[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Decency: Are landmines a uniquely indecent, and atrocious weapon of war?
|
[  ] Yes
- Landmines indiscriminately kill civilians, violating laws of war. Unlike other weaponry, landmines remain hidden in the ground long after conflicts have ended, killing and maiming civilians in some of the world’s poorest countries years, even decades later.
- Landmines do not respect the cessation of conflict. It is generally important for nations to respect cease fires and peace agreements following the cessation of hostilities. The use of landmines makes it impossible for this to happen.
- That landmines are not only weapons to kill civilians is no defense. Even if other weaponry has similar effects, it doesn’t mean landmines are acceptable – it means they are bad, too. But we must start somewhere.[2]
|
[ ] No
- Landmines may kill civilians, but so do other weapons of war. Landmines are not uniquely bad in this way and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.[3]
- Landmines can be deployed judiciously with 0 risk to citizens It would be a mistake to label landmines as always bad and always a risk to civilians. There are specific instances in which they pose no risk to civilians at all. One such instance is there existence in Korea's Demilitarized Zone. There are certainly other instances in which landmines exist, perform a valuable role, and pose no risk to civilians. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that landmines are inherently bad.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Utility in war: Do land mines provide little military utility?
|
[ ] Yes
- The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented: They are easily removed by quite low-technology military equipment – which means that they are not very dangerous to armed forces, but are incredibly harmful to civilians. This is particularly true when considering the fact that landmines are deployed in mass over large territories, which makes them increasingly difficult for civilians to remove, as well as increasingly risky to civilians over the long run.[4]
- A combination of weapons can substitute for landmines A group of 15 retired top-ranking US officers publicly asked President Bill Clinton to support a total ban. They stated: "Given the wide range of weaponry available to military forces today, anti-personnel landmines are not essential."[5]
- Landmines kill many soldiers of the military that plants them One former US Marine, Gen. Alfred Gray, Jr., said in 1993: "We kill more Americans with our mines than we do anybody else... What the hell is the use of sowing all this (airborne scatterable mines) if you’re going to move through it next week or next month?..."[6]
- Landmines limit the mobility of the military that plants them. A report by the GAO, an independent government investigating office, said that some American commanders were reluctant to use anti-personnel mines in the Gulf War. These commanders feared casualties to their own troops and said using the mines limited the mobility of forces.[7]
- Landmines kill more civilians than enemy soldiers. Refugees International President Kenneth Bacon in a letter this week to Bush. - "often cause more damage to civilians after the battle than to opposing forces during the conflict."[8]
- International norm against mines means no country is disadvantaged.
|
[ ] No
- Land mines are effective at containing military threats.[9]
- Landmines help defend large swaths of territory at little cost. They permit the defense of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians, and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground. In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance, delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance on civilians, they can prevent genocide.[10]
- Landmines can protect peacekeepers. Landmines are used to protect peacekeepers abroad. Stopping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeepers and make the USA less likely to enter into such operations – part of the reason the USA refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997, and has declined to do so since.[11]
- Nations will have to develop larger armies if they can't deploy landmines. Once the army is up and running, the nation concerned has a large and ongoing expense - so it gets an idea: why not use it?
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Post-war: Do landmines make post-war reconstruction more difficult?
|
[ ] Yes
- War-time use of landmines hampers post-war reconstruction. It is absurd to suggest that there are two separate issues about landmines, use and post-conflict removal: the two are inextricably interlinked. Most nations that deploy landmines, including those manufactured by the United States, never clear them afterwards. As demonstrated by decades of inaction on the part of nations after determined lobbying by passionate activists, it is folly to rely on goodwill or trust to remove landmines. It is simple – if they are manufactured and deployed, innocent people inevitably die. The USA should not dirty its hands by the trade in these wicked weapons.[12]
|
[ ] No
- Efforts to clear landmines should be improved, instead banning them. The use of land mines in war time or a tense environment is a totally separate issue to cleaning them up in peace time; efforts to blur the two together by pro-ban commentators should be resisted. The latter can be fixed without banning the former. The proposition completely accepts that the consequence of keeping land mines legal is an obligation on the part of those that use them to fund clean-up efforts, and the USA is indeed doing this in many troubled countries. The attention of the very humanitarian organisations calling for a ban will ensure this obligation is met.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] "Smart mines": Are smart mines an insufficient alternative?
|
[ ] Yes
- Not all "smart mines" will work as designed.
|
[ ] No
- Mine Ban Treaty fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.[13]
- "Smart mines" almost never fail to self-destruct "Permitted mines must also be self-deactivating — that is, they must be powered by a battery which will exhaust itself in 120 days or less if self-destruction fails. But such failure is most unlikely. In more than 65,000 tests under a wide variety of conditions, no activated U.S. self-destructing mine has failed to self-destruct."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Small nations: Would landmine ban benefit or harm small countries?
|
[ ] Yes
- Landmines provide a false sense of security: They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.
|
[ ] No
- Banning landmines disadvantages smaller countries. These countries are unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Law: Is a ban on landmines enforceable over time?
|
[ ] Yes
- A ban can be enforced slowly over time. It is obviously true that only those nations that obey laws will obey the law. That is a rationale for never passing any law. There will certainly be some nations that seek to ignore the ban – but as it gains stature and is embedded in the world’s view as a concrete rule that should never be broken, such nations will eventually come around, especially if the diplomatic and moral might of the United States is seen to be behind the ban. For examples, foreign officers trained at US Military Colleges will increasingly view the use of mines as unacceptable. Even if they do not, at least usage will have been vastly reduced by all those nations that do obey the terms of the Convention. Moral pressure is felt by the ruling regimes of almost all countries – setting an example will increase pressure on others to do the same. Even if they don’t, doing the right thing in and of itself is very important. Ultimately, this is about what kind of global society you want to live in. Do you wish to live in a society that tries hard to stop the use of such horrible weapons, and occasionally fails, or one that never even bothers to try?[14]
|
[ ] No
- The ban has an asymmetric effect. it only stops nations that obey the law from using landmines. Most nations contemplating invasion will ignore it, deploying them aggressively to defend captured territory. On the other hand, many nations that would use landmines defensively for themselves, or for multinational defence of another vulnerable nation or people, will observe the ban and thus weaken themselves and expose those they guard. The landmine should in fact be a primary tool of the United Nations efforts to protect those in its care. Nations that want to use landmines will do so regardless of the position taken by the USA (or any other nation) - as demonstrated by the current prolific use of mines despite the mass of signatories to the Ottawa convention. And if we might one day face an enemy deploying landmines, we must expose our soldiers to their use in training so that we do not expose them to serious harm.[15]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Korea: Are landmines unnecessary between North and South Korea?
|
[ ] Yes
- North Korea's tunnel network under DMZ undermines landmines. This fact demonstrates the uselessness of landmines – the world’s biggest minefield is militarily redundant, a danger only to those that will live in this area in future years. The USA knows this – the defence of South Korea is a hollow, false excuse offered in defence of landmines – the real reason is the unwillingness on the part of the military machine to relinquish the capability of any weapon, no matter how horrible. Of course, there is a healthy profit to be made in their distribution, too.[16]
|
[ ] No
- Defending against North Korean blitzkrieg requires landmines Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised. South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation.[18]
- Landmines in Korea would slow down an invasion and thin enemy ranks. "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997 - "Every military expert is sure that the United States and South Korean forces could defeat a North Korean attack without using any land mines. But most of the experts say that to slow a North Korean invasion and hasten its end it would be helpful to lay down new mines as well as rely on existing minefields."
- Landmines in Korea would force attackers into more vulnerable territory. These zones are called "killing zones" in the military.
- Landmines in the Korean DMZ do not threaten civilians This is an important fact in defense of the United States' policies. It illustrates that the United States uses landmines only for a specific zone in a single country, rather than deploying landmines in a widespread effort. This is important because most of the costs associated with landmines relate to the broad use of them in war zones and civilian areas. The United States is certainly not doing this, in the context of it only deploying them in the Korean Demilitarized Zone. US policy, therefore, is not susceptible to the many arguments against landmines.
- Removing landmines from the DMZ is more challenging than "no new mines". There is a difference between the United States agreeing to stop producing and deploying land mines in new places and it agreeing to actively remove its existing landmines from the DMZ. Such active removal of landmines is more disruptive to existing US strategic calculus in North Korea.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] US-arguments: Other arguments related to the United States.
|
[ ] Yes
- Mine Ban Treaty does not ban anti-tank mines. The US has expressed concern regarding the Ottawa Treaty in relation to how it would effect anti-tank mines. Yet, the treaty does not actually ban the use of these mines.
|
[ ] No
- The US has already signed a landmine treaty. The US signed the Amended Mines Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). It is, therefore, not necessary for it to sign the Ottawa Treaty.
- Geneva Conventions cover appropriate use of landmines; Ottawa Treaty is excessive. The appropriate use of landmines is governed by the Geneva Convention. This ensures that the use of landmines in specific instances is consistent with international humanitarian law and norms. The use of landmines in the DMS of Korea, for instance, can be justified under the Geneva Convention, because they pose no real threat to civilians.
- US policy actively combats landmines.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Wildlife: Do land mines threaten wild life?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con resources
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con videos
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
|
See also
External links
Books:
|
]
]
]
]
