• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Landmines still not phased out. Thoughts on this technology?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Triode

Active Member
I recently looked into it, and learned that the US, China, Russia, India and many other powerfull nations have still not banned the use of landmines. I immidiatly wondered why we don't use ones that deactivate after a set period of time, but with a little more searching I found that we have passed a measure in the US to only use landmines that self deactivate, called non-persistant mines. There are exceptions of course, the main ones being that until 2010 they will still use anti vehicle landmines where deemed necesary, and will allow their use indefinitely in the no-mans land between North and South Korea. I wonder what the members of this forum think on this subject. The measure passed included a initiative to research further methods of making mines less likely to impact civilians while keeping them effective. There are proposed technologies, such as mines that can be shut off by remote, or require the presence of a signal to be active, or that emit a tracking signal, but obviously these features could be exploited by the enemy to shut them down. Off the top of my head the first thing that comes to mind is to add a tracking signal that starts when the mine is set to expire, even when deactivated a buried wad of explosive is surely not a good thing to leave laying around, and surely they would be easier to dig up if they emited a beacon, even a simple one that could be produced by a cheap device. What are your thoughts on this subject?
 

dknguyen

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Costs money and people are cheap. That said, they want to come up with selective minds that detects vibrations in the ground to tell what types of vehicles are nearby to arm or not, and that can't be cheap. I think there were even mines that you don't step on. THey're more like guns turrets and shower the area next to them.
 
Last edited:

Triode

Active Member
I think the current anti-vehicle ones work like the sensors at traffic lights, a big upside down metal detector. I'm not sure how well they can tell between a armored vehicle and a merchant with a pack full of metal ware. And they coulden't tell between a civilian car and a military one, so assumably they're to be used whe you're pretty sure there won't be civilians comming through.
 

matk95

Member
I See Why Land mines are used but i think there should be some mechanism to destroy them remotely or at-least some changes in international law meaning that the country that placed them has to destroy them when the war is over of the area is secured and not under threat. As for The enemy hacking them and destroying them surely with all the security tech the military have they can solve this:confused:
 

Hero999

Banned
I don't know where I stand on land mines.

I know they're bad and kill lots of people but it does make sense from a tactical point of view. If you contaminate an area with land mines it acts as a barrier and puts the enemy off taking the land because it would be no use even if they were able to take it.

I agree with matk95, besides if they could be destroyed remotely then it would make more tactical sense too as the force who laid them could easily remove them once they've got the land.

Another idea would be to fit them all with transponders which can only be detected if a certain code is send. They could also log where each mine is placed using GPS, that way if the transponder or remote detination system fails they know where each mine is.
 

dknguyen

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
If you contaminate an area with land mines it acts as a barrier and puts the enemy off taking the land because it would be no use even if they were able to take it.
Oooohhhh. So that's why landmines are used. I never thought about it that way. If that's the case, they're a great idea if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. But I guess the problem here is when they're not, or when they are doing what they're supposed to be doing far longer than they are supposed to be doing it.
 

HiTech

Well-Known Member

Mikebits

Well-Known Member
I think landmines and smart bombs remove the human element, that is to say the person that places this human killing device never see's the person that becomes a casualty of war. I find this removes someone from ever feeling the pain of war and somehow allows a detachment from the emotion of taking ones life.

Perhaps life taking would not come so easy if one see's the person they are about to kill. If the soldiers and warriors of this world confront death face to face, then they might opt for peace. When the leaders see death face on, they may be more apt to send a delegate to discuss peace. One must see death in the face before they wish for peace. Landmines and other such non-participant weapons should not be used. Only then will the commanders ask the leaders to seek peace.

A few famous quotes.

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee
As soon as war is looked upon as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular.
Oscar Wilde
I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another.
Thomas Jefferson
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein
I realistically realize that this will never take place, it is only my wish.

During my Navy service, I recall an incident with the NPA (New Public Army) in the Philippines and I rather not remember that encounter as its ending was unpleasant.
 
Last edited:

nolandmines

New Member
Contrary to what the posters think, landmines are not widely used today. Those in the ground are from the 1960s-1990s. Improvised explosive devices are used in Colombia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Landmines in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly from the Russians, Saddam and the Iranians. For more information on the treaty banning mines go to ICBL - International Campaign to Ban Landmines. While the US has not signed the treaty they generally abide by its obligations. Almost no one produces mines today so the challenge is to get the ones now in the ground, out and destroyed. Technology is needed for this.
 

Triode

Active Member
We know they aren't widely used, that has been mentioned, but the US hasn't agreed not to use them either. By the way, How many accounts have you created "nolandmines" if you created one just to comment on this?

Mike, I agree with what you say. Whenever I hear someone talking enthusiastically about war, saying stuff like "we should invade this country and occupy this one, and bomb the hell out of these people" its always someone who has never seen a war, or even seen someone die. Some people seem to actually think of it like an action movie, you shoot the bad guy and hes gone, and then its all glory and awesomeness. If it weren't for the effect you mentioned, the separation from what one is actually doing, I don't think the crew of the Enola gay could have ever dropped the bomb. I'm not going to argue if it was right or wrong, there were reasons to do it. But if you actually fully realized that when you opened that ramp, you would be incinerating thousands and thousands of people, children, women, everyone, and leaving many more with painfull debilitating wounds and radiation poisoning, could anyone really do that?
 
Last edited:

Bob Scott

New Member
Frankly, I don't know why the xenophobes here in the US didn't plan to use them instead of a stupid border fence.
It's quite odd you know. Quote from Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Meanwhile, the USA is busy building border walls and at least one citizen thinks it should be made of landmines?

At least in England, they did it the civilised way. They dug a giant moat between England and the Frenchmen, called it the English Channel.
 
Last edited:

Speakerguy

Active Member
I didn't say it should be made out of landmines, I'm just surprised that the border fence people didn't suggest it. I'm quite a bit on the other end of the political spectrum.
 

dknguyen

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
It's quite odd you know. Quote from Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Meanwhile, the USA is busy building border walls and at least one citizen thinks it should be made of landmines?

At least in England, they did it the civilised way. They dug a giant moat between England and the Frenchmen, called it the English Channel.
This would be the same English channel those pesky romans ran into many hundreds of years earlier?
 

Hero999

Banned
And as the USSR's Joseph Stalin was carrying out the great purge, US senator Joseph McCarthy carried out his very own purge.
 

Mikebits

Well-Known Member
And as the USSR's Joseph Stalin was carrying out the great purge, US senator Joseph McCarthy carried out his very own purge.
McCarthy's demagogic, and half thought out notions were not long lived. I fail to see your point here.
 

Hero999

Banned
Just how the US government are very hypocritical, they preach human rights and democracy but thier actions frequently fall far short of their egalitarian ideals. Torture, suppression of free speech and democracy have been practised by the US government, although they will never admit to it.

Sorry if I've caused any offence, I'm not anti-American, I just disagree with lots of the actions of the US government, same with Russia and China. I don't like the UK government much either, especially after the expenses scandal.
 

Boncuk

New Member
War has never been funny, and I think using mines in a war is perfidious. (It clearly has the character of an ambush.)

When the USSR occupied Afghanistan they dropped ball point pens. Logically kids picked them up and snapped them - a deadly error. The pens were camouflaged bombs tearing the kids apart.

GDR (German Democratic Republic) built 4,500km of double border fence (spaced 100m) with no vegetation between fences and guard towers every 500m against "intruders" from the west (in reality the leaders wanted to prevent movements from east to west). Those border fences were very snaky as well. They were fitted with wire tripped shrapnel guns filled with rusty nails, machine parts and everything sharply edged - and fatal.

All political leaders in the world have one thing in common: They never participated in a war (as soldiers), but they order troops to war. Men's lives don't count much if they serve their plans which involve demonstration of weapon power and the lives of the people who operate them.

Look what is happening in Afghanistan right now. US forces are loosing lots of good men as well as German forces with increasing tendency from month to month.

My opinion about that is clear after 23 years of military service: Either chase the Taliban out of Afghanistan with all the power which is necessary - or withdraw your troops. Not withdrawing troops and "play" a bit here and there will cost more lives - for nothing!

At least there are some attempts now to regain power over the area. US forces are carrying out an offensive in the south, while German forces are doing it in the north. If only of the forces fail the coming election day in Afghanistan will end with a desaster and throw the country back 20 years.

I hope I could make clear what I was getting at. My English knowledge isn't perfect yet and will supposedly never be.

Regards

Boncuk
 

Bob Scott

New Member
Just how the US government are very hypocritical, they preach human rights and democracy but thier actions frequently fall far short of their egalitarian ideals. Torture, suppression of free speech and democracy have been practised by the US government, although they will never admit to it.
I think they freely admit it because it is so obvious. They love liberty for themselves while setting up puppet dictatorships in other countries where it is in the best interest of the USA and its big fruit companies. Philipines, Panama, Cuba. It was funny to see President Bush openly telling Castro to set up a democracy in Cuba. Funny, because when the USA had influence in the 1950's, they set up one of those puppet dictatorships under dictator Batista, far from the democracy Bush says they need.

And, there are jingoists that I have seen in the USA that will agree. Do anything to any other country as required for the best interests of the USA. If the oil or water that they need is underneath your country, its best to be prepared for war.

That's why the USA didn't sign a treaty limiting their use of land mines. They will use anything at their disposal to further the interests of the USA, including that ordnance, no matter how costly to "foreigners".

And now you also know why they didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. You don't have foreigners or the UN violate your sovereignty and tell you what to do, but the other way around is OK.

Sorry if I've caused any offence, I'm not anti-American, I just disagree with lots of the actions of the US government, same with Russia and China. I don't like the UK government much either, especially after the expenses scandal.
Same here. I agree, except I think the UK gov't is OK. Some of its elected members need a spanking.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading
Top