Not quite. If nobody invades, the mines don’t get laid out in the first place.
If it does come to that, the positions are marked 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 has been considered a mistake ever since, but there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal.
So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic woke up immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. Took some time, but now we’re 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.
If nobody invades, there’s no problem, no?
there is the problem of people losing their limbs for generations to come.
but who cares right.
Not quite. If nobody invades, the mines don’t get laid out in the first place.
If it does come to that, the positions are marked 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 👍
why the fuck make all that posturing around landmines, if they are not needed at all, and theres no indication it will?
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!
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.
nobody is invading.
Then what’s the problem?
if they are not being invaded, why pull out of that treaty?
Mines are cheap and due to geography, they would be a relatively effective defense. For that reason, signing them away with the treaty has been considered a mistake ever since, but there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal.
So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic woke up immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. Took some time, but now we’re here.
i don’t think cheapness is a good justification
Now you have circled us back. 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.