81–90 of 132 posts
This being on the front page at the same time as "The Army tried to develop a missile guided by pigeons" is...interesting [0]. Looks like militaries are having fun using animals for warfare. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33779361
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why the blame would rest on the political side. Yes, they are the ones who would ratify the treaty, but I'm sure they would be happy to do so unless the DOD was whispering in their ear (or shouting) that it would damage their warfighting capabilities. Maybe there are some special interests too but I'm skeptical the industry is big enough to have that kind of pull, whereas SecDef telling a Senator on SASC…
The Democrats are for the treaty, so the Republicans are against it, just to own the libs, no matter what the cost or consequences or morality, regardless of the facts or anything based on reality or science or humanity. >2014: The United States under President Barack Obama mostly accepted the terms of the treaty by ceasing to acquire anti-personnel land mines and prohibiting their use outside of the Korean Peninsula…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting idea, although I think the US is actually ahead of the curve on mines. From Wikipedia: >> Opponents point out that the Ottawa Convention places no restriction whatsoever on anti-vehicle mines which kill civilians on tractors, on school buses, etc. The position of the United States is that the inhumane nature of landmines stems not from whether they are anti-personnel as opposed to antivehicle but from…
Well, my comment was highly abbreviated for the sake of pithiness, but US ratification of the treaty would be more meaningful than the US simply not employing landmines itself. (NB While I place all the blame on senators for not ratifying it, technically no US president has signed it, so the Senate hasn't actually had the opportunity to ratify, but Senate leaders have made their opposition clear for decades so they d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better idea is to just get rid of mines entirely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
These treaties are largely useless because certain large powers refuse to sign them. Sure, it's nice if Switzerland or Norway signs such a treaty, but that doesn't exactly change anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why the blame would rest on the political side. Yes, they are the ones who would ratify the treaty, but I'm sure they would be happy to do so unless the DOD was whispering in their ear (or shouting) that it would damage their warfighting capabilities. Maybe there are some special interests too but I'm skeptical the industry is big enough to have that kind of pull, whereas SecDef telling a Senator on SASC…
Senators > Generals. The Senate has a lot of power and is insulated from the electorate in such a way as an issue like this is not a threat to them. For whatever reason, the leaders who control what makes it to the Senate floor did not send it there. They own that - it’s their call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why the blame would rest on the political side. Yes, they are the ones who would ratify the treaty, but I'm sure they would be happy to do so unless the DOD was whispering in their ear (or shouting) that it would damage their warfighting capabilities. Maybe there are some special interests too but I'm skeptical the industry is big enough to have that kind of pull, whereas SecDef telling a Senator on SASC…
The Democrats are for the treaty, so the Republicans are against it, just to own the libs, no matter what the cost or consequences or morality, regardless of the facts or anything based on reality or science or humanity. >2014: The United States under President Barack Obama mostly accepted the terms of the treaty by ceasing to acquire anti-personnel land mines and prohibiting their use outside of the Korean Peninsula…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All US landmines now self-destruct in two days or less, in most cases four hours. Supremely commendable, but it does seem remarkably short windows. I do wonder what troops on the ground, in 'busy', and highly stategic defensive positions, feel about having to re-lay the same mines every two days, let alone four hours: surely the enemy could take severe advantage?
I'd imagine that this simply means that the DoD expects to use them tactically as opposed to strategically in the field
I would prefer to use US senators who refuse to ratify the Mine Ban Convention. They won't need any particular skills or training, just have them wander around possible UXO sites until they find one with their foot. The great thing about this is, US senators are a 100% renewable resource.
An interesting idea, although I think the US is actually ahead of the curve on mines. From Wikipedia: >> Opponents point out that the Ottawa Convention places no restriction whatsoever on anti-vehicle mines which kill civilians on tractors, on school buses, etc. The position of the United States is that the inhumane nature of landmines stems not from whether they are anti-personnel as opposed to antivehicle but from…
I had several thoughts while reading this article. > Cambodia is contaminated with millions of unexploded ordnances dropped as cluster bombs by the U.S. during the Vietnam War. In addition, millions of land mines were buried throughout the country during a series of civil wars from the 1970s–1990s. Millions. I can't process numbers that large. I know what a million is, but I struggle to imagine what a million land mi…
> I didn't know dogs were used to clear mines. I would have thought they would be too heavy to walk on mines, considering that mines can kill children, and military working dogs have a weight comparable to children. Remember that a dog almost always has two of its paws on the ground. Forgiving for dynamics, if a 50lb child is walking, it could place all 50lbs on a trigger. A 50lb dog should only be able to place 25lb…
I've no idea what it takes to trigger a mine, and I don't know if it would be enough, but a dog can press down harder than you'd expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd imagine that this simply means that the DoD expects to use them tactically as opposed to strategically in the field
Right but if enemy takes the terrain do you really want it to be "clear" off mines in a day or two coz they self-detonated ?
If someone is sitting next to the minefield waiting for mines to expire, they're not doing as many other soldier-y tasks like shooting people.