action upon that soil, it is more important to eliminate those life threatning mines. For example, if today we put mines in a certain field, 50 years from now it could be a children playground. But suddenly one child steppes on a mine and dies, only because some country decided to "protect" itself with that kind of field 50 years earlier. So, mine banning is an essencial method to protect today's and the future population of our society.

This is what I think, make mines legal, but only if they have a kill switch that can be hit remotely at the end of the war, therefore, you could use them in war, but they won't kill any civillians afterwards. Is that technology possible to build?

Artola marks all mines that are planted on anywhere. After the hostilities are over all mines are removed by engineers, or, if the mines are in enemy soil, the EXACT locations of mines are given to the side that controls the area where the mines are.
I agree that the least that UN countries should do would be trade sanctions agaist governments that use mines on plant-and-forget -principles.

The primar function of mines is to serve as a cheap defence weapon. Scatter mines that only big, powerful nations can afford are your "worser weapons". They are used to weaken the figting will of civilian populace, to disturb enemy supply lines and to render entire blocks of urban area unhabitable (like in Grozny in real life). Like napalm bombs or air topedoes they are terror weapons.

Again, switcable mines would be so expensive that only big countries could afford them.

And what comes to the "good thing that they're banned, so tof luck", did you even think before posting it? If a small nation A is under attack by a much larger dictatorship B that carelessly uses scatters just for fun, and mines could mean the difference between slavery and freedom for A, would YOU support trade sanctions against A should she use mines?

I tell you, the possible well-being of B's snotty and pampered citizens wouldn't be the priority on MY gotta-do -list. Democratic nations have every right to defend themselves from the forces of tyranny. SURVIVAL COMES FIRST, then your army, then your citizens, then international treaties and far away, behind enemy diplomats, comes enemy citizens IF THEY COME AT ALL. I can clearly see that holy panooly hasn't have to defend his country against anything. The question is, what are you gonna do when your precious UN treaties limit your weaponry to toothpicks and the attacking tyranny doesn't give a dick about what they shouldn't do.

Republic of Artola

All mines should be kep operational. Keep civilans out of the field and try to remove any mines that are left in now populated areas, this will remove most casualties. :!:

Mines were banned for a very good reason. They carry on killing people after war has finished. They are thus evil wepaons and were rightfully banned.

"Mines were banned for a very good reason. They carry on killing people after war has finished. They are thus evil wepaons and were rightfully banned."

I haven't seen anyone banning nukes, yet even the smallest of nations can easily aquire these horrible WMD's. Flamethrowers and exploding bullets cause horrible wounds to anyone unlucky enough not to die. Knifes and guns are horrible weapons. Yet they are used to protect innocent civilians from far more terrifying events.

Mine warfare should be accepted in the UN IF conditions described in my second post would be made mandatory to follow. Futhermore UN is the main pillar of humanity; mine warfare in non-UN countries should be followed more carefully and trade sanctions should be imposed when necessary. Present UN mines policy only harms UN nations and drives awa potential UN candidates.

Most people think Cambodzia when mines are mentioned. "Ooh, horrible, they should be banned!". It is sad. It is wrong. Punishing the whole class from the doings of one is something that was practiced in the 80's! Have you ever thought that Cambodzia is famous for its mines because they used them badly? Why are there no mentions of WW2-era Finns conducting mine warfare? BECAUSE THEY PLAYED BY THE RULES. They marked ever last mine into maps, gave them to the enemy and carefully disposed all the mines they had in their own territories USING MAPS.

Please. Mines are almost a breach of humans rights regarding torture! Many of the weapons using mines or minelets (notably the JP223 area denial bomb) are designed for the purpose of MAIMING the targets, or introducing fear. Mines are quite rightly not always lethal, but many cases where a mines does not kill the victim often results in a lifelong disability. The United NAtions was quite withins it's mandate to ban these terrible weapons, and the resolution was a sensible one.

I have a postscriptum to add: The first post stated weapons like scatterbombs only damage living tissue:THATS THE POINT!The UN proposal as made BECAUSE mines are a danger to civilian life, lives protected from death during war by the geneva conventions.

You are talking about scatter mines (or whatever the english name is). Many of the mines mean mines developed by (would-be) super-powers. If mines are listed on the same sheet as torture I can clearly see that the present UN administration isn't even on the same planet with its mission.

Allright, so what about phosphorous nades? An efficient and cheap way to clean rooms and pot-holes just like flamethrower. Why aren't the banned?
Or saw's (general squad automatic weapons). They are used to lay suppressive fire ie. pin "enemy living tissue" down so that they can be destroyed with sharpnel-grenades.

Soldiers are what they are. They know what can come to them. A vast majority, if not all defence ministeries think of ways to most effectively destroy/wear enemy down. Mines are designed that way. Where do you think that hollow-points came? Or firebombs that RAF so extensively used?
They are effective tools of war, no more, no less.

MJ12:THEN WHY, OH WHY AREN'T SCATTERS BANNED? Do you really think that big countries are any more moralistic?

Thats an idea that has been bounced around quite a bit, a UN Resolution what would annul a previously passed UN Resolution.

Whatever the outcome is, Artola will not, under current circumstances, inforce the Mine-Banning Desicion in any forms.
Mine warfare enables a cheap and efficient way of DEFENDING Artola's territorial intergity from whoever stupid enough to try to break it. All mines that are used or planted in defensive/offensive military operations in- or outside Artola will be properly categorized and marked on maps. The locations of ALL mines will be telegraphed to UN headquaters, SPDF headquaters, the nation/s responsible for hostilities, and to any nation demanding them AFTER THE HOSTILITIES ARE OVER.
Engineer units or (non-commissioned)officers of Artola Defence Forces that haven't reported their unit's every-single deployment of mine-class explosives or devices classiffied as mines in the field manual will be sent to military court for warcrimes either into UN military tribunal or ADF military court.

Every possible measure will be taken in an effort to protect artonian/foreign civilian populace from unneeded suffering. This is much more than local/global superpowers will ever do to protect civilians, foreign or their own. They wouldn't even acknoweldge the use of mines.

ADF WILL CONTINUE TO USE MINES AND MINE-CLASS EXPLOSIVES WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY.

President Kallunki
Republic of Artola