----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
civilization?
> 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.
But, they are also aware of committing a quarter to a third of their GDP to
the military when their people are close to starvation. Yet, they still do
it. People do all sorts of things that are not logical on the surface.
> (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.
Well, one has to recall how many US troops there are in Korea: 37,000 in
total. While everyone would agree that the US army is a lot better than the
N. Korean army, a 30 to 1 advantage in manpower is pretty big.
Also, you need to recall how many heavy pieces the N. Koreans have.
According to
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/asia/nk/nk1991/knfms_chp5.html
they have 3500 medium and light tanks, 2000 multiple rocket launchers and
8500 heavy artillery pieces. It is not clear to me that mobile anti-tank
weapons will have a trivial time stopping these forces with the numerical
odds that are against the US.
Mountain passes do make the job harder. But, with only 30 miles to cover,
and only 37,000 troops in total, it is understandable that the people
responsible for the US defense are not as sanguine as you are. Remember,
while the US did win one war with superior firepower in the last 40 years,
it didn't win the others.
I have no doubt, once the strength of the US is brought to bear, that it
would win any war with North Korea. I don't think the US military doubts
that. But, winning wouldn't be enough, it would have to be a quick win with
next to no damage to S. Korea for the US to achieve its goals.
> (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.
Then, why didn't they take out the Iraq tanks in the Gulf War? That has to
be a lot easier, right? No clouds, etc.
> (4) Those weapons can be used without harming any US soldiers, and won't
> hinder any US or South Korean troop movements.
>
But, the mines in question are either mapped out in the DMZ or our set to
self-destruct in 2 weeks. I think that it is not realistic to point out
problems that the US army had with 50 year old technology and expect the
same problems
> 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".
>
Well, if each mine takes an extra 30 minutes to defuse, then a mine field
buys a lot of time. The plural "mines" was used BTW. The only possible
hope the N. Koreans have is a lightning strike before all of the US forces
are brought to bear. So, hours of delay could be important.
>
> >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.
This is a really low standard of proof. Somebody wrote that it was true.
How do we know that the report has any verisimilitude at all. I found
another site that stated that N. Korea would actually win a second Korean
war. By this standard of proof,
>
>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.
On the net, you usually provide links. If it were a non-refereed source,
then I would attach next to no weight to the reference.
> >
>>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.
But, the treaty doesn't do that. It allows European tank mines with their
anti-tamper devices, but not American.
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.
>
Actually, part of the point is that few American land mines will remain.
There are two reasons for this. In an active campaign, smart mines will be
used. In the DMZ, the mine fields are mapped so that they can be removed.
Of all the mine deaths in a year, how many are from US mines?
It is not a coincidence that the number is low. While smart mines are not
100% effective, the fact that they blow themselves up or deactivate
themselves after 2 weeks or so significantly decreases
> When you combine the existence of "better" weapons nowadays (which make
> landmines obsolete)
But, those "better weapons" also include devices that are technically
mines.
, 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 exceptions.
>
Then why did this treaty have exemptions for the European mines and not
Americans. I am trying to find a reason other than trying to make the US
look bad. Could you please help by furnishing another explanation for
allowing European design anti-tamper devices for anti-tank mines, but not
American?
Dan M.
