It’s interesting in the case of Ukraine (also with cluster munitions): the problem is that they leave UXO which is then a danger to life and limb for decades after the war. But, so is being under the thumb of a murderous, genocidal dictator. So surely the standard should be not an outright ban, but a ban on using mines outside your own territory, or the territory of another country with their consent?
It gets difficult with territorial disputes but it also needs to be practical.
Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Jul 11:28
nextcollapse
Even more so when the invaders, the russians, have no issues with using cluster munitions or mines.
Chemical warfare? Cluster munitions? Bombing of population centers?
The point of international law on warfare is that they apply to everyone regardless of circumstances. What you’re suggesting is war crimes in self-defense.
When it’s being done to you the rules go out the window. I think this is a study in human nature. When you’re about to be killed would you kill the person attacking you? Would you lay down on your principles and just die? I don’t know the answer.
If a government is fighting for survival while it has a bunch of horrible weapons lying around like I described, they are absolutely going to use them. No question about it. That’s why you should ban the development and production of these things even in peacetime and that’s why international treaties are so important.
If you have them and you feel you need them, you’ll use them. There is no way to effectively limit the use of existing weapons during a war, as by then most rules will be thrown out the window. The only way to prevent such weapons from being used, is by not producing them in the first place.
Mines however aren’t sophisticated technology either and building a factory or retrofitting one can be done in a war economy too.
Probably have better luck working on making mines that self-disarm to bound the time that they’re a danger. If states assess mines to be militarily-important — and this war has shown them to be pretty useful — they probably won’t forego them.
Well, what can one do, if one has the Russia as one’s neighbour.
Anything the Russia conquers, it mines extremely thoroughly, with zero maps. Several mines on every single square metre along the front.
If you have mines, the Russia will advance much slower, and that means you will have less mines to worry about.
The question is: do you want an area to have 5000 mines of your own with a map showing each one’s location or 30 000 Russian mines with no maps of their location whatsoever?
I prefer having less mines. Therefore, I am happy that Finland left the Ottawa agreement. And any other country neighbouring the Russia should definitely do the same, because mines are horrible things and the less of them are in the ground, the better.
I cannot recognize it as such, because I’ve just described what is currently taking place in Ukraine. So, I suppose you have probably misinterpreted something I’ve written, but in case the problem is at my end:
Your premise is that these countries have a binary choice between either using mines in a “responsible” way or be conquered by Russia which uses mines in a bad way.
This is a fallacy because there are in fact many other plausible outcomes:
Using mines is not necessary to repel a Russian attack. Russia is currently very weakened by its war in Ukraine and NATO has significantly more material and spending (even without the US). It’s totally possible to work towards peace without resorting to these barbaric weapons.
It’s theoretically possible that a country uses mines and still gets conquered. Mines aren’t as useful as they were 100 years ago.
It is unlikely that this country would only use mines in a “responsible” way as you describe. Armies do extreme things when faced with an invasion and any such reservations will quickly be cast aside if it provides a strategic advantage.
Using mines is not necessary for repelling a Russian attack, but it makes it possible to repel it with less land area lost in the initial phase. The Russia is very weakened by its crazy war, but that is not a situation that will stay that way forever. In something a bit more than 5 years after this war ends, the Russia can very well have enough material to attack Finland. (It will probably attack Estonia or Latvia first. Most likely Estonia, because Narva is located in a very precarious location and taking Narva without NATO reacting would decrease NATO’s political ability to react to bigger things in the future.)
NATO is good to have, and it probably will help if needed, but for example Germany and France have shown that if the Russia says the word “nuke”, they reduce their help dramatically, and the country under attack is largely left to its own devices. It would be idiotic of western countries not to support Ukraine as much as possible, yet they do indeed only support it at a minimum level. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must be able to defend themselves adequately even without external support, because there’s not much reason to assume central European countries’ thinking about supporting a country in a war against the Russia would be very different in the future than it is now.
It’s theoretically possible that a country uses mines and still gets conquered, yes. But the likelihood is smaller. Also, what is much more important is that it’s not a black-and-white “you get conquered or you don’t”. There’s also the middle ground of “part of your country gets conquered for a while, then you regain that territory”. As is the case in Ukraine at the moment. The smaller that conquered part is, the less demining you need to do to remove the mines sown by the orcs. And if you are a small country like Finland fighting the Russia alone, fighting with other systems plus mines slows down the Russia more than fighting with those other systems only.
Also, mines are indeed generally not as useful as they were 100 years ago. But against the Russia they have been proven very useful in this war now. Not as useful as 100 years ago, true, but extremely useful all the same. Because the Russia is a country that works about the same way civilized countries worked some 100 years ago.
And, to your last point: You’re saying it’s unlikely that Finland would use mines in a responsible way. Why wouldn’t it? Remember, it’s Finland’s own people that will suffer from the mines. If we are irresponsible with them, it’s us that will suffer. This is a country where people take responsibility much more seriously than in any other country that I know. I do trust that the Finnish army does make maps of the minefields. What is the extreme thing that you’re claiming Finland would do, actually? Lay a minefield but somehow decide not to make a map about the mines’ locations? Why?
threaded - newest
It’s interesting in the case of Ukraine (also with cluster munitions): the problem is that they leave UXO which is then a danger to life and limb for decades after the war. But, so is being under the thumb of a murderous, genocidal dictator. So surely the standard should be not an outright ban, but a ban on using mines outside your own territory, or the territory of another country with their consent?
It gets difficult with territorial disputes but it also needs to be practical.
Even more so when the invaders, the russians, have no issues with using cluster munitions or mines.
It should be a total ban.
Unfortunately for it to work, you have to get everyone on board. Russia is currently using mines in Ukraine.
I feel like Ukraine should be able to use any defensive weapons they want, especially as the US continues to screw them over
Chemical warfare? Cluster munitions? Bombing of population centers?
The point of international law on warfare is that they apply to everyone regardless of circumstances. What you’re suggesting is war crimes in self-defense.
When it’s being done to you the rules go out the window. I think this is a study in human nature. When you’re about to be killed would you kill the person attacking you? Would you lay down on your principles and just die? I don’t know the answer.
If a government is fighting for survival while it has a bunch of horrible weapons lying around like I described, they are absolutely going to use them. No question about it. That’s why you should ban the development and production of these things even in peacetime and that’s why international treaties are so important.
If you have them and you feel you need them, you’ll use them. There is no way to effectively limit the use of existing weapons during a war, as by then most rules will be thrown out the window. The only way to prevent such weapons from being used, is by not producing them in the first place.
Mines however aren’t sophisticated technology either and building a factory or retrofitting one can be done in a war economy too.
Thank you very much. I've been vindicated.
Probably have better luck working on making mines that self-disarm to bound the time that they’re a danger. If states assess mines to be militarily-important — and this war has shown them to be pretty useful — they probably won’t forego them.
Well, what can one do, if one has the Russia as one’s neighbour.
Anything the Russia conquers, it mines extremely thoroughly, with zero maps. Several mines on every single square metre along the front.
If you have mines, the Russia will advance much slower, and that means you will have less mines to worry about.
The question is: do you want an area to have 5000 mines of your own with a map showing each one’s location or 30 000 Russian mines with no maps of their location whatsoever?
I prefer having less mines. Therefore, I am happy that Finland left the Ottawa agreement. And any other country neighbouring the Russia should definitely do the same, because mines are horrible things and the less of them are in the ground, the better.
That’s clearly a false dichotomy.
I cannot recognize it as such, because I’ve just described what is currently taking place in Ukraine. So, I suppose you have probably misinterpreted something I’ve written, but in case the problem is at my end:
Please tell what makes it a false dichotomy.
Your premise is that these countries have a binary choice between either using mines in a “responsible” way or be conquered by Russia which uses mines in a bad way.
This is a fallacy because there are in fact many other plausible outcomes:
Using mines is not necessary for repelling a Russian attack, but it makes it possible to repel it with less land area lost in the initial phase. The Russia is very weakened by its crazy war, but that is not a situation that will stay that way forever. In something a bit more than 5 years after this war ends, the Russia can very well have enough material to attack Finland. (It will probably attack Estonia or Latvia first. Most likely Estonia, because Narva is located in a very precarious location and taking Narva without NATO reacting would decrease NATO’s political ability to react to bigger things in the future.)
NATO is good to have, and it probably will help if needed, but for example Germany and France have shown that if the Russia says the word “nuke”, they reduce their help dramatically, and the country under attack is largely left to its own devices. It would be idiotic of western countries not to support Ukraine as much as possible, yet they do indeed only support it at a minimum level. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must be able to defend themselves adequately even without external support, because there’s not much reason to assume central European countries’ thinking about supporting a country in a war against the Russia would be very different in the future than it is now.
It’s theoretically possible that a country uses mines and still gets conquered, yes. But the likelihood is smaller. Also, what is much more important is that it’s not a black-and-white “you get conquered or you don’t”. There’s also the middle ground of “part of your country gets conquered for a while, then you regain that territory”. As is the case in Ukraine at the moment. The smaller that conquered part is, the less demining you need to do to remove the mines sown by the orcs. And if you are a small country like Finland fighting the Russia alone, fighting with other systems plus mines slows down the Russia more than fighting with those other systems only.
Also, mines are indeed generally not as useful as they were 100 years ago. But against the Russia they have been proven very useful in this war now. Not as useful as 100 years ago, true, but extremely useful all the same. Because the Russia is a country that works about the same way civilized countries worked some 100 years ago.
And, to your last point: You’re saying it’s unlikely that Finland would use mines in a responsible way. Why wouldn’t it? Remember, it’s Finland’s own people that will suffer from the mines. If we are irresponsible with them, it’s us that will suffer. This is a country where people take responsibility much more seriously than in any other country that I know. I do trust that the Finnish army does make maps of the minefields. What is the extreme thing that you’re claiming Finland would do, actually? Lay a minefield but somehow decide not to make a map about the mines’ locations? Why?