3 ms·

> Previous UN treaties have been effective even when key nations have failed to sign up to them. The US did not sign up to the landmines treaty, but has complet

> Previous UN treaties have been effective even when key nations have failed to sign up to them. The US did not sign up to the landmines treaty, but has completely aligned its landmines policy to comply nonetheless. Idk - it might be a step toward eventual disarmament, even if far in the future.

nonbel 9y ago
> "The US did not sign up to the landmines treaty, but has completely aligned its landmines policy to comply nonetheless." Actually there is a department in the US called "wildlife services" that places poison gas landmines all around the country to try controlling coyote populations. Apparently they just show up and place them near peoples property without alerting anyone or putting up warning signs. Every now and then one of them goes off and poisons a person or dog. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/29/521917387/calls-mount-for-ban-on-cyanide-bombs-after-death-of-family-pet http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/29/521917387/... https://www.predatordefense.org/m44s.htm https://www.predatordefense.org/m44s.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSV8pRLkdKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSV8pRLkdKI
- justin66 9y ago
  Those are awful enough, but they are not landmines.
gh02t 9y ago
I saw an interesting talk by one of the guys responsible for nuclear weapons policy under Obama. He focused on a game-theoretic analysis of whether or not "nuclear zero" (total global disarmament) was really possible. The analysis he gave suggested a scheme where countries could simultaneously disarm down to very low levels (maybe a couple hundred worldwide) while maintaining a credible mutual deterrent, but going below that was exceedingly difficult. Basically one of the major nuclear powers would have to be willing to take a "leap of faith" to get to total disarmament, which is hard to swallow politically. It's all hypothetical analysis now though as it seems like we are currently on track to maintain the status quo or even start another buildup. I hope not, it's a waste of money and effort for negligible tangible benefit over what we have now.
- rumcajz 9y ago
  South Africa did disarm.
  - gh02t 9y ago
    Yeah they did, but under different circumstances. Arguably South Africa never had any intention of keeping their weapons and intended them as a bargaining chip. South Africa never really had a significant arsenal either. This talk was about total global disarmament, which is a different scenario. Moreover, he was interested in disarmament schemes that maintained the balance of power that deters the actual use of weapons, ideally right up to the moment that there are none.
    - justin66 9y ago
      Did the analysis include a buildup of defensive weapons? There was a school of thought that building up that stuff was a necessary prerequisite for eliminating nuclear weapons and I think it was because it ameliorated the risks involved with the "leap of faith." (and replaced it with risks of its own)
      - gh02t 9y ago
        Not exactly. The whole idea was predicated on the obsolescence of nuclear weapons in modern conflicts, so in a sense it was partially predicated on improving non-nuclear defensive capabilities. His suggested "pitch" to countries to get them started was the massive cost of maintaining weapons that are not intended to actually be used- they just sit around and act menacing. He posited that this was a pretty juicy incentive and if you could conceive a scheme where countries could all disarm simultaneously while maintaining a balance of power (and thus the disincentive against the use of weapons) that it might actually work. This is obvious of course and pretty standard thought. His real focus was on the importance of ways for the weapons states to mutually verify the disarmament of the other states in a technically rigorous manner but all of it was interesting.
- afarrell 9y ago
barry-cotter 9y ago
The article lies. The US still uses and reserves the right to use land mines in the Koreas.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

nonbel 9y ago

> "The US did not sign up to the landmines treaty, but has completely aligned its landmines policy to comply nonetheless." Actually there is a department in the US called "wildlife services" that places poison gas landmines all around the country to try controlling coyote populations. Apparently they just show up and place them near peoples property without alerting anyone or putting up warning signs. Every now and then one of them goes off and poisons a person or dog. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/29/521917387/calls-mount-for-ban-on-cyanide-bombs-after-death-of-family-pet http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/29/521917387/... https://www.predatordefense.org/m44s.htm https://www.predatordefense.org/m44s.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSV8pRLkdKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSV8pRLkdKI

justin66 9y ago
Those are awful enough, but they are not landmines.

gh02t 9y ago

I saw an interesting talk by one of the guys responsible for nuclear weapons policy under Obama. He focused on a game-theoretic analysis of whether or not "nuclear zero" (total global disarmament) was really possible. The analysis he gave suggested a scheme where countries could simultaneously disarm down to very low levels (maybe a couple hundred worldwide) while maintaining a credible mutual deterrent, but going below that was exceedingly difficult. Basically one of the major nuclear powers would have to be willing to take a "leap of faith" to get to total disarmament, which is hard to swallow politically. It's all hypothetical analysis now though as it seems like we are currently on track to maintain the status quo or even start another buildup. I hope not, it's a waste of money and effort for negligible tangible benefit over what we have now.

rumcajz 9y ago
South Africa did disarm.
- gh02t 9y ago
  Yeah they did, but under different circumstances. Arguably South Africa never had any intention of keeping their weapons and intended them as a bargaining chip. South Africa never really had a significant arsenal either. This talk was about total global disarmament, which is a different scenario. Moreover, he was interested in disarmament schemes that maintained the balance of power that deters the actual use of weapons, ideally right up to the moment that there are none.
  - justin66 9y ago
    Did the analysis include a buildup of defensive weapons? There was a school of thought that building up that stuff was a necessary prerequisite for eliminating nuclear weapons and I think it was because it ameliorated the risks involved with the "leap of faith." (and replaced it with risks of its own)
    - gh02t 9y ago
      Not exactly. The whole idea was predicated on the obsolescence of nuclear weapons in modern conflicts, so in a sense it was partially predicated on improving non-nuclear defensive capabilities. His suggested "pitch" to countries to get them started was the massive cost of maintaining weapons that are not intended to actually be used- they just sit around and act menacing. He posited that this was a pretty juicy incentive and if you could conceive a scheme where countries could all disarm simultaneously while maintaining a balance of power (and thus the disincentive against the use of weapons) that it might actually work. This is obvious of course and pretty standard thought. His real focus was on the importance of ways for the weapons states to mutually verify the disarmament of the other states in a technically rigorous manner but all of it was interesting.
afarrell 9y ago

barry-cotter 9y ago

The article lies. The US still uses and reserves the right to use land mines in the Koreas.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]