Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

sapiens.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#91

Post by andyjohnson0 »

rippercushions wrote: post #53
raisin_churn wrote: post #27

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.

Sadly, the Ottawa Treaty is a meaningless bit of political theater. Precisely zero of the major mine producers & users (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, nearly the entire Middle East, etc) have signed up, and many of those that did, particularly in Eastern Europe, are having second thoughts after seeing what's happening in Ukraine (a signatory). The main issue is that by nature, the convention only "punishes" resp…

> Sadly, the Ottawa Treaty is a meaningless bit of political theater. [...] The main issue is that by nature, the convention only "punishes" responsible actors

Calling it "theatre" seems unnecessarily cynical. Couldn't you say the same about any legal/treaty constraints on state violence? E.g the Geneva Conventions or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Do you really think that all such agreements are futile?

Yes, irresponsible actors are not going to abide by by a landmine (or CW) ban, and yes there was an element of self-interest in creating them, but also I think a real recognition of the unnecessary suffering that they cause to civilians. I think thats something worth being a bit proud of.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#92

Post by grey413 »

rqtwteye wrote: post #74
sw104 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've owned multiple (fancy) rats as pets in my time. The species is somewhat split into domesticated and non-domesticated. My rats would probably never have survived in the wild (due to their appearance, sand/tuxedo coloured, instead of just gray/brown), and likewise wild rats wouldn't be possible to domesticate. There's quite a few videos on YouTube of the social skills they can develop. Quite amazing animals, but i…

“My rats would probably never have survived in the wild” I remember watching a video where they released some pet rats into the wild. They adapted very quickly and did well. These little buggers are very smart.

Most domesticated animals that I can think of do just fine when they're released into the wild. In fact, I don't think there's any domesticated animals out there that don't have a feral population running around somewhere.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#93

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

anikan_vader wrote: post #35
raisin_churn wrote: post #27

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…

Yes.

The US also has a voluntary ban on any submunitions with a greater than 1% dud rate. This forced the destruction of quite a bit of ordinance such as MLRS rockets with cluster warheads, huge stockpiles of 155 mm DPICM, etc. There's no question these weapons are devastatingly effective on the battlefield, but the US doesn't want to own the horrific aftermath.

So yeah, this is one area where the US is actually setting a good standard.

Also you see this pattern with quite a few similar treaties, where the US kinda wants to have its cake and eat it too, by not actually signing the treaty but adopting a similar or better standard voluntarily.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#94

Post by potta_coffee »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #93
anikan_vader wrote: post #35

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…

Yes. The US also has a voluntary ban on any submunitions with a greater than 1% dud rate. This forced the destruction of quite a bit of ordinance such as MLRS rockets with cluster warheads, huge stockpiles of 155 mm DPICM, etc. There's no question these weapons are devastatingly effective on the battlefield, but the US doesn't want to own the horrific aftermath. So yeah, this is one area where the US is actually sett…

It's ok if we kill a hundred thousand Iraqis, we just have to use bullets to do it.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#95

Post by some_random »

raisin_churn wrote: post #27

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.

Maybe we should use internet commenters who refuse to learn about a topic before casually suggesting we murder people over it?

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#96

Post by sbaiddn »

potta_coffee wrote: post #94
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The US also has a voluntary ban on any submunitions with a greater than 1% dud rate. This forced the destruction of quite a bit of ordinance such as MLRS rockets with cluster warheads, huge stockpiles of 155 mm DPICM, etc. There's no question these weapons are devastatingly effective on the battlefield, but the US doesn't want to own the horrific aftermath. So yeah, this is one area where the US is actually sett…

It's ok if we kill a hundred thousand Iraqis, we just have to use bullets to do it.

We dont like to be remembered of the War on Terror.

See we're fundamentally nice folks who make well meaning mistakes. So when we get out of a quagmire we should be immediately absolved of all culpability.

Unlike those dirty . They're fundamentally evil and we should remember all their sins going back centuries.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#97

Post by rippercushions »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #91
rippercushions wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, the Ottawa Treaty is a meaningless bit of political theater. Precisely zero of the major mine producers & users (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, nearly the entire Middle East, etc) have signed up, and many of those that did, particularly in Eastern Europe, are having second thoughts after seeing what's happening in Ukraine (a signatory). The main issue is that by nature, the convention only "punishes" resp…

> Sadly, the Ottawa Treaty is a meaningless bit of political theater. [...] The main issue is that by nature, the convention only "punishes" responsible actors Calling it "theatre" seems unnecessarily cynical. Couldn't you say the same about any legal/treaty constraints on state violence? E.g the Geneva Conventions or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Do you really think that all such agreements are futile? Yes, irres…

Pretty much everybody has signed up to Geneva Conventions and the Chemical Weapons Convention, so while not quite perfect, they're effective. For example, it's virtually impossible to buy chemical weapons, you need to DIY.

But when the Ottawa Treaty was being negotiated, the big boys made it very clear from the outset that they would not accept the terms, so it's been a dead letter since day one.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#98

Post by hollerith »

grey413 wrote: post #92
rqtwteye wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“My rats would probably never have survived in the wild” I remember watching a video where they released some pet rats into the wild. They adapted very quickly and did well. These little buggers are very smart.

Most domesticated animals that I can think of do just fine when they're released into the wild. In fact, I don't think there's any domesticated animals out there that don't have a feral population running around somewhere.

Cattle?

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#99

Post by pc86 »

bluGill wrote: post #85
Spooky23 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not when there is a war - generals can and likely will shoot senators. US generals are patriotic enough to not kill US senators, but foreign generals that the US might be fighting in the future will target senators.

This is a comment out of a fantasy world.

Re: Using rats to clear land mines in Cambodia

#100

Post by pc86 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #79
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #72

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.

It's not their call. A President has to sign a treaty for it to go to the Senate, and no US President has ever signed the land mine ban treaty.
Post reply on HN