4 ms·

Years ago during the Soviet-Afghan War there was a lot of American media asserting that the Soviets had very evilly designed the mines specifically to look like

Years ago during the Soviet-Afghan War there was a lot of American media asserting that the Soviets had very evilly designed the mines specifically to look like toys with the design intent being to maim children. Few if any ever mentioned that the Soviets had stolen an American mine design (which the American media rarely if ever leveled criticism against.) >"In stark contrast to the lack of public commentary on the Dragontooth system, the subsequent Soviet analogue, the PFM-1, spurred a lot of controversy after being used in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, being a key element leading to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-43_Dragontooth#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-43_Dragontooth#Overview To answer your question more directly, the (official) design intent for the BLU-43 was to create an antipersonnel mine that could be deployed from aircraft without requiring parachutes. To that end, they designed it to be similar to maple seeds (the sort that flutter through the air when falling.) It's doubtful that they considered the possibility that the mines would be perceived as toys, although it should probably be noted that children also like to play with maple seeds...

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
Yeah, but the issue is that the Soviet mines were bright green and being deployed in Afghanistan which is notably short on the greenery. By contrast America also had green mines, which they deployed in the jungles of Vietnam. I think the reality is that the Soviets had stocks of green mines and they used them before switching to regionally appropriate camo, but the PR damage had already been done. In addition America tended to use their mines in low population density areas as area denial weapons, while the soviets were a bit more... profligate in their spreading of these mines. About 40 people still die each year in Afghanistan from Soviet mines, and they’ve done fuck all to remedy the situation. In addition, the US involvement in Vietnam is still a national shame, but it tends to be focused on the broader picture of village massacres, Agent Orange, Daisy Cutters and death squads, as well as the sheer stupidity and cruelty of our intervention. Finally, the US invaded during an existing civil war, whereas the Soviets just straight-up invaded to conquer another region. I grant these are fine distinctions when we’re talking about mining civilians, but I think it goes to explain the perception of each country’s activities.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  That's fair context, here is some more: In 2017, there were 14 recorded casualties from mines/unexploded remnants of war (ERW) in Vietnam, while in 2016 there were 1,943 in Afghanistan. However since 1975 there have been 105,073 casualties from mines/ERW in Vietnam, while there have been 29,662 casualties from mines/ERW in Afghanistan since 1978. http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/afghanistan/casualties.aspx http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/afghanistan/ca... http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/vietnam/casualties.aspx http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/vietnam/casual... The Soviet-Afghan War was started in 1979 when Alfa Group (the KGB's 'spetsnaz') dressed in Afghani uniforms stormed the Queens Palace in Kabul and murdered the Afghani president Hafizullah Amin. Amin had been in office only three months, and came to power by deposing and ordering the murder of his predecessor Nur Muhammad Taraki. Taraki was a communist and before his demise, had plead with the Soviets for military intervention. Before Taraki's demise he and Amin had worked together and together both are known for murdering thousands of civilians and political opponents. The Vietnam War was sold to the American public in 1964 after two separate attacks on USN ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. However in 2003 Robert McNarmara (who was the Secretary of Defense when this happened) publicly admitted the second attack had never happened. The American public was told there were two distinct attacks on two separate nights, but that wasn't true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k I suppose my point is that both wars were huge unpopular clusterfucks that were started on false pretexts, that neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam were placid before foreign intervention, and that excessive mining caused staggering civilian casualties in both countries for many years after the war. Despite what all the above may suggest, I don't really like historic analogies or equivalencies. However given that the BLU-43 and PFM-1 are nearly identical mines, a comparison seems warranted. The mines in Afghanistan are an ongoing issue while in Vietnam it seems to have petered out, probably because it was that many years earlier. In this context the focus on Afghanistan instead of Vietnam is justifiable.
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y ago
  >Finally, the US invaded during an existing civil war, whereas the Soviets just straight-up invaded to conquer another region. This is not true. The Soviets were defending already existing communist regime.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

Yeah, but the issue is that the Soviet mines were bright green and being deployed in Afghanistan which is notably short on the greenery. By contrast America also had green mines, which they deployed in the jungles of Vietnam. I think the reality is that the Soviets had stocks of green mines and they used them before switching to regionally appropriate camo, but the PR damage had already been done. In addition America tended to use their mines in low population density areas as area denial weapons, while the soviets were a bit more... profligate in their spreading of these mines. About 40 people still die each year in Afghanistan from Soviet mines, and they’ve done fuck all to remedy the situation. In addition, the US involvement in Vietnam is still a national shame, but it tends to be focused on the broader picture of village massacres, Agent Orange, Daisy Cutters and death squads, as well as the sheer stupidity and cruelty of our intervention. Finally, the US invaded during an existing civil war, whereas the Soviets just straight-up invaded to conquer another region. I grant these are fine distinctions when we’re talking about mining civilians, but I think it goes to explain the perception of each country’s activities.

darkpuma 8y ago
That's fair context, here is some more: In 2017, there were 14 recorded casualties from mines/unexploded remnants of war (ERW) in Vietnam, while in 2016 there were 1,943 in Afghanistan. However since 1975 there have been 105,073 casualties from mines/ERW in Vietnam, while there have been 29,662 casualties from mines/ERW in Afghanistan since 1978. http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/afghanistan/casualties.aspx http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/afghanistan/ca... http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/vietnam/casualties.aspx http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2018/vietnam/casual... The Soviet-Afghan War was started in 1979 when Alfa Group (the KGB's 'spetsnaz') dressed in Afghani uniforms stormed the Queens Palace in Kabul and murdered the Afghani president Hafizullah Amin. Amin had been in office only three months, and came to power by deposing and ordering the murder of his predecessor Nur Muhammad Taraki. Taraki was a communist and before his demise, had plead with the Soviets for military intervention. Before Taraki's demise he and Amin had worked together and together both are known for murdering thousands of civilians and political opponents. The Vietnam War was sold to the American public in 1964 after two separate attacks on USN ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. However in 2003 Robert McNarmara (who was the Secretary of Defense when this happened) publicly admitted the second attack had never happened. The American public was told there were two distinct attacks on two separate nights, but that wasn't true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k I suppose my point is that both wars were huge unpopular clusterfucks that were started on false pretexts, that neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam were placid before foreign intervention, and that excessive mining caused staggering civilian casualties in both countries for many years after the war. Despite what all the above may suggest, I don't really like historic analogies or equivalencies. However given that the BLU-43 and PFM-1 are nearly identical mines, a comparison seems warranted. The mines in Afghanistan are an ongoing issue while in Vietnam it seems to have petered out, probably because it was that many years earlier. In this context the focus on Afghanistan instead of Vietnam is justifiable.
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y ago
>Finally, the US invaded during an existing civil war, whereas the Soviets just straight-up invaded to conquer another region. This is not true. The Soviets were defending already existing communist regime.