3 ms·
This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question: 1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I w
by jontas 14y ago
This is a topic I know next to nothing about, but I have two responses for your question:
1. Is it really useful at all to only clear half the landmines? I would assume the area is still too dangerous to be useful even with only 40% of the landmines remaining.
2. Given #1, it would follow that additional (expensive) land mine clearing technologies would always be needed in addition. I don't know how these work or are billed out, but if the cost is per square mile or some similar area-based unit (instead of say, per mine), then clearing out 60% of the landmines first would not affect the supplemental cost. You've still got to cover the same area to catch the other 40%.
Anyway, you've had my disclaimer at the top, and I could be totally wrong about this :) Just some thoughts.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoI'd expect the there would be a search cost, a removal cost and making safe cost. That the search cost would be lower than the removal cost (less skilled, less dangerous). I'd be extremely surprised to find that a commercial clearing of mines for an area with 40 mines was the same cost as clearing that same area with 400 mines. Equally that clearing a double-sized area with 40 mines was the same cost. Either way you'd reduce costs - reducing search area or reducing removal+disposals needed. [fwiw _djo_ intimated that the increased cost to the process of debris removed any utility such devices might have but also suggested that similar devices are in current commercial use]. With a sandy area I'm wondering how well a dragged scarifier like implement would fair.