Yes they do. This is a deterrent, not a last-ditch effort to protect ourselves if war breaks out.
Lembot_0004@discuss.online
on 12 Jul 07:36
collapse
Mines are NOT “deterrent”. Strong army? Yes. Nuclear weapons? Yes. Mines are a minor nuisance during the war. Makes things uncomfortable, might slow down enemy movement a bit but that’s it. You can’t say to the potential enemy “Forget about attacking – we have mines near the border”.
You typically need to notify other members of a treaty of your withdrawal, and then there’s some time delay until you’re no longer bound by the terms. You can’t just secretly withdraw, or treaties wouldn’t be very meaningful.
EDIT: Yeah. The submitted article says that it happens in six months from today, and here’s the treaty text on withdrawal:
Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties, to the Depositary and to the United Nations Security Council. Such instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
Such withdrawal shall only take effect six months after the receipt of the instrument of
withdrawal by the Depositary. If, however, on the expiry of that six- month period, the
withdrawing State Party is engaged in an armed conflict, the withdrawal shall not take effect before the end of the armed conflict.
The withdrawal of a State Party from this Convention shall not in any way affect the duty of States to continue fulfilling the obligations assumed under any relevant rules of international law.
Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily “we might reconsider our stance on troop mines”. Rather it is: “we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation”. Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
on 13 Jul 12:51
collapse
Point 3 looks like a pretty obvious poison pill. That is: Russia could conceivably start some sort of grey-zone conflict with Finland before the 6-month period, and thus (per international law) tie Finland’s hands in their use of defensive land mines.
In Finland’s shoes, it’d be prudent to just go “yeah we’re breaking the treaty, and were specifically ignoring Article 20 Section 3 due to urgent national security considerations”.
mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 12 Jul 08:07
collapse
Least bloodthisty eur*pean
Lembot_0004@discuss.online
on 12 Jul 08:10
nextcollapse
bloodthisty
I’m from Ukraine, so I’m armed with common sense and a quite realistic point of view on the situation.
breecher@sh.itjust.works
on 12 Jul 09:52
nextcollapse
So ironic, or perhaps more disingenous, to say that as people try to defend themselves from the Russians.
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
on 12 Jul 10:14
nextcollapse
We don’t wish anyone to forcibly cross that border. Being a defensive and preventative measure is the whole point…
Siegfried@lemmy.world
on 12 Jul 12:48
nextcollapse
1 month troll account? I doubt anyone could be this unhinged from reality
you are just trying to picture a whole group of people to be like you say again. also poorly elaborated and mispelling i wouldnt be surprised if you are from a troll farm
lihmalahmalehma@suppo.fi
on 12 Jul 10:33
nextcollapse
Wrong. If nobody invades, the mines don’t get laid out in the first place.
If it does come to that, the positions are marked mapped and they will get cleaned out. The reason for the treaty was that in some places mines were just spread willy nilly.
I still haven’t seen your explanation for how this is actually an offense, but keep moving that goalpost 👍
Mines are cheap and due to geography, they would be a relatively effective defense. For that reason, signing them away with the treaty was called a mistake even back then. Public opinion was about fifty-fifty for a long time and there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal, or even for the opponents to be particularly vocal about it.
So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic became hot immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. That took some time, but it’s how we got here.
As long as there’s no military need for them against an invasion there will be zero mines in the ground. No one will hurt themselves with them, unless some storage worker happens to drop a box on their toes.
As of why now, you can’t pull out of agreement and start to build up manufacturing and logistics if there’s active invasion going on. I hope not a single one of them is ever dug on our Finnish soil, but I’m glad that our military is prepared to use any viable option if they need to.
Madison420@lemmy.world
on 12 Jul 17:03
nextcollapse
Specifically marked minefields were never illegal even with that treaty so…
Yeah I mean the same the only thing that treaty was stopping was ap mines you could always have at mines and those can be rigged light to be jerry rigged ap.
Reasoning is viable in that it sucks for people living there. But so does invasion. If land mines can do deterrence, it definitely is going to act as a net positive.
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
on 12 Jul 10:15
nextcollapse
Offensive landmines killing poor innocent invaders who come in and step on them.
Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
on 12 Jul 19:36
nextcollapse
There is no invaders
I mean I hope so. There never are until there is
If you wanted to educate us you should post it here, it would work better
ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
on 12 Jul 19:59
nextcollapse
They are banned for the same reason the use of cluster munitions are frowned upon. The problem of being left behind after deployed during war time as they continue to cause horrific civilian casualties which is a huge a big problem for a country trying to recover from war. Particularly if they were deployed inside a country to defend what was then the front line or a fortified location like the outskirts of a town or village.
However if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having an aggressive neighbouring country where you share a large land border who has broken peace treaty promises repeatedly and is repeatedly making threats about invading, then putting landmines along your border is a VERY effective way to deter and slow down an invasion.
I wish that we weren’t in a situation where countries felt it necessary to deploy landmines for border defense but here we are.
threaded - newest
Less notifying, more eastern border landmine covering!
Oh, it wasn’t the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That’s why it was sent publicly…
“Intended recipient” doesn’t deserve to be notified. Unless you’re talking about Sweden, but I somehow doubt that :)
Yes they do. This is a deterrent, not a last-ditch effort to protect ourselves if war breaks out.
Mines are NOT “deterrent”. Strong army? Yes. Nuclear weapons? Yes. Mines are a minor nuisance during the war. Makes things uncomfortable, might slow down enemy movement a bit but that’s it. You can’t say to the potential enemy “Forget about attacking – we have mines near the border”.
Saying "you won’t get anything of value quickly is a deterrent.
Security doesn’t need to be able to completely stop an enemy. It just needs to make it not worth the effort
You typically need to notify other members of a treaty of your withdrawal, and then there’s some time delay until you’re no longer bound by the terms. You can’t just secretly withdraw, or treaties wouldn’t be very meaningful.
EDIT: Yeah. The submitted article says that it happens in six months from today, and here’s the treaty text on withdrawal:
un.org/…/Doc.44_convention antipersonnel mines.pd…
Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily “we might reconsider our stance on troop mines”. Rather it is: “we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation”. Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.
Point 3 looks like a pretty obvious poison pill. That is: Russia could conceivably start some sort of grey-zone conflict with Finland before the 6-month period, and thus (per international law) tie Finland’s hands in their use of defensive land mines.
In Finland’s shoes, it’d be prudent to just go “yeah we’re breaking the treaty, and were specifically ignoring Article 20 Section 3 due to urgent national security considerations”.
Least bloodthisty eur*pean
I’m from Ukraine, so I’m armed with common sense and a quite realistic point of view on the situation.
So ironic, or perhaps more disingenous, to say that as people try to defend themselves from the Russians.
We don’t wish anyone to forcibly cross that border. Being a defensive and preventative measure is the whole point…
1 month troll account? I doubt anyone could be this unhinged from reality
When did blahaj become the new tankie instance?
said the guy ( @neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) from anarchist instance downvoting replies talking down on people in disguise being in favor of others favoring Trump a common single user doesnt define a whole instance, your instance is great but your take… 🤭
Lmaooo did you just stalk my profile because I downvoted your comment? That’s fucking embarassing my dude!
I downvoted your comment because it gave me strong gatekeeping vibes (realy canadians don’t xyz)
you are just trying to picture a whole group of people to be like you say again. also poorly elaborated and mispelling i wouldnt be surprised if you are from a troll farm
This is your comment that I downvoted:
But I am “just trying to picture a whole group of people to be like you say” for disagreeing and downvoting you?
How does this need elaboration? Especially since this is your own comment?
Ditto. You’re either a Troll or special.
so you put up my reply but not the comment which i replied to have more context? kudos to trying to picture yourself not being the troll
Answer my comment or stop. But don’t jump from topic to topic. I won’t play play chess with a pidgeon.
Have a nice day. May you find a poor soul other than mine to annoy.
Are we the baddies?
lemmy is the kind of place where people get offended by defense. and I don’t mean what americans call “defense” but actual defense
If nobody invades, there’s no problem, no?
Wrong. If nobody invades, the mines don’t get laid out in the first place.
If it does come to that, the positions are
markedmapped and they will get cleaned out. The reason for the treaty was that in some places mines were just spread willy nilly.I still haven’t seen your explanation for how this is actually an offense, but keep moving that goalpost 👍
Then what’s the problem?
Mines are cheap and due to geography, they would be a relatively effective defense. For that reason, signing them away with the treaty was called a mistake even back then. Public opinion was about fifty-fifty for a long time and there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal, or even for the opponents to be particularly vocal about it.
So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic became hot immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. That took some time, but it’s how we got here.
Edit: improved my bad explanation.
Now you have circled us back to the question you dodged before. You said there’s no invasion. No invasion => No mines. What is the problem?
As long as there’s no military need for them against an invasion there will be zero mines in the ground. No one will hurt themselves with them, unless some storage worker happens to drop a box on their toes.
As of why now, you can’t pull out of agreement and start to build up manufacturing and logistics if there’s active invasion going on. I hope not a single one of them is ever dug on our Finnish soil, but I’m glad that our military is prepared to use any viable option if they need to.
Specifically marked minefields were never illegal even with that treaty so…
What I mean is marked on a map, so I guess “mapped”. I’m not operating with my native language here.
Yeah I mean the same the only thing that treaty was stopping was ap mines you could always have at mines and those can be rigged light to be jerry rigged ap.
Well, why the fuck does any country without an immediate conflict coming up maintain an army?
For a moment earlier it sounded like you were concerned with people losing limbs to mines, and there I would agree if mines were planted proactively.
But you’re just offended by defense.
Tanks and goodbye!
This guy has never heard of deterrence
And how many die in wars if someone invades?
And that reason is no longer a viable one.
Reasoning is viable in that it sucks for people living there. But so does invasion. If land mines can do deterrence, it definitely is going to act as a net positive.
Offensive landmines killing poor innocent invaders who come in and step on them.
Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.
I mean I hope so. There never are until there is
If you wanted to educate us you should post it here, it would work better
They are banned for the same reason the use of cluster munitions are frowned upon. The problem of being left behind after deployed during war time as they continue to cause horrific civilian casualties which is a huge a big problem for a country trying to recover from war. Particularly if they were deployed inside a country to defend what was then the front line or a fortified location like the outskirts of a town or village.
However if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having an aggressive neighbouring country where you share a large land border who has broken peace treaty promises repeatedly and is repeatedly making threats about invading, then putting landmines along your border is a VERY effective way to deter and slow down an invasion.
I wish that we weren’t in a situation where countries felt it necessary to deploy landmines for border defense but here we are.
Common sense takes are always buried 6 replies deep, I find.
Tankie your for sharing your opinion!
Maybe I’m lacking imagination here, but how exactly would… …
“I’m planting landmines on my own land, which would only go off if someone decides to invade”
NOT be defence?
No, the neighbour invading neighbour which makes landmines necessary in the first place is the baddy in this scenario.
Canada is gonna need to do this next :(
so is Mexico if Canada do unless they do it before Canada, they also signed it
We’re going to need a silly amount of mines…