The UN’s top human rights official on Wednesday expressed grave alarm that six European countries are either in the process of or are considering withdrawing from the international treaty prohibiting anti-personnel mines.
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.
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: