At 23:16 12-8-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > Below are links to a few websites that debunk the claim that landmines are
> > necessary in Korea.
> >
>
>I read the websites you cited, and what they proved is that the concept that
>they are needed is not universally agreed upon. How does the existence of
>contrary opinions constitute a debunking?
This is not just "contrary opinions", Dan. As pointed out somewhere on
those sites, there is no need for landmines, because:
(1) The North Korean leaders are very aware of the superior firepower of
the US and therefore the stupidity of even *attempting* an invasion.
(2) The only route for a North-Korean invasion force would be through a
mountain pass, which is controlled by the US and filled with anti-tank weapons.
(3) The US has weapons (such as the very effective BAT gliders) that can
take out North Korea's tank columns before those tanks even reach the
border with South Korea.
(4) Those weapons can be used without harming any US soldiers, and won't
hinder any US or South Korean troop movements.
I'd say that pretty much debunks any claims that landmines are necessary in
Korea.
>First of all, the sites contradict each other. One says that getting rid of
>land mines is particularly hard in Korea. The other states that it would
>only take half an hour to clear the field. I'd like to see some of the
>details involved.
They don't contradict each other. On the given websites, I did not find a
statement saying that it would only take half an hour to clear a field. I
think you are referring to a statement on the
http://perc.ca/PEN/1997-11/s-collins3.html site, where it says "However,
the report agreed that having APMs along with anti-tank mines would offer
an additional 30 minute delay before the enemy could disarm the anti-tank
mines". I think it is quite obvious that this must be interpreted as "it
would take the enemy 30 minutes to disarm an anti-tank mine", not as "it
would take the enemy 30 minutes to clear an entire mine field".
>Another site calls a war game model of the US Army flawed, without going
>into details as to why.
No, it says that the "Exploding the Landmine Myth in Korea" report makes
such a claim. It makes sense that Robin Collins didn't go into details
here: the details can be found in the report.
When you submit to a scientific journal an article about an invention you
made, and in that article you refer to an article that discusses an earlier
invention, do you include the details of that earlier invention? No you
don't, because if any of your readers are interested in those details, they
can look them up in that other article.
>Our anti-tank mines are different. There's a reason that they're
>different -- that's because we are better at it. There's a reason that we
>have the pre-eminent force in the world with the best technology.
The reason being that the US is a BIG country, that can afford to spend BIG
piles of money on weapons and R&D of weapons. The US annual budget for
military spending is bigger than some small nations' *total* annual budget.
> > And finally, a few numbers about civilian casualties worldwide:
> > http://geography.state.gov/htmls/landmines.html:
> > "According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
> > landmines injure or kill approximately 26,000 civilians every year; 8,000
> > to 10,000 of landmine victims are children. In Angola, where civil war has
> > raged for 30 years, some estimate that 10 million mines remain. In the
> > former Yugoslavia, an estimated four million mines are still buried,
> > injuring or killing approximately ten children a week, according to Save
> > the Children. In Cambodia, 50 people are killed or injured by landmines
> > every month."
> >
> >
>
>But, what connection does this have with adding the words "or near" to the
>exception for protection of anti-tank mines?
You tell me; *you* brought up the stuff about "or near". I included those
numbers to show why especially landmines should be banned entirely. In war,
soldiers and civilians get killed by all kinds of weapons. It's horrible,
but it's a fact. After the war, however, most weapons are removed from the
scene, but the landmines stay where they are. As a result, several years
after the war people (civilians!!!) still get killed by landmines.
When you combine the existence of "better" weapons nowadays (which make
landmines obsolete), and the fact that 26,000 civilians per year fall
victim to landmines, I think you have all the reason you need to ban
landmines entirely -- with no exeptions.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
