• We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you

Politics The future of European defence | strategy & industry |

Trump wants to have the Republican senate bill against Russia watered down.

He wants to replace must wordings with can and generally keep it "flexible" meaning Putler isn't hindered too much in raping Ukraine.



And China happily continues its sucker play of I am not involved.

Time to sanction them too now.

But Trump didn't even do that. All he does is to expose himself.

 
Trump wants to have the Republican senate bill against Russia watered down.

He wants to replace must wordings with can and generally keep it "flexible" meaning Putler isn't hindered too much in raping Ukraine.



And China happily continues its sucker play of I am not involved.

Time to sanction them too now.

But Trump didn't even do that. All he does is to expose himself.

Wrong thread?
 
As it says in the thumbnail

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Look guys, UN secretary-gn advertising how useless him and his organization are.

Calling for Finland, Baltics and Poland to stay in Ottawa treaty, while Russia is out. Meaning it's fine for our soldiers to step in a mine, but not for invader.

Reasoning is something logical, like protecting sheep herders in third world. As if we were going there to mine.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Thing with these treaties is they are meant to set the "hope" similar measures will be followed by whoever is on the opposing side.

Or, to some extent, expecting the opposing side to show restraints in its use of such munitions.

Is it meaningful in any ways? No. As I said, it relies on "hope" and "expectations".


Though in time of war mines are useful in a variety of ways, the real concern is more about the time that comes after the war.

It is no secret that demining operations are very complicated and time consuming, then comes the issue of locating the minefields (if they have been kept tracked of in a rigorous way) and also the one linked to detecting them.
You can either find them by knowing where they are, or finding them by stumbling upon them.
 
Though in time of war mines are useful in a variety of ways, the real concern is more about the time that comes after the war.

It is no secret that demining operations are very complicated and time consuming, then comes the issue of locating the minefields (if they have been kept tracked of in a rigorous way) and also the one linked to detecting them.
You can either find them by knowing where they are, or finding them by stumbling upon them.

Meaning it's much better to do it in trained and organized manner, rather than take them into use during wartime.

Mines can be a big problem for civilians, in Finland they were a problem as Germans had boobytrapped everything they could, when leaving the country. Took decades to clear, and there might still be something somewhere. Not how minefields would be used by our own soldiers of course.

Yet we didn't get rid of them until people started to put their faith on those hopes and expectations. And are now quick to reintroduce them, when reality sets in.
 
Meaning it's much better to do it in trained and organized manner, rather than take them into use during wartime.

Mines can be a big problem for civilians, in Finland they were a problem as Germans had boobytrapped everything they could, when leaving the country. Took decades to clear, and there might still be something somewhere. Not how minefields would be used by our own soldiers of course.

Yet we didn't get rid of them until people started to put their faith on those hopes and expectations. And are now quick to reintroduce them, when reality sets in.

There is that, yes.

But also the fact modern landmines are developed with safety mechanisms rendering them inoperative after a period of time.
Does that mean such mechanisms work all the time? No. After all, even the simplest mechanism such as a ground impact shell or bomb sometimes fail to trigger. So "it happens" both ways.
Booby-traps are still a thing, though it is encouraged to have them deployed in a "conventional way" (as in: not Vietcong or WW2 kind of stuff).

UXOs will remain a thing as long as explosive munition exist.
 
UN moralizing had no effect. Leaving the treaty got a landslide approval from MP's, with just few left-green useful idiots voting no.

MPs approve Finland's withdrawal from Ottawa landmine treaty

Finnish MPs voted to approve the country's withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty on Thursday, as Finland plans to resume using anti-personnel landmines.

MPs approved the measure to withdraw from the agreement by a vote of 157 to 18. There were no abstentions, and 24 lawmakers were absent.

Those voting against the measure included 10 MPs from the Left Alliance, seven Greens MPs, as well as one from the Swedish People's Party, which is part of the coalition government.

The Finnish government submitted a proposal to Parliament about withdrawing from the agreement late last month, while it announced that it was preparing to do so earlier in the spring.

The next steps in decoupling from the international agreement include a confirmation by President Alexander Stubb, then Finland sending a notice about the matter to the UN Secretary-General, the government said last month.

In 2012, Finland became the last EU member state to sign onto the 1997 treaty. The countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland announced that they were withdrawing from the treaty earlier this spring.

 
The treaties of Ottawa and Oslo did have their purpose when they were laid down, particularly in reducing the proliferation of "dumb" mines and failure-prone ancient cluster munitions to the Third World.

But this isn't the 1990s any more, where one needed to worry about a generation of military hardware developed in the preceding decades. We have self-deactivating mine fields now, and self-destroying submunitions.
 
The treaties of Ottawa and Oslo did have their purpose when they were laid down, particularly in reducing the proliferation of "dumb" mines and failure-prone ancient cluster munitions to the Third World.

But this isn't the 1990s any more, where one needed to worry about a generation of military hardware developed in the preceding decades. We have self-deactivating mine fields now, and self-destroying submunitions.

Problem always was that the great powers didn't join. Disarmament never should start from the weaker side.

And really, Finnish mines that were produced here never did much of anything for the issue in the third world. What did help was the mine expertise with Finnish pioneers de-mining in many ex-warzones. That of course decreased with the ban.

Dumb mines will also make a comeback being the most cost effective method. Even with them, modern tools will greatly simplify reporting mine locations and such.

And we never joined Oslo treaty, as one of the replacement for land mines was to be cluster munitions. Which is arguably more problematic.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top