6 ms·

An interesting idea, although I think the US is actually ahead of the curve on mines. From Wikipedia: >> Opponents point out that the Ottawa Convention places

An interesting idea, although I think the US is actually ahead of the curve on mines. From Wikipedia: >> Opponents point out that the Ottawa Convention places no restriction whatsoever on anti-vehicle mines which kill civilians on tractors, on school buses, etc. The position of the United States is that the inhumane nature of landmines stems not from whether they are anti-personnel as opposed to antivehicle but from their persistence. The United States has unilaterally committed to never using persistent landmines of any kind, whether anti-personnel or anti-vehicle, which they say is a more comprehensive humanitarian measure than the Ottawa Convention. All US landmines now self-destruct in two days or less, in most cases four hours. While the self-destruct mechanism has never failed in more than 65,000 random tests, if self-destruct were to fail the mine will self-deactivate because its battery will run down in two weeks or less. That compares with persistent anti-vehicle mines which remain lethal for about 30 years and are legal under the Ottawa Convention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty

raisin_churn 4y ago
Well, my comment was highly abbreviated for the sake of pithiness, but US ratification of the treaty would be more meaningful than the US simply not employing landmines itself. (NB While I place all the blame on senators for not ratifying it, technically no US president has signed it, so the Senate hasn't actually had the opportunity to ratify, but Senate leaders have made their opposition clear for decades so they definitely deserve the blame I'm pointing in their direction.) Furthermore, landmines haven't actually been a weapon that the US military has considered tactically useful in nearly 50 years, so saying that we won'ist use them (because they're not useful to us), but not pressuring other countries which may find them useful despite their horrific downsides, isn't exactly upstanding. And, the article title on HN is misleading, because this isn't just about landmines, it's about unexploded ordnance (UXO) more generally. The US, in addition to not signing the Mine Ban Convention, refuses to sign/ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and has significant quantities of cluster munitions in the inventory, with an alarmingly high failure rate (meaning the munition doesn't detonate when it is supposed to, leaving dangerous UXO that only becomes more dangerous over time). So, yes, there's nuance, but honestly not enough to let US leaders off the hook for these horrors.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I'm not sure why the blame would rest on the political side. Yes, they are the ones who would ratify the treaty, but I'm sure they would be happy to do so unless the DOD was whispering in their ear (or shouting) that it would damage their warfighting capabilities. Maybe there are some special interests too but I'm skeptical the industry is big enough to have that kind of pull, whereas SecDef telling a Senator on SASC not to do this is probably enough to make a treaty a nonstarter.
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    The Democrats are for the treaty, so the Republicans are against it, just to own the libs, no matter what the cost or consequences or morality, regardless of the facts or anything based on reality or science or humanity. >2014: The United States under President Barack Obama mostly accepted the terms of the treaty by ceasing to acquire anti-personnel land mines and prohibiting their use outside of the Korean Peninsula. >2020: The United States under President Donald Trump reversed the Obama policy change and restored the George W. Bush administration position on anti-personnel landlines, authorizing Combatant Commanders to employ "advanced, non-persistent landmines". >Trump eases restrictions on land mine use by U.S. military: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-war-landmines-idUSKBN1ZU2GA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-war-landmines-idUSKBN... >2022: President of the United States Joe Biden reverses the policy of his predecessor, Trump, and continues disarmament, saying that the United States will not produce or acquire anti-personnel mines, will not support any other country in its use of these mines, and commits to destroying all existing anti-personnel mines in its possession (excluding those on the Korean Peninsula). >Biden administration commits to limiting use of land mines: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/21/biden-land-mines-trump-policy-00040925 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/21/biden-land-mines-tr...
    - uni_rule 4y ago
      "Sorry, having morals is partisan and since they were there first I am against acting morally."
InCityDreams 4y ago
> All US landmines now self-destruct in two days or less, in most cases four hours. Supremely commendable, but it does seem remarkably short windows. I do wonder what troops on the ground, in 'busy', and highly stategic defensive positions, feel about having to re-lay the same mines every two days, let alone four hours: surely the enemy could take severe advantage?
- haneefmubarak 4y ago
  I'd imagine that this simply means that the DoD expects to use them tactically as opposed to strategically in the field
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Right but if enemy takes the terrain do you really want it to be "clear" off mines in a day or two coz they self-detonated ?
    - gigaflop 4y ago
      If the mines are known about, and prevent a location from being used for 2 days, I'd argue that they've done some job of area denial. If someone is sitting next to the minefield waiting for mines to expire, they're not doing as many other soldier-y tasks like shooting people.
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  You lay those mines with an aircraft or missile, I'd suspect. It's like a sleeping cluster bomb - one of the worst (in terms of humanitarian problems) antipersonal mines out there, the Russian PFM-1 butterfly mine [0] is a cluster munition that simply floats to the ground and stays there. The PFM-1 also has a deactivation mechanism but it didn't work well enough in practice. Deactivation mechanisms are one thing but what the explosives do over time is a big deal, even if the trigger/fuze is guaranteed to be inert after a short time. Explosives can be like mayonnaise, they can separate after a while, forming sensitive mixtures, making the 'inert' mine suddenly dangerous again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine
hutzlibu 4y ago
There is a big difference between anti vecicle and anti personal mines. First, they are way easier to detect, as they are bigger and have more metal/explosives to spot. Also the risk is minimized for the people clearing those mines, if they know they only have to deal with the big ones. Secondly, it is easier and more practical to mark a field as not save for big vecicles for some time, compared to unsafe for everyone. (schoolbuses usually don't drive through fields) So yeah, ideally we would not have any kind of mines or war, but we do. And when you want to stop lots of russian tanks for example, I totally would use anti tank mines. They just won't cripple random children, like the anti person mines will do. And you can clear them out quite easily and safe with just a metal detector and a minimum of training. But if you have a field with both types of mines, yeah than it is really expensive and dangerous to clear it. And I am amazed by the concept of using rats for help. And about the self destroying mines - if they would always work like this, it is indeed a big improvement. The concept that they only can go off as long as the battery has power, sounds quite failproof. I remain sceptical though.
Retric 4y ago
It’s common to update treaties over time and to limit their scope to increase adoption. Failing to ban anti vehicle mines is no more relevant than the Ottawa Treaty failing to limit CO2 emissions.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
Yes. The US also has a voluntary ban on any submunitions with a greater than 1% dud rate. This forced the destruction of quite a bit of ordinance such as MLRS rockets with cluster warheads, huge stockpiles of 155 mm DPICM, etc. There's no question these weapons are devastatingly effective on the battlefield, but the US doesn't want to own the horrific aftermath. So yeah, this is one area where the US is actually setting a good standard. Also you see this pattern with quite a few similar treaties, where the US kinda wants to have its cake and eat it too, by not actually signing the treaty but adopting a similar or better standard voluntarily.
- potta_coffee 4y ago
  It's ok if we kill a hundred thousand Iraqis, we just have to use bullets to do it.
  - sbaiddn 4y ago
    We dont like to be remembered of the War on Terror. See we're fundamentally nice folks who make well meaning mistakes. So when we get out of a quagmire we should be immediately absolved of all culpability. Unlike those dirty <insert rival country>. They're fundamentally evil and we should remember all their sins going back centuries.

raisin_churn 4y ago

Well, my comment was highly abbreviated for the sake of pithiness, but US ratification of the treaty would be more meaningful than the US simply not employing landmines itself. (NB While I place all the blame on senators for not ratifying it, technically no US president has signed it, so the Senate hasn't actually had the opportunity to ratify, but Senate leaders have made their opposition clear for decades so they definitely deserve the blame I'm pointing in their direction.) Furthermore, landmines haven't actually been a weapon that the US military has considered tactically useful in nearly 50 years, so saying that we won'ist use them (because they're not useful to us), but not pressuring other countries which may find them useful despite their horrific downsides, isn't exactly upstanding. And, the article title on HN is misleading, because this isn't just about landmines, it's about unexploded ordnance (UXO) more generally. The US, in addition to not signing the Mine Ban Convention, refuses to sign/ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and has significant quantities of cluster munitions in the inventory, with an alarmingly high failure rate (meaning the munition doesn't detonate when it is supposed to, leaving dangerous UXO that only becomes more dangerous over time). So, yes, there's nuance, but honestly not enough to let US leaders off the hook for these horrors.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I'm not sure why the blame would rest on the political side. Yes, they are the ones who would ratify the treaty, but I'm sure they would be happy to do so unless the DOD was whispering in their ear (or shouting) that it would damage their warfighting capabilities. Maybe there are some special interests too but I'm skeptical the industry is big enough to have that kind of pull, whereas SecDef telling a Senator on SASC not to do this is probably enough to make a treaty a nonstarter.
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  The Democrats are for the treaty, so the Republicans are against it, just to own the libs, no matter what the cost or consequences or morality, regardless of the facts or anything based on reality or science or humanity. >2014: The United States under President Barack Obama mostly accepted the terms of the treaty by ceasing to acquire anti-personnel land mines and prohibiting their use outside of the Korean Peninsula. >2020: The United States under President Donald Trump reversed the Obama policy change and restored the George W. Bush administration position on anti-personnel landlines, authorizing Combatant Commanders to employ "advanced, non-persistent landmines". >Trump eases restrictions on land mine use by U.S. military: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-war-landmines-idUSKBN1ZU2GA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-war-landmines-idUSKBN... >2022: President of the United States Joe Biden reverses the policy of his predecessor, Trump, and continues disarmament, saying that the United States will not produce or acquire anti-personnel mines, will not support any other country in its use of these mines, and commits to destroying all existing anti-personnel mines in its possession (excluding those on the Korean Peninsula). >Biden administration commits to limiting use of land mines: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/21/biden-land-mines-trump-policy-00040925 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/21/biden-land-mines-tr...
  - uni_rule 4y ago
    "Sorry, having morals is partisan and since they were there first I am against acting morally."

InCityDreams 4y ago

> All US landmines now self-destruct in two days or less, in most cases four hours. Supremely commendable, but it does seem remarkably short windows. I do wonder what troops on the ground, in 'busy', and highly stategic defensive positions, feel about having to re-lay the same mines every two days, let alone four hours: surely the enemy could take severe advantage?

haneefmubarak 4y ago
I'd imagine that this simply means that the DoD expects to use them tactically as opposed to strategically in the field
- ilyt 4y ago
  Right but if enemy takes the terrain do you really want it to be "clear" off mines in a day or two coz they self-detonated ?
  - gigaflop 4y ago
    If the mines are known about, and prevent a location from being used for 2 days, I'd argue that they've done some job of area denial. If someone is sitting next to the minefield waiting for mines to expire, they're not doing as many other soldier-y tasks like shooting people.
wnkrshm 4y ago
You lay those mines with an aircraft or missile, I'd suspect. It's like a sleeping cluster bomb - one of the worst (in terms of humanitarian problems) antipersonal mines out there, the Russian PFM-1 butterfly mine [0] is a cluster munition that simply floats to the ground and stays there. The PFM-1 also has a deactivation mechanism but it didn't work well enough in practice. Deactivation mechanisms are one thing but what the explosives do over time is a big deal, even if the trigger/fuze is guaranteed to be inert after a short time. Explosives can be like mayonnaise, they can separate after a while, forming sensitive mixtures, making the 'inert' mine suddenly dangerous again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PFM-1_mine

hutzlibu 4y ago

There is a big difference between anti vecicle and anti personal mines. First, they are way easier to detect, as they are bigger and have more metal/explosives to spot. Also the risk is minimized for the people clearing those mines, if they know they only have to deal with the big ones. Secondly, it is easier and more practical to mark a field as not save for big vecicles for some time, compared to unsafe for everyone. (schoolbuses usually don't drive through fields) So yeah, ideally we would not have any kind of mines or war, but we do. And when you want to stop lots of russian tanks for example, I totally would use anti tank mines. They just won't cripple random children, like the anti person mines will do. And you can clear them out quite easily and safe with just a metal detector and a minimum of training. But if you have a field with both types of mines, yeah than it is really expensive and dangerous to clear it. And I am amazed by the concept of using rats for help. And about the self destroying mines - if they would always work like this, it is indeed a big improvement. The concept that they only can go off as long as the battery has power, sounds quite failproof. I remain sceptical though.

Retric 4y ago

It’s common to update treaties over time and to limit their scope to increase adoption. Failing to ban anti vehicle mines is no more relevant than the Ottawa Treaty failing to limit CO2 emissions.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

Yes. The US also has a voluntary ban on any submunitions with a greater than 1% dud rate. This forced the destruction of quite a bit of ordinance such as MLRS rockets with cluster warheads, huge stockpiles of 155 mm DPICM, etc. There's no question these weapons are devastatingly effective on the battlefield, but the US doesn't want to own the horrific aftermath. So yeah, this is one area where the US is actually setting a good standard. Also you see this pattern with quite a few similar treaties, where the US kinda wants to have its cake and eat it too, by not actually signing the treaty but adopting a similar or better standard voluntarily.

potta_coffee 4y ago
It's ok if we kill a hundred thousand Iraqis, we just have to use bullets to do it.
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  We dont like to be remembered of the War on Terror. See we're fundamentally nice folks who make well meaning mistakes. So when we get out of a quagmire we should be immediately absolved of all culpability. Unlike those dirty <insert rival country>. They're fundamentally evil and we should remember all their sins going back centuries.