Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump rescinded restrictions on the US military's ability to use landmines, weapons that have been banned by more than 160 countries due to their history of killing and wounding civilians, the White House said Friday.
"The President has canceled the Obama administration's policy to prohibit United States military forces from employing anti-personnel landmines outside of the Korean Peninsula," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.
"The Department of Defense has determined that restrictions imposed on American forces by the Obama Administration's policy could place them at a severe disadvantage during a conflict against our adversaries. The President is unwilling to accept this risk to our troops," she added...
The reason land mines have been used in so many conflicts is because they are extremely effective at restricting/stopping enemy movement.
If US landmines prevent a future draftee, some working-class adolescent male whose only crime was being male and healthy, from being slaughtered when his defensive position is overrun, the do-gooders of the world will just have to find something else to hang their halo on.
As usual, Trump is doing what is best for the young people that serve in our military.
US (not even under Obama) never ratified, or even signed, the Ottawa Treaty, and same is true with 32 other nations. This being the case, the US presidents can either go with it, it go against it. The usual suspects are in the no-sign list: China, Russia, Iran, US.
Considering that these mines will not remain as a long term threat, I would feel that the advanced technology has made landmines of this day and age to be completely different in terms of the historical problems.
I'm not seeing a logical discussion of how they are different despite that information being shared.
The result of three years of stalking the POTUS is that many of us have turned off the channel when someone says another thing he has done wrong....and yes it is their fault.
Considering that these mines will not remain as a long term threat, I would feel that the advanced technology has made landmines of this day and age to be completely different in terms of the historical problems.
I'm not seeing a logical discussion of how they are different despite that information being shared.
Some are designed to last decades, like the ones separating North and South Koreas, while others are not. If other types are designed to self-destruct, then the issues in Cambodia and Vietnam would not happen again. But think about it, if US had to re-do Vietnam war, would we use long term mines against Ho Chi Mihn trail, or mines which would have to be replaced every few months? It seems obvious we would want them to last as long as possible.
US (not even under Obama) never ratified, or even signed, the Ottawa Treaty, and same is true with 32 other nations. This being the case, the US presidents can either go with it, it go against it. The usual suspects are in the no-sign list: China, Russia, Iran, US.
Considering that these mines will not remain as a long term threat, I would feel that the advanced technology has made landmines of this day and age to be completely different in terms of the historical problems.
I'm not seeing a logical discussion of how they are different despite that information being shared.
Buried or hidden anti personnel mines are nasty by nature, as they dont have a specific target. Even a 30 day timer in one has flaws for a battlefield with a fast changing real estate nature.
Some are designed to last decades, like the ones separating North and South Koreas, while others are not. If other types are designed to self-destruct, then the issues in Cambodia and Vietnam would not happen again. But think about it, if US had to re-do Vietnam war, would we use long term mines against Ho Chi Mihn trail, or mines which would have to be replaced every few months? It seems obvious we would want them to last as long as possible.
If they have a self-destruct mechanism, it is no doubt handled through some sort of computer setting. thus we could set them for a month, a year etc.
Next, with GPS mappings should the conflict end then we can fairly easily clear those mine fields if they still have a fair bit of "time on the clock" so to speak.
Thanks for discussing the issue.
I think a lot of people too often take political positions on topics and we all know that administrations come and go.
Clinton decided to not sign it because the other big dogs didn't sign. Bush and Obama also did not sign, and I can only assume the reason was the same. Obama can say he supports it, but without a signature & ratification, the door was left open to use landmines if need be. Not sure why Trump felt compelled to make this announcement, since the door was already open to use them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
