You are viewing the VeggieBoards archive.
To view the regular site or join please click here.


PDA

View Full Version : After 10-Year Hiatus, Pentagon Eyes New Landmine


Pages : [1] 2

jbphburg
08-03-05, 02:56 PM
Is there any doubt that Bush is the most dangerous person on Earth? Truly the Anti-Christ.


Published on Wednesday, August 3, 2005 by Inter Press Service
After 10-Year Hiatus, Pentagon Eyes New Landmine
by Isaac Baker


UNITED NATIONS - The George W. Bush administration may soon resume production of antipersonnel land mines in a move that is at odds with both the international community and previous U.S. policy on the weapons, says a leading human rights organization.

In December of this year, the Pentagon will decide whether or not to begin producing a new type of antipersonnel land mine called a ”Spider”. The first of these mines would then be scheduled to roll out in early 2007.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the funds for Spider's production are already earmarked, as the Pentagon has requested 1.3 billion dollars for the mine system, as well as for another mine called the Intelligent Munitions System, which is expected to be fully running by 2008.

A new report by the HRW issued Wednesday notes these weapons that kill and maim an estimated 500 people, mostly civilians, each week. The group called on the Bush administration to halt all research and development on all types of these widely-banned weapons.

”With very few exceptions, nearly every nation has endorsed the goal of a global ban on all antipersonnel mines at some point in the future,” the HRW report says. ”Such acts (by the U.S.) would clearly be against the trend of the emerging international consensus against any possession or use of antipersonnel mines.”

The U.S. has not used antipersonnel land mines since the 1991 Gulf War, when it scattered over 100,000 land mines from planes in Iraq and Kuwait, according to HRW. Then, in 1992, Pres. George H.W. Bush signed into law a moratorium introduced by Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy on the export of all antipersonnel land mines.

In 1994 the U.S. called for the ”eventual elimination” of all such mines and in 1996, Pres. Bill Clinton said the U.S. would ”seek a worldwide agreement as soon as possible to end the use of all antipersonnel mines.” The U.S. produced its last antipersonnel land mine in 1997.

It has also been the stated objective of the U.S. government that it would someday join the 145 countries party to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which bans the use, production, exporting, and stockpiling of antipersonnel land mines.

However, the Bush administration made an about-face in U.S. antipersonnel land mine policy in February 2004, when it abandoned any pretense of joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention.

”The United States will not join the Ottawa Convention because its terms would have required us to give up a needed military capability,” the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs said in a statement in February 2004, summing up the administration's new policy.

”Landmines still have a valid and essential role protecting United States forces in military operations... No other weapon currently exists that provides all the capabilities provided by landmines.”

It was this policy, HRW says, that laid the groundwork for the U.S. government's new antipersonnel land mine slated for production as early as 2007.

”We are beginning to see the bitter fruit of the new Bush administration land mine policy,” Steve Goose, director of HRW's arms division said in a statement. ”The U.S. appears well on the way to resuming production of antipersonnel mines. Renewed export and renewed use of these inhumane weapons may not be far behind.”

However, there are reports that the U.S. use of antipersonnel land mines may already have occurred or be occurring now.

The Pentagon is yet to confirm or deny reports that the U.S. government was to begin deploying a remote-controlled antipersonnel land mine system called Matrix to Iraq. A total of 25 of these mine systems, which can be detonated from a distance via radio signal, have allegedly been sent to Iraq in May of this year for use by the U.S. Army's Stryker Brigade, the report says.

Given the immensity of international support for the banning of antipersonnel land mines, if the Pentagon does resume production of the weapons, diplomatic problems are almost certain to ensue.

”If they go ahead and do this, they will really be breaking some new ground,” Mary Wareham, a senior advocate in HRW's arms division, told IPS. ”It will be a massive step backwards for the U.S. in terms of making any good will. If they did it, it would be bad news all around and I'm sure that there would be protests.”

The 145 parties to the Ottawa Convention are also forbidden to ”assist” others in acts that are prohibited by the treaty. Therefore, U.S. military allies could be at risk of breaching the treaty in joint military operations where antipersonnel land mines are being used.

© 2005 Inter Press Service

###

Ludi
08-03-05, 02:58 PM
Oh for gods' sake!!! What is wrong with these people? This is sick!

Amy SF
08-03-05, 03:03 PM
http://www.landmines.org.uk/7

I would be interested to know whether or not the U.S. was one of the countries that signed the treaty... :think:

Scratch
08-03-05, 03:08 PM
I wonder just how 'intelligent' these things are . . . I want one.

Amy SF
08-03-05, 03:08 PM
I wonder just how 'intelligent' these things are . . . I want one.

:confused: What would you do with it?

Scratch
08-03-05, 03:10 PM
I don't know yet, but I'll think of something.

LudwigB
08-03-05, 03:11 PM
Blowing off the legs of children protects 'Muhrican freedom. That was one of the many lessons of 9/11.
:rolleyes:

jbphburg
08-03-05, 03:15 PM
People still encounter these mines in Vietnam from decade ago, I wish the world community would stand up to the US and impose collective economic sanctions or something, anything to get some control over this madness inherent in the Bush admin.

otomik
08-03-05, 03:20 PM
I would be interested to know whether or not the U.S. was one of the countries that signed the treaty... :think:american never signed that treaty because it would prevent us from protecting south korea without massive troop build-ups, this is not a new bush policy, this has been our clear and consistent objection since the treaties inception because landmines used responsibly save lives.

there are 44 countries that haven't signed, so I doubt it will limit alliances.

kpickell
08-03-05, 04:33 PM
Is there any doubt that Bush is the most dangerous person on Earth? Truly the Anti-Christ.

Actually I don't think Bush is the Anti-Christ nor the most dangerous person on Earth.



:bow:

Now, you really shouldn't make such brash statements if you expect people to read the rest of your post.

jbphburg
08-03-05, 04:43 PM
He he, cute.

Loki
08-03-05, 04:48 PM
I do not believe that landmines are a good idea, mainly because once the war is over, and everyone's shaked hands and made up, you still got the buggers left.

jbphburg
08-03-05, 05:06 PM
They're horrible, people die at a rate of about 500 weekly, according to the article, decades after being initially planted. Can you imagine if someone planted landmines in the US? It'd be considered the most dispicable act of terrorism, yet some will argue it as acceptable that the US plants them elsewhere, as if it somehow protects Americans. The US should have to locate and remove every mine they ever planted, not develop and plant more!

berrykat
08-03-05, 05:42 PM
trouble is when the wars are over some poor farmer is out chasing a lost cow or some such thing and bang he's dead or kids find it and bang kid's leg is blown off. I think they are terrible things :(

jbphburg
08-03-05, 05:56 PM
I hardly see the need for their use even from a purely military perspective, don't they have weaponry far advanced over previous generations and so have no need for such things anyway (assuming there ever was a real 'need' for them anyway)?

bethanie
08-03-05, 09:10 PM
<-----still remembers landmine warning signs posted all over the lovely country roads of south Korea, fourty years after the war there. Wow. How depressing to have read that article.

B

Tame
08-03-05, 10:48 PM
Land mines work pretty well in defending South Korea. Haven't heard an intelligent reason yet to stop using them there.

otomik
08-03-05, 10:50 PM
I hardly see the need for their use even from a purely military perspective, don't they have weaponry far advanced over previous generations and so have no need for such things anywayso really you don't know?

If you'll look at this older BBC article it says the US is actually developing a safer landmine that can be turned off and more easily detected.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3491826.stm
US promises 'safer' landmines
With the new policy, de-mining troops may not be needed
The Bush administration has announced a new policy on the use of landmines to minimise the risk to civilians.

Assistant Secretary of State Lincoln Bloomfield said the US would make all its landmines detectable and scrap those not timed to self-destruct.

But Mr Bloomfield confirmed that the US did not intend to sign the international treaty banning mines.

The treaty has been signed by more than 150 nations. Landmines cause an estimated 10,000 casualties a year.

There was a mixed reaction to the US announcement from anti-landmine campaigners.

The Halo Trust charity said it was pleased with Washington's pledge "to increase the level of funding for mine clearance", saying it would save lives.

But other campaigners said America's insistence to continue using the so-called "smart" mines was a step backward that would undermine the Anti-Landmine Treaty.

US Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said the new policy was a "deeply disappointing rollback" that would encourage other nations to use mines.

Detection boost

Mr Bloomfield, President Bush's special adviser on landmines, told a news conference in Washington that the process of getting rid of landmines not timed to self-destruct would begin in 2006 and was expected to be completed by 2010.


US under pressure
The Bush plan also proposes a 50% increase - up to $70 million - for a programme providing landmine removal assistance in more than 40 countries.

However, mines already laid on the border between North Korea and South Korea would remain in place and there would not be a commitment to ending the use of all landmines over time, he said.

President Bill Clinton had wanted the US to consider signing the international treaty and had asked the Pentagon to look at alternatives to landmines, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington reports.

But the Pentagon view is understood to be that at the moment no other technology will do the job, our correspondent says.

IamJen
08-03-05, 11:17 PM
Thoughts on Korea:
There have been several (estimated at 1000 since the 50s) deaths of civilians stumbling across landmines there. Death = a big downer in my book. Also, the pattern of distribution in Korea is different than what it is likely to be in other places (at least judging from the half-assed placement used in Desert Storm). Theoretically, since the majority of the landmines still in existence in Korea are along the DMZ, they should be easier to avoid.

Re other countries signing... While it's accurate to say that there are a large number of countries that have not signed (notably Russia and China), it seems also worthwhile to note that there are many countries (122 I think) that have signed, including all of the NATO nations, save the US and Turkey.

Using landmines = a big step backward. :no:

Ludi
08-03-05, 11:24 PM
it seems also worthwhile to note that there are many countries (122 I think) that have signed, including all of the NATO nations, save the US and Turkey.



Ah, we're in good company I see! Turkey is well known for its humanitarianism. :brood:

IamJen
08-03-05, 11:35 PM
and.....

Mod note:

Let's stay on topic and leave the (now edited) personal stuff out of the discussion. :up:

Tame
08-03-05, 11:41 PM
Thoughts on Korea:
There have been several (estimated at 1000 since the 50s) deaths of civilians stumbling across landmines there. Death = a big downer in my book. Also, the pattern of distribution in Korea is different than what it is likely to be in other places (at least judging from the half-assed placement used in Desert Storm). Theoretically, since the majority of the landmines still in existence in Korea are along the DMZ, they should be easier to avoid.

Re other countries signing... While it's accurate to say that there are a large number of countries that have not signed (notably Russia and China), it seems also worthwhile to note that there are many countries (122 I think) that have signed, including all of the NATO nations, save the US and Turkey.

Using landmines = a big step backward. :no:

Yeah, an notably, most of those other 122 nations aren't defending a border with a large, and somewhat irrational neighbor.

otomik
08-03-05, 11:47 PM
and.....

Mod note:

Let's stay on topic and leave the (now edited) personal stuff out of the discussion. :up:
I'd like you to restore post 9

IamJen
08-03-05, 11:48 PM
Are you worried about crazed Canucks storming America? :D

IamJen
08-03-05, 11:50 PM
otomik...we've (VB as a whole) been over this many times in recent days. Name-calling, etc. is against the TOS at VB. Several folks complained recently that action istaken too late, or in an biased way. In this case, both the original comment and the subsequent responses have been deleted. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to PM Michael.