Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Mine Ban Treaty (Ottawa Treaty)
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 21:32, 7 October 2010 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→In Korea: Are landmines unnecessary between North and South Korea?) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (01:38, 28 October 2010) (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Yes) |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
*'''[[Argument: Landmines inhibit a counter-attack into North Korea| Landmines inhibit a counter-attack into North Korea]]''' [http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html "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." | *'''[[Argument: Landmines inhibit a counter-attack into North Korea| Landmines inhibit a counter-attack into North Korea]]''' [http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html "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." | ||
- | *'''Landmines in N. Korea are a threat to civilians.''' [http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html "U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation." March, 2002]: "Myth: Landmines in Korea are not a hazard to civilians. Reality: Seventy-five civilians have died from mine accidents in Korea since 1990 and the number of injuries is much higher; It is estimated that there have been over 1,000 civilian mine victims since the end of the Korean War. Landmines stockpiled for use in Korea are non-self destructing or "dumb" antipersonnel landmines that can remain active for decades." | + | *'''[[Argument: Landmines in N. Korea are a threat to civilians| Landmines in N. Korea are a threat to civilians]]''' [http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html "U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation." March, 2002]: "Myth: Landmines in Korea are not a hazard to civilians. Reality: Seventy-five civilians have died from mine accidents in Korea since 1990 and the number of injuries is much higher; It is estimated that there have been over 1,000 civilian mine victims since the end of the Korean War. Landmines stockpiled for use in Korea are non-self destructing or "dumb" antipersonnel landmines that can remain active for decades." |
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
- | + | *'''Only thing between the gun and the bird''' The mines are effectively the only things blocking the North Korean menace. Although South Korea's defenses are also formidable, it can be easily crashed by the lines of North Korean artillery and by its irregular and unconventional weaponry, which South Korea is not equipped against, as its armed forces are not suited to fight against irregular forces, which North Korea is mostly made of. That being, South Korea is vulnerable North Korea. And the only thing standing between the gun and the bird is the mines, yet the people sitting behind desks are talking about banning them... | |
- | *'''Only thing between the gun and the bird''' The mines are effectively the only things blocking the North Korean menace. Although South Korea's defenses are also formidable, it can be easily crashed by the lines of North Korean artillery and by its irregular and unconventional weaponry, which South Korea is not equipped against, as its armed forces are not suited to fight against irregular forces, which North Korea is mostly made of. That being, South Korea is vulnerable North Korea. And the only thing standing between the gun and the bird is the mines, yet the people sitting behind desks are talking about banning them..... | + | |
*'''[[Argument: Defending against North Korean blitzkrieg requires landmines| 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.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=395] | *'''[[Argument: Defending against North Korean blitzkrieg requires landmines| 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.[http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=395] | ||
- | *'''Landmines in Korea would slow down invasion, thin enemy ranks.''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "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." | + | *'''[[Argument: Landmines in Korea would slow down invasion, thin enemy ranks| Landmines in Korea would slow down invasion, thin enemy ranks]]''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "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 vulnerable territory.''' These zones are called "killing zones" in the military. By making it more difficult and potentially costly in terms of lives for aggressors to launch attacks, land-mines - even if not covering the entirety of a border - help deter aggressors. | *'''Landmines in Korea would force attackers into vulnerable territory.''' These zones are called "killing zones" in the military. By making it more difficult and potentially costly in terms of lives for aggressors to launch attacks, land-mines - even if not covering the entirety of a border - help deter aggressors. | ||
- | *'''W/o mines more US troops would be needed in South Korea.''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. September 3rd, 1997]: "One American military study suggested that without the land mines, the United States would need an additional 20,000 or more troops in South Korea to stop a North Korean invasion." | + | *'''[[Argument: W/o mines more US troops would be needed in South Korea| W/o mines more US troops would be needed in South Korea]]''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. September 3rd, 1997]: "One American military study suggested that without the land mines, the United States would need an additional 20,000 or more troops in South Korea to stop a North Korean invasion." |
- | *'''Casualties in repelling N. Korean invasion would be higher w/o mines.''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997]: "Another computer simulation, cited by South Korean officials, estimated that if land mines were not used against a North Korean attack, there would be an additional 2,500 to 3,000 South Korean and American casualties each day of a conflict." | + | *'''[[Argument: Casualties in repelling N. Korean invasion would be higher w/o mines| Casualties in repelling N. Korean invasion would be higher w/o mines]]''' [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997]: "Another computer simulation, cited by South Korean officials, estimated that if land mines were not used against a North Korean attack, there would be an additional 2,500 to 3,000 South Korean and American casualties each day of a conflict." |
*'''[[Argument: Landmines in the Korean DMZ do not threaten civilians| 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 Korea. US policy, therefore, is not susceptible to the many arguments against landmines. | *'''[[Argument: Landmines in the Korean DMZ do not threaten civilians| 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 Korea. US policy, therefore, is not susceptible to the many arguments against landmines. | ||
Line 139: | Line 138: | ||
*'''Removing landmines from the DMZ harder 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. A "no new mines" policy, if anything, is superior. | *'''Removing landmines from the DMZ harder 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. A "no new mines" policy, if anything, is superior. | ||
- | *'''Korea is the sole exception requested by US to mine ban.''' [http://www.banminesusa.org/ "The Mine Ban Treaty and the US Government: 10 Years and Waiting". US Campaign to Ban Landmines. 3 Dec. 2007]: "There is no evidence that the U.S. has used antipersonnel landmines, with the exception of the North/South Korean border area, since 1991." And, it seems to be the sole exception requested by the US as a condition of it agreeing to joining the Land Mine Ban Treaty. | + | *'''[[Argument: Korea is the sole exception requested by US to mine ban| Korea is the sole exception requested by US to mine ban]]''' [http://www.banminesusa.org/ "The Mine Ban Treaty and the US Government: 10 Years and Waiting". US Campaign to Ban Landmines. 3 Dec. 2007]: "There is no evidence that the U.S. has used antipersonnel landmines, with the exception of the North/South Korean border area, since 1991." And, it seems to be the sole exception requested by the US as a condition of it agreeing to joining the Land Mine Ban Treaty. |
- | + | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 152: | Line 150: | ||
*'''[[Argument: By not signing Ottawa Treaty, US encourages landmine use| By not signing Ottawa Treaty, US encourages landmine use]]''' Not signing the treaty sends the signal that landmines are an acceptable tool of war. This message could spur other countries to maintain some landmines, and this could ultimately undermine US interests. | *'''[[Argument: By not signing Ottawa Treaty, US encourages landmine use| By not signing Ottawa Treaty, US encourages landmine use]]''' Not signing the treaty sends the signal that landmines are an acceptable tool of war. This message could spur other countries to maintain some landmines, and this could ultimately undermine US interests. | ||
- | *'''US undermines its image by not signing Mine Ban Treaty.''' [http://www.commondreams.org/views/081100-101.htm Susannah Sirkin and Gina Coplon-Newfeld. "US Should Sign Treaty Banning Land Mines". Boston Globe. August 11, 2000] - "Regardless of arguments for the positive military application of chemical or biological weapons, the global backlash that would accompany a nation's admitted employment of these indiscriminate weapons is now politically untenable." | + | *'''[[Argument: US undermines its image by not signing Mine Ban Treaty| US undermines its image by not signing Mine Ban Treaty]]''' [http://www.commondreams.org/views/081100-101.htm Susannah Sirkin and Gina Coplon-Newfeld. "US Should Sign Treaty Banning Land Mines". Boston Globe. August 11, 2000] - "Regardless of arguments for the positive military application of chemical or biological weapons, the global backlash that would accompany a nation's admitted employment of these indiscriminate weapons is now politically untenable." |
- | *'''If Obama is committed to nuclear disarmament, mine ban should be easy.''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/13/ban_land_mines_and_cluster_bombs/ Jody Williams. "Ban land mines and cluster bombs." Boston Globe. April 13, 2009]: "if Obama is as determined as he says to take on the huge issue of eliminating nuclear weapons, surely he can get rid of land mines and cluster bombs now." | + | *'''[[Argument: Mine ban treaty easy if Obama committed to nuclear disarmament| Mine ban treaty easy if Obama committed to nuclear disarmament]]''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/13/ban_land_mines_and_cluster_bombs/ Jody Williams. "Ban land mines and cluster bombs." Boston Globe. April 13, 2009]: "if Obama is as determined as he says to take on the huge issue of eliminating nuclear weapons, surely he can get rid of land mines and cluster bombs now." |
*'''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. | *'''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. | ||
Line 289: | Line 287: | ||
*[http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/03/20/edgarwin_ed3_.php Richard L. Garwin. "Beyond the Ottawa treaty : On land mines, America is a humanitarian leader". 20 Mar. 2004] | *[http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/03/20/edgarwin_ed3_.php Richard L. Garwin. "Beyond the Ottawa treaty : On land mines, America is a humanitarian leader". 20 Mar. 2004] | ||
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997] | *[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7DE1430F930A3575AC0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all "South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997] | ||
- | + | *[http://www.banminesusa.org/ "The Mine Ban Treaty and the US Government: 10 Years and Waiting". US Campaign to Ban Landmines. 3 Dec. 2007] | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Debate: Landmines in the Korean Demilitarized Zone]] | *[[Debate: Landmines in the Korean Demilitarized Zone]] |
Current revision
[Edit] Is an international ban on landmines justified? Should the USA and other non-signatories join? |
[Edit] Background and contextThe 1997 Ottawa Convention banned the use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines. 156 nations had signed the treaty as of April of 2010. The USA and Cuba were the two primary nations abstaining. The Convention's aims became official United Nations policy with General Assembly Resolution 53/77. The Mine Ban Treaty comprehensively bans all use, production, and trade of antipersonnel mines, requires destruction of stockpiled mines within four years, requires destruction of mines already in the ground within 10 years. It also urges extensive programs to assist the victims of landmines.[1] The public debate and pro and con arguments in this debate are presented below, particularly in the context of whether the United States and other non-members should sign and join the treaty (or accede to its principles). The issue gained renewed attention in May of 2010 when sixty-eight Senators drafted a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama urging his support for an international treaty banning landmines.[2] |
[Edit] [ ![]() Decency: Are landmines a uniquely indecent, and atrocious weapon of war? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Utility in war: Do land mines provide little military utility? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() In Korea: Are landmines unnecessary between North and South Korea? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() US-arguments: Other arguments related to the United States. | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() "Smart mines": Are smart mines an insufficient alternative? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Clearing mines: Is clearing mines an insufficient solution? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Small nations: Would landmine ban benefit or harm small countries? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Enforcement: Is a ban on landmines enforceable over time? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Wildlife: Do land mines threaten wild life? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Pro/con resources | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] See also[Edit] External links and resources
[Edit] Books:
|