Personal tools

Argument: Landmines inhibit a counter-attack into North Korea

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. March, 2002: "Myth: Landmines are an integral part of our battle plans in Korea. Reality: U.S. military officers concede that the existing barrier will be an impediment to our counter-attack; [...] Use of landmines in the U.S. battle plan for Korea will be deferred because of the logistical difficulty in getting them to the front - and because of the hazards they pose to our own forces."

Caleb Rossiter. "Fighting In Korea With Antiquated Weapons: South Korea and the U.S. Would Crush North Korea - Without Landmines.": "Why haven't U.S. commanders opted for more smart weapons over landmines? The answer lies in the inherent, and appropriate, caution of those entrusted with the lives of our soldiers. American commanders want to maintain all options, because they hope that having options will save American lives. But that is not true in the case of landmines. After blunting North Korea's tank attack on the South (and we are sure to do so, since it can only come on a narrow corridor between mountains, which we control and have filled with anti-tank weapons) the American and South Korean armies will head north to Pyongyang in a decisive counteroffensive to destroy the North Korean army. On the way north, we will have to run through our own minefields. And just as happened in Operation Desert Storm, commanders will warn their troops to take care - or even slow their advance - for fear of tripping across our antiquated and obsolete landmines."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits