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.
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 👍
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.
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.
“defense”, right.
these treaties were drafted for a reason.
Tankie your for sharing your opinion!
Offensive landmines killing poor innocent invaders who come in and step on them.
Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.
thats not the only people they kill. and there is no invaders.
you should look up why they are banned in the first place before acting high and mighty about it.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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 👍
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.
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.
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 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.
i don’t think cheapness is a good justification
And that reason is no longer a viable one.