4 ms·

Since the Hitler period came up, there are great parallels to the topic of land mines for that time period. During Harris bombardment of the civilian population

by cf498 8y ago

Since the Hitler period came up, there are great parallels to the topic of land mines for that time period. During Harris bombardment of the civilian population they did not just use regular and incendiary bombs, but also delay-action bombs which exploded hours or days after the impact with the goal to hit rescue workers who dug out the dead or wounded. Like with most aerial bombs at the time, there where quite a few who didnt detonate. Its one thing to dispose of a regular bomb, but the time delayed ones are mostly just stuck. They detonated since then once some unlucky bloke moved or just touched them. Just in 2012 for example such a bomb killed 3 bomb disposal experts. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283273/WW2-bomb-kills-G-ttingen-experts-attempt-defuse-it.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283273/WW2-bomb-ki... With them getting older and older, they get more likely to detonate without even any interaction as the trigger guard rots through. The situation of some south eastern Asian countries with unexploded ordnance and actual land mines is a better example though. Using a weapon like this will continue to indiscriminately kill people for well over a century. edit: To be a bit more positive, there is also people doing the opposite, like Aki Ra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aki_Ra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aki_Ra

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
Yes, land mines are horrible, the incalculable environmental damage and subsequent human (and other) suffering of any war can’t be overstated. War however, at least wars of the “necessary” type are the kind of the thing that don’t allow for those considerations. It is a very strong argument, not for trying to change how war is fought (minimally effective), but to accept that war is truly an atrocity to be avoided at nearly all costs. Instead we spent the years after WWII trying to make war on anything vaguely “red” and after Vietnam, just sought to make a constant stream of wars and armed conflicts more palatable to the public. The problem is the sheer amount of war, constant war, completely unjustified war. Vietnam is a great example (credit to darkpuma for knowing their stuff) of just such a waste, which makes the lengthy fallout all the more unforgivable. WWII by contrast, a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and so had no Godwin moment (I responded to a post explicitly mentioning the Manhattan project), was nothing chosen by anyone other than the Axis. Developing and deploying nuclear weapons existed in the context of a fight for survival, against powers that systematically murdered millions of non-combatants. Japan, putting aside Pearl Harbor, was monstrous in China, Korea, and the Philippines. They dropped plague fleas on Manchuria, slaughtered a small tortured prisoners, and Germany... well, we all know about that. There was no reason to believe that victory over them was certain, or even likely until the war had rages for years. There was every reason to believe that life under the Nazis would be hell, and fatal for swathes of humanity. The Japanese were not particular better, and China and Korea still bear the scars. All of which is to say, I objected to mixing up people who designed mines for Vietnam, with people fighting WWII on the front, or in the lab.
- cf498 8y ago
  >a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and so had no Godwin moment (I responded to a post explicitly mentioning the Manhattan project) Overworked the the comment it was a bit off.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    No harm, no foul.

by cf498 8y ago

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago

Yes, land mines are horrible, the incalculable environmental damage and subsequent human (and other) suffering of any war can’t be overstated. War however, at least wars of the “necessary” type are the kind of the thing that don’t allow for those considerations. It is a very strong argument, not for trying to change how war is fought (minimally effective), but to accept that war is truly an atrocity to be avoided at nearly all costs. Instead we spent the years after WWII trying to make war on anything vaguely “red” and after Vietnam, just sought to make a constant stream of wars and armed conflicts more palatable to the public. The problem is the sheer amount of war, constant war, completely unjustified war. Vietnam is a great example (credit to darkpuma for knowing their stuff) of just such a waste, which makes the lengthy fallout all the more unforgivable. WWII by contrast, a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and so had no Godwin moment (I responded to a post explicitly mentioning the Manhattan project), was nothing chosen by anyone other than the Axis. Developing and deploying nuclear weapons existed in the context of a fight for survival, against powers that systematically murdered millions of non-combatants. Japan, putting aside Pearl Harbor, was monstrous in China, Korea, and the Philippines. They dropped plague fleas on Manchuria, slaughtered a small tortured prisoners, and Germany... well, we all know about that. There was no reason to believe that victory over them was certain, or even likely until the war had rages for years. There was every reason to believe that life under the Nazis would be hell, and fatal for swathes of humanity. The Japanese were not particular better, and China and Korea still bear the scars. All of which is to say, I objected to mixing up people who designed mines for Vietnam, with people fighting WWII on the front, or in the lab.

cf498 8y ago
>a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and so had no Godwin moment (I responded to a post explicitly mentioning the Manhattan project) Overworked the the comment it was a bit off.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  No harm, no foul.