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 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.
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.
Thank you very much. I’ve been vindicated.
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.
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.
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.
Even more so when the invaders, the russians, have no issues with using cluster munitions or mines.
