Obama Administration Will Not Sign Land Mine Ban

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(11-24) 13:54 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international treaty banning land mines.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly says the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.

More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/24/national/w135403S69.DTL

[FiveGoodMen]

1. This goddamn Bush administration has to go. Out with the lot of them!

What? Really?

Oh.

[TheWraith]

6. Did you bother to check out the question of WHY we aren't signing it?

One word: Korea. We own pretty much the world's largest single minefield, sitting in the Korean DMZ, which is one of the first lines of defense against ground invasion from North Korea. Without that, it's 30,000 US troops against 2 million North Korean troops, which is not winnable.

It's previously been US policy that we would sign the ban if an exemption were made for the already deployed landmines in the DMZ. No joy.

[MNDemNY]

10. Nonsense.

The "trip wires" in Korea are tactical nukes.Believe it.

[TheWraith]

11. You think the US would seriously use tactical nukes in a first strike situation?

That's against established US policy, which only allows for the use of nuclear weapons to preempt a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on the US or it's allies.

Not to mention the idea that we'd nuke NK for shits and giggles is just massively ridiculous.

[kiapolo]

19. Against established policy?

Where did you make up that policy? The United States has been pretty much the only country that will has not ruled a first strike for Nukes. The original thought for that policy was to stop an advancing Soviet military from rolling over Western europe. We would drop nukes on the advancing forces to put a stop to a Soviet roll over or Western Europe. The Current justification for a first strike is in Korea. It's a MADD policy to keep N.K. from nuking and invading S. Korea. Some hint at even the first strike policy being used to protect Taiwan (trade Chicago for Taipei?)... The US has never officially taken first strike off the table...

[gleaner]

34. You are right ...

and most recently Bush claimed a nuclear first strike by the US as a "right" in retaliation for a terrorist attack, or the threat of an attack anywhere. That was one of the many things he wanted to do to Iran. I have never heard the government repudiate this policy, so presumably it is still in place.

I see you seem to be new, so welcome to DU:hi:

[TheWraith]

73. You are badly wrong on almost all points.

The ONLY nuclear-capable country with an unambiguous policy of "no first use" is India. The US, Russia, China, UK, France, and Pakistan have all pledged "defensive use only," for invasion of their territory or preempting an NBC attack on themselves or their allies. Take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#Countries_pledging_only_to_use_nuclear_weapons_defensively

[liberation]

77. I think you need to invest in a dictionary and find out what the term "preemtive" means

as in "...pre-empting an NBC attack on themselves..."

You can find plenty of free word reference sites on the internet if a dictionary is out of your means.

[Psephos]

122. Irony: scolding about using a dictionary and misspelling "preemptive" in the same sentence.

"You can find plenty of free word reference sites on the internet if a dictionary is out of your means." ;)

[poverlay]

99. Wait: NBC if going to attack us? What about CBS and ABC? I hope SyFy stays neutral...... Sorry..

I just couldn't resist.
I will now submit to the inevitable groans, forehead smacks, and spankings. ("Yes you must give us all a good spanking!")

...
I will go take my medication now..apologies...

[jberryhill]

125. Didn't the USSR have an unequivocal no first use policy?

[DissedByBush]

290. We considered nuclear first strike for a while

Not first strike to start a war, but first strike in reaction to the Soviets striking first conventionally.

The Soviet Union had massive armies built up along the borders against Germany, and their strategy was basically to steamroll across Europe in a wave of armor and infantry that could not be stopped by conventional means.

We considered tactical nukes to stop such an advance. This is what the Lance missile with the "neutron bomb" was meant for.

We dumped that by the 80s in favor of a strategy to hold them off until reinforcements could arrive or it could be stopped through diplomacy.

But we both probably would have used nukes if it looked like the other side would win conventionally.

[green917]

126. Maybe you should study some history

We are the ONLY nation who has ever dropped a nuclear weapon on another nation. I know that it could be argued that it was in retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor but, the reality of the situation is that, it's widely believed that we were forewarned of the Pearl Harbor attack and that Emperor Hirohito was preparing to surrender and we dropped those bombs, a.) to see what they would do (some of the scientists in the program were vehemently opposed to their deployment because they thought it may detonate or extinguish the atmosphere) and b.) to send a foreign policy message to the rest of the world that we, the USA, were the cock on the block and not to be trifled with.

We talk a good game where non-proliferation is concerned but we're still the ONLY nation who has ever used a nuclear weapon on another nation, a stigma we will never escape, and we're one of a very few who have threatened pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in recent years.

[niyad]

132. amazing how people seem to forget that little fact--and the fact that we have the largest stockpile

of nukes and other weapons of mass destruction in the entire world.

[sudopod]

225. Well, Russia still has more numerically

but yeah, the difference between three-thousand and four-thousand nuclear bombs going off probably wouldn't matter much to anyone involved.

[Adsos Letter]

134. "we're still the ONLY nation who has ever used a nuclear weapon on another nation,"

and that is probably because we were the only ones who had one at that time.

Had the Soviets had one before the US, I have no doubt they would have used it on Germany; same for Germany on any of the Allied powers during WWII; same for Japan, against the US carrier fleets in the Pacific. We used them because we knew we could do so without fear of retaliation.

I agree with your points about seeing what they could do, and of demonstrating our new power; I seem to recall that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two different terrain-type targets (one on relatively flat terrain, and the other in a bowl-shaped valley), and we definitely wanted to send a message to the Soviets about further advances into Europe.

[No Elephants]

208. Hypotheticals vs. fact. And the fact remains that using them is wrong.

[eqfan592]

245. Then or now?

I'll agree about now, but if you're a study of history you'd understand that the use of them at the end of WW2 prevented the need for a land invasion of the mainland of Japan, which would have been FAR more costly for all parties involved in terms of human lives lost (estimates for American casualties alone for Operation Downfall, and 10's of millions for the Japanese). As much as people today hate to believe it I'm sure, dropping the bombs saved far more lives in the long run than they ended.

[Adsos Letter]

260. Hypotheticals? So why was Germany trying to produce their own atomic weapon?

And do you seriously believe that either Japan or Germany would not have used them had they had them? Was their conduct of the war so morally pure?
And do you really think the Soviets wouldn't have used one against the Germans, especially after what the Germans did in Russia? Or even the Chinese, after Japan's behavior on Chinese soil?

And the "fact" is, however much I might agree with your opinion about their use, it remains an opinion still. A sane opinion, but not quite a "fact."

[TheWraith]

144. And here you go, repeating more myths.

"the reality of the situation is that, it's widely believed that we were forewarned of the Pearl Harbor attack"

No. There were warning signs, yes, but the difference between poor communication and "forewarned" is the difference between a lightning bug and lightning.

"Emperor Hirohito was preparing to surrender and we dropped those bombs"

No. That is a simple myth. The Japanese military had made an offer of armistice on the conditions of no occupation, that they be solely responsible for de-mobilization, and that they be solely responsible for any war crimes trials. In other words, about as far from any definition of the word "surrender" as you could credibly get.

"(some of the scientists in the program were vehemently opposed to their deployment because they thought it may detonate or extinguish the atmosphere)"

NOBODY seriously believed that. If they did, then the Trinity test would never have happened.

[green917]

153. That doesn't change the main, salient point of my original post

Regardless of why we dropped the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we did drop them knowing, within some amount of certainty that, in doing so, we would kill MANY MANY Japanese civilians. This does NOT jibe too well with the post that I responded to that we would defer to our statements of not using them blah blah blah. The fact remains, we ARE the only nation who has ever dropped a nuclear weapon on another nation. I happen to agree with another responder to my comment that that was partly because we were the only ones who had one at the time but, it doesn't change the fact that since that day, we have never stopped stockpiling more of those weapons (even after the fall of the Soviet Union and multiple Presidents making platitudes about reducing their numbers in the world at large) or developing new kinds that are more powerful and more deadly. I may have leant more credence to some theories that I have read in my post but, I think my main point was spot on and I'm sticking to it. We have NO amount of moral high ground on this issue and the fact that we act like we do is just one of the many things that make other groups in the world hate us and want to harm us.

[Theobald]

177. So most of the things you said in your orginal

statement were factually incorrect, but that somehow doesn't change the 'main salient' point of your original post; how so?

Was it your 'main salient' point to point out that dropping the bombs would kill lots of people; then why didn't you say that?

Do you realize the convential bombing of Tokyo and Dresden killed more people than the nuclear bombs did? How does tht affect your point? Does that mean the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were worse? Did you know that the leadership was well aware that firebombing Tokyo and Dresden would result in the killing of MANY, MANY, Japanese and German civilians. Do you realize that Germany executed more people in ovens then we killed people with the nuclear bombs. Do you realize that Mao and Kim Il Jung killed more people through starvation then we ever killed with nuclear bombs.

You didn't lend credence to some theories, you spouted theories that are patently false.

[BillDU]

197. Yes

A stigma yes.
Also a forewarning.

[DissedByBush]

I've never heard the retaliation argument

I have heard that we didn't want hundreds of thousands of US casualties and millions of Japanese casualties should an invasion be necessary to end WWII.

If I remember correctly, Stalin knew Hirohito was wanting to surrender but kept it from us. He wanted us to use it so he could invade from his side and gain more territory without having to worry about losing to the Japanese again.

[Garam_Masala]

152. The only known nuclear power missing from that list is....

Israel.

[MNDemNY]

20. If a full scale invasion is launched from the North,

it is hardly a "first strike" scenario, But, rest assured that if such an invasion happens it will be met by tactical "battlefield" nukes, delivered by Army artillery pieces, by command of the commander in theater, they do not even have to wake the president up. No shit.Our whole defense position in RKO is premised on this.

[jberryhill]

26. That May Be Stated Doctrine....

...but there's not a lot of margin between Seoul and the DMZ. They have to be held at the line.

[MNDemNY]

28. And you think mines will do that???

[jberryhill]

37. This may come as a surprise....

...but I am not in charge of the Korean security situation.

[MNDemNY]

41. Nor, thankfully, am I.

:)

[MattBaggins]

188. Yes

[Lagomorph]

278. They've been doing it since 1953...

NK has tried to tunnel under the DMZ many times, there must be something in the DMZ they are afraid of.

[RedCloud]

33. The North Koreans would be blinded by all that bling from capitalism.

That would stop them! Dead in their tracks. Now shut up and get back to your sweat shops.

[pokercat999]

219. The first target by NK forces may be the mess tents. nt

[semillama]

247. That's it!

We'll just replace the minefield with a continuous strip mall of McDonald's, Burger Kings and Taco Bells! They'll never get through!

[DissedByBush]

229. We don't have those anymore

The Army had retired all of its artillery and short-range rocket tactical nukes by the 1990s.

We would rely on the Air Force and Navy for any nuclear delivery.

[boppers]

282. W79 and W82 were retired in 1992...

B53, 61, 83 still in our bombs/stockpile, as are W80, W87 and W88.

[DissedByBush]

284. The last deployable nuclear system the Army had

Was the Lance, deactivated in 1992. The last of the W70 warhead it used was destroyed in the 90s. Although I think the 8" round went out around that time or before.

[BillDU]

287. Not so sure about that.

It gets down to what real estate is sacraficeable.
I personally wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

[IndianaGreen]

35. It has been US policy to use tactical nukes since Reagan deployed Pershings to Europe

and that policy has not been changed.

[TheWraith]

74. Not for a first strike against non-nuclear forces.

Missile gamesmanship against the Soviet Union is a slightly different thing than the Korean situation, no?

[choie]

86. I don't fucking believe this!!

We're not going to sign the land-mine treaty because of ....North Korea????? Do we not do ANYTHING because it's just plain moral anymore????

[TheWraith]

105. We've made clear we're happy to pass it as long as there's an exemption for the existing DMZ.

Currently, passing it would require us to hunt down the 1,000,000 plus landmines that form the first wave of defense from North Korea. That's simply not practical.

[jberryhill]

117. I did not know that

That would be reasonable.

I was in Seoul a few weeks ago. It is a wonderful place. And then you notice the gas mask lockers at the subway stations.

[No Elephants]

209. And if other nations wanted exceptions as well, the treaty would be a joke.

You seem to think having a rationale--any rationale-- for doing the wrong thing makes doing it right.

[DissedByBush]

292. Ask yourself what the purpose of the ban is

The ban is to prevent the horrific toll on innocent civilian populations.

Our mines in the DMZ are in a restricted area. No civilians are allowed.

The locations are also recorded if we ever need to clean them up.

Our use of the mines is perfectly within the intent of the treaty.

There is no reason not to have the exemption.

Frankly, I am more worried about our use of cluster bombs, which over the course of a war can leave thousands of unexploded munitions strewn throughout an area.

[jberryhill]

111. I dunno

Keeping 2 million soldiers on their side of the line, with the ultimate goal of preventing combat until the North Korean government rots from within is not the most immoral objective in the world.

Around the world, land mines have wreaked a lot of civilian havoc. In Korea, they seem to be an important component of keeping peace. There is no good reason for anyone to go wandering off into the DMZ, so it is something of a special case.

[Better Believe It]

131. Landmines for Peace! What a novel idea. How about nukes for peace or war is peace?

Hey, let's change the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense!

Oh .... that's already been done.

Well, we could change the name of the Department of Defense to the Peace Department!

[jberryhill]

137. Until such time as NK has rational leadership, what do you suggest?

[eqfan592]

246. How about moronic strawmen for peace?

Seriously, if you can't be rational, then don't even bother posting.

[No Elephants]

210. Your last sentence makes the best point yet. I don't know if I am convinced yet, but

that is a good point.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Actually, I don't think that's accurate.

I don't know if it's been spelled out that we would use nukes pre-emptively or in retaliation to a purely conventional attack by a country with no nukes at all, but we have reserved the right to use nukes pre-emptively, or in response to any sort of NBC attack.

A purely conventional foe is just sort of not talked about.

[jberryhill]

103. No, we never made a no first strike pledge because.....

Up through the 1980's, the soviets could roll more tanks into Germany than we could stop by conventional means. One of the points of the neutron bomb was to obtain greater lethality for a lower explosive yield in order to counter a tank invasion.

Part of the gamesmanship was for the Soviets to tout their non first use pledge because they knew they had conventional superiority in Europe.

[MNDemNY]

212. No you are wrong, as I said,they do not even have to wake the President before using tacnuks.

We're not talking ICBM's here, these are small (relatively) nuclear war heads fired by artillery pieces.

[angrycaveman]

119. Reagan didn't deploy Pershings, he deployed the Pershing II

which really scared the bejesus out of the Soviet regime as the PII could actually reach Moscow from Germany. The P1 had a much shorter and less accurate range.

The Pershings were originally deployed in the 60s. I was stationed in Neu Ulm from 83-87 right as we transitioned to the PII.

[Adsos Letter]

140. And I was an artillery Forward Observer with a howitzer battery in 2 ACR in the mid-1970's...

one of the two Armored Cav regiments on border duty in W. Germany; we regularly went through special maneuvers for tube-delivered tactical nukes against Warsaw Pact forces. And, I do believe (we were always told this, anyway, and I think archival discoveries following reunification would back it up) that Warsaw Pact forces were willing to use tactical nukes in any invasion scenario.

We were always given the impression that a general ground war in Europe would involve tactical nuclear and chemical weapons.

[angrycaveman]

176. Nukes and Chem Warfare are what we trained for...

imagine my disappointment when I learn the Ready to lauch missles on the pad at CAS site only had concrete warheads for all those years!!!

[DissedByBush]

291. The nuke policy existed long before Reagan n/t

[subsuelo]

143. Excuses excuses

[MattBaggins]

186. We will use tactical nukes ina defensive posture

which is what we are doing on the DMZ. You might be thinking of strategic nukes? Our Artillery Batteries are equipped with baby nukes and we would use them on that DMZ if the doctrine is the same as it was in the 80s and 90s.

[Go2Peace]

192. You know what our defense was against USSR invasion of Germany? Nuclear waste and a bomb.

I have a friend who was stationed there. Our deterent was a huge radioactive waste area rigged to be exploded and contaminate the entire region if Russia tried to come in. Not saying whether that was a good idea or not, I certainly doubt the local population would have appreciated it had they known. But our people have no idea the kinds of twisted approaches we use in other countries.

[rhett o rick]

265. "Against established policy"? LOL. Like that would ever stop us.

What was our "established policy" regarding an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation?

[AllentownJake]

14. Well General Wraith

I guess a concerted shelling of the DMZ zone wouldn't clear a path in a day

:rofl:

[MNDemNY]

22. Any "mine field" is well past it's usefulness.

[No Elephants]

214. If that is so, how come the POTUS seems unaware of that?

Just trying to understand.

[nashville_brook]

268. word.

[Bigmack]

23. Allentown... and Wraith, too, I suppose...

We don't need mines... we could just build this massive, miles-long series of fortifications that would totally stop any invasion from the north. We could call it the "Obama Line". It would solve all the problems along the DMZ.

A big WWI, :sarcasm: intended.

[AllentownJake]

25. If you have a giant DMZ and you fill it with buried explosives

I'm pretty sure the enemy has figure it out and can develop a good counter measure. One of those being, shelling the fuck out of the area,

Of course you are also dealing with an enemy that would have no problem marching peasants into the field to detonate the mines and clear a path for soldiers.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Actually, the mines we use are a bit more sophisticated than you seem to think.

For instance, we can remotely turn them off, and back on again.

But overall, the concern is misplaced, I agree. The North has so much artillery pointed into downtown Seoul, one barrage would pretty much destroy the city, and the nation's economy. Most of the city is within 50km of the border, and is well within the range of the Korskan gun, to say nothing of MLRS rockets.

They'd lose the war, but they could promptly destroy the city if they chose to.
No one is under any illusion the north couldn't brute force it's way through the DMZ, the idea is they would be unable to sustain any such advance to anything resembling a victory, like holding territory in a land grab.

[AllentownJake]

67. I had a friend in college who was stationed there for the airforce

Whether what he told me is true or not, I have no way of knowing, but he said that if they decided to invade it was common knowledge every American along the DMZ would be dead rather quickly and for those that survived the initial attack suicide was the best option considering what the North did to Americans they captured in the 50s. It was not believed their sense of morals regarding prisoner treatment had evolved in the past 30 years.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Sounds pretty realistic to me.

I dunno about suicide, as long as you have life, you have a chance, but the US and SK Air Forces would have to respond so fast, and with such a large hammer, your chances of survival as even a well-treated prisoner would still be pretty bad.

[liberation]

80. Any North Korean leader thinking of looking at the DMZ the wrong way knows ...

it would be the end of Pyongyang as they know it.

I am sure the possibility of having "Crazy Mr. Kim's glass parking lot emporium" is not a sensible business proposition.

[jberryhill]

128. The key word being "sensible"

There may be some degree of pragmatism, but North Korea is a study in abnormal psychology.

Fortunately, the supply of psychotic dictators has run low in the last couple of decades, but the Kims are pretty far out there, and their "citizens" are driven to neurosis by the self control required to simply get along.

[MattBaggins]

190. Mr Kim is a useful tool

The instant he really started getting stupid, his Generals would off him in minutes.

[Moochy]

301. Useful to the Military Industrial Complex's bottom line.

Most Importantly.

[Demeter]

29. Or we Could Invest In REAL Nation-Building

as opposed to window-dressing for corporate looting/

[Bigmack]

47. Way to go, buzzkill....

we were all over here getting chubbies thinking about all that nifty military shit, and you come along with some kind of civilized
Maybe that shit you are talking about works in some You-ro-pee-an country, but not in the good ol' US of A. We know that might - and hot military technology - makes right.

[Demeter]

55. I think I've been Paid a Compliment! Thanks!

I think...

[Bigmack]

85. Yup... nt

[The Green Manalishi]

236. That could be dangerous, hell it might even mitigate all the

media created outrage over the Somali pirates if we tried it there!

[TheWraith]

81. Depends on how you define a "path."

Narrow tunnel through the DMZ for attacking forces to cross? Yes. A safe logistical route? HELL no. For starters, "dud" artillery shells can be far more dangerous than mines, and you are NOT going to be able to destroy all the mines in even a small chunk of the DMZ via artillery strikes. You could get a "cleaner" path by increasing the ratio of artillery to area, but that means a smaller and smaller path for attacking soldiers to follow, not to mention the question of making it difficult bordering on impossible to get supply vehicles across.

[jberryhill]

129. Supply vehicles

Well... they probably don't plan to bring food, at least. There's more on the south side when they get there.

[MattBaggins]

191. Pop and Drops

that's the way to clear a minefield

[MattBaggins]

189. And as soon as those artillery shells started hitting the DMZ

our tactical nukes would start falling on them. So the minefield would slow them down.

[sudopod]

228. Yes, that sounds about like the expected timeline in such a scenario..

If NK attacks, all our guys in SK are done for. They are there to hold on just long enough for us to mount a real counterstrike. A day or two or three at most is as long as they could be expected to hold.

[DissedByBush]

230. That would be great

Since we have systems that track shells back to their origin and relay the location to computer-guided counter-artillery.

The mines are mainly there for a surprise full-scale infantry attack.

Did you know we are also using automatic machine gun sentries? They will shoot at anything moving in the DMZ.

[katandmoon]

62. Where is that mentioned in the article? No reason is given.

The Obama Administration obviously doesn't think it owes anybody an explanation. The arrogance continues to grow.

[TheWraith]

76. It's basic knowledge of geopolitics. Which you apparently don't care about...

...so long as you get to spout Freeper talking points about "Obama's arrogance."

[jberryhill]

130. It's been the same reason for years /nt

[grahamhgreen]

69. OK, then let's pull 200,000 troops from Iraqistan and put em in Korea! another easy solution!

[TheWraith]

78. The troops would enjoy that, I'm sure...

Since South Korea is by most accounts a fairly decent place to be stationed, and infinitely better than "the sandbox." Nobody shooting at you, for one thing. However, it's much cheaper to keep the established defenses we've built, and the relatively low troop levels. Most of those US troops in South Korea aren't there as a serious military deterrent to the North Koreans, since they outnumber us roughly 66 to 1, but to emphasize that any invasion of South Korea would be an attack on the US as well.

[jberryhill]

133. In the event of an attack, the ROK army is automatically under US command

The US attachment will be the command structure.

200k troops... Itaewon will have to build a couple more Hooker Hills.

[greengestalt]

72. I disagree, at least on the usefulness

However, I've actually talked to vets from Korea.
It's a waste. A pathetic, deadly, murderous waste.


They had the same thing about minefields, they really agreed with the lampooning of it in M.A.S.H. like Winchester shooting a bird and dropping it hits a mine, though they are in the middle of nowhere.


But in the RL war they had good minefields. The Chinese who were backing the N. Koreans then did this: They had an army march one after another, each in the footsteps of the guy ahead of him. Sure, some got killed by mines, but nothing compared to what would have been if they'd run willy-nilly all over the minefield. They lost far more from enemy fire, but kept marching. One guy I knew who was there shot a machine gun all day and when he was out of ammo and water to cool his gun, he just had orders to scuttle and run.


The Chinese have actually mellowed out a bit from their "Slave Society" (The Emperors) days. There was one battle where they faced an entrenched opponent (I think a revolting provence) and made a show of "We do not need this many troops to deal with you" and had at least 1000 kill themselves on the spot in perfect precision. It worked, the enemy panicked and instead of at least making a "300 Spartans" worthy stand that would have gotten the general beheaded (if he was lucky) they cut them all to bits with far less casualties overall than expected.


Mines are a waste, but they are still a cash cow to the "Merchants of Death" and the big companies of the "Military Industrial Complex".

[caseymoz]

83. Not winnable? South Korea fields an army there too.

And probably not an army that should be forgotten.

I'll admit the reason for refusing this ban is probably exactly because of our troops are in the DMZ. Which means that plenty of other people have to die because we have 30,000 troops in Korea doing nothing but enforcing our colonial interest and making nuclear war more likely.

[TheWraith]

148. We're not preventing anyone else from signing on to ban landmines.

Nor are we using them anywhere else.

[caseymoz]

248. It isn't a contingency for our military commanders to use them elsewhere?

It's likely in our military plans, and there's likely one or two warehouses stockpiled with landmines for just such a contingency. It certainly does keep the product line going with major arms-dealers. So does having to maintain the DMZ. Only the signing the treaty would prevent this.

As a final note, I don't know, I thought the US should be somewhat in the forefront of humane treaties; I mean, since torture by another name is almost the official policy now. I'm looking for encouraging signs on this front, I don't see them.

I'm also looking for us to stop fighting the f*cking Cold War, and to stop having a Cold War military. I don't see that.

[hack89]

215. We are there to keep South Korea from building nuclear weapons

they have the 6th largest army in the world - they can stop a conventional attack. But any such attack would kill millions - it is US nuclear weapons that help deter such an attack. Without US troops South Korea would have nukes in a heart beat.

Our withdrawal would make war much more likely.

[caseymoz]

249. It is impossible that our withdrawal will make war much more likely.

The Koreans are still culturally, one people. I really think movement on our part will cause movement on their part. It has been almost 60 years now. How much longer do we continue to fight the Cold War? If need be, why not "loan" South Korea a few nukes under our guard if we want to prevent it from building any? I mean, we have about 11,000, don't we?

[hack89]

250. It is simply a waiting game until North Korea collapses

I don't think we have to do anything.

We don't loan nukes - you really think the US government would give South Korea permission to use our nukes when they felt like it? Don't think so.

[caseymoz]

275. Problems don't always go away.

Sometimes they fester, and sometimes they fester until there is a disaster.

I perceive that North Korea's leadership has a survivalist mentality, which they have instilled in their people. A bit like a whole country of Branch Davidians. It isn't going to fall until the fear they have is somehow reduced.

I know we don't loan nukes, but that's different from saying that we can't. There needs to be some outside-the-box thinking here. Which is worse, having more built that we can't control or having the same number that we have some control and monitoring over?

If it's too radical, we can nuclear subs next to Korea and use that and keep control over them.

I still think it's impossible that our troops are keeping the peace there. And as this treaty shows, it has ramifications that go beyond the Korean peninsula.

[hack89]

277. Our troops are a nuclear trip wire

we are keeping the peace.

[caseymoz]

286. Your opinion on this is dependent on your understanding of human nature.

And the fact is, we completely misunderstood it throughout the entire Cold War. When, from the beginning, we found the Soviet Union impenetrable for intelligence, we guessed wrong. We guessed that the Soviet Union had far more aggressive designs than it ever did, and that it was far more capable than it ever was. Those continual bad guesses have cost us dearly, in lives, in wealth, and in the distortion to our political process with the military-industrial complex and its professional hawks, and the full bill hasn't even come yet.

But the point is, we won't persuade each other unless we agree on the basis behind our points of view. I sense the difference is somewhat deeper than what we can argue on this particular subject.

[hack89]

288. All those people in Eastern Europe would question your characterization

of the Soviet Union.

[caseymoz]

289. What? You think I'm not saying the Soviet Union wasn't an extremely bad state.

It was a horror of the modern world. My point was, the Soviet Union was not going to expand any further, was not going to attack into Western Europe, as the Reagan administration was once convinced. The major reason for those states Eastern Europe were as buffer states against attack. They became an obsolete strategy though, with the invention of the ICBM, but nobody in that frightful system was brave enough to even propose letting them go.

In the remaining days of Stalin, the Soviet Union was too weak to expand-- a secret that the Soviet Union kept very well hidden. The USSR had created a climate of terror that made it good at keeping secrets. One thing Stalin did in the murderous rampage of his career was terrorize people against even thinking out of line. He did this by imprisoning and murdering the innocent under all kinds of pretenses of conspiracies that those close to them knew weren't true. People rightfully thought that they'd better give no sign of even the smallest dissent.

Even before he died, the government of the Soviet Union had ground to a halt, and after he died, it is clear he had broken it beyond repair. There were attempts to reform the broken system. First, apparently by Beria, who was executed; and then by Khrushchev-- who was removed and put under house arrest. Those remaining were too suspicious of each other to cooperate with change, all of them had collaborated with Stalin during the purges. Really, he had discredited communism among the remainder of its true believers in the government. All that was left for them was permanent fear of what used to be their best friends.

While this was the reality, what we thought we saw the Soviet Union expanding into places where there was actually no influence by Soviet agents, (though in a few cases, there were some freelance Marxist, and in more cases, people bribed by the CIA to proclaim Marxism to justify covert actions) which caused us to make disastrous coups and support some brutal kleptocracies, some of which were as bad as Eastern Europe, and were then militarized to the teeth to fight struggles that were many times just people rising up against their brutal regime.

There were a few that received major Soviet support-- after our attempts to destroy them, like Cuba and Vietnam. Some nations, like Indonesia had major attempted coups against them, by overzealous CIA agents, when the government and head of state was overwhelmingly pro-American. We were defeated there. We succeeded in replacing the government in Iran simply on the excuse that its head of state wasn't tough enough to resist communism, not that he was communist. We totally ruined Central America for 50 years putting tyrants in control and driving the overthrow of democratically elected governments, and if you know the details, it's perfectly accurate to say we drove them. Bribery was our major strategy.

Almost all of this was done by guesswork. There were few cases where there was any evidence of any Soviet involvement, and archives reveal that in almost all cases there definitely wasn't. The most you could say is the killing and oppression wasn't as bad as the Soviet Union-- for people cursed to live under it. And I'm not saying that the it was the reason, but in almost all cases the coups the good for private industry at home. Getting business concessions from the people we put in was standard practice. People living in those countries have, with justification, identified us as colonizers and see their governments as puppet states.

All of this damaged the US' reputation abroad, before we followed it with our actions after 9/11. Our Cold War stance still costs us trainloads of wealth, though it has enriched corporate interests quite successfully, and these corporations have shown their gratitude by moving abroad. It has corrupted our political system. The president wouldn't have been able to grab unconstitutional powers if we hadn't already conceded to the necessity when it involved our Cold War "allies."

What interests do we have in the Korean peninsula now that the Cold War is over? Maybe there are business interests, but if there are, our government is subsidizing business with 30,000 troops and a heightened chance of nuclear war.

The Soviet Union might have fallen, but we shouldn't count on that with our enemies in every case. Fate might award our patience with North Korea sitting there for the next century, as it uses brinkmanship to get them supplies when they reach a crisis, which is apparently what has been happening.

We should solve this problem.

[14thColony]

84. You mean 30K US troops PLUS

50 (Fifty!) ROK Army divisions, 20 of which are at full readiness at all times, and which are the same size and have much the same equipment as equivalent US Army divisions. Not to mention the ROKAF could single-handedly take out the NKAF in about 24 hrs.

Everyone seems to still think it's 1950 and there's no ROK Army. Maybe it's those 13 years of M*A*S*H or something.

I was at USFK HQ 2001-2002, and even back then nobody on the staff seriously believed North Korea would ever invade the south, or if it did that it would stand the slightest chance in hell. Our estimate was a max penetration of about 50km south of the DMZ, and that would be at the cost of most of the attacking forces. We figured we'd be counter-attacking north of the DMZ by D+10 latest.

Maybe in 1969 the minefields meant something. In 2009 they serve little purpose given the sheer weight of firepower that would be brought to bear on the NKA. Maybe we just don't want the headache of trying to find 50 years worth of mines?

[vaberella]

118. The real problem is not all this military. But "Why the admin would continue a Bush Policy?"

And it's mainly because there is more going on. The secondary military you mention on top of a 30,000 is problematic for the most part. People don't want to send in more troops but NK is a threat and always will be---especialy when their deploying practice bombs and stuff.

[jberryhill]

135. It's not a "Bush Policy"

Our posture in ROK hasn't changed for a long, long time.

[Jkid]

108. How many troops south koreans have?

South Korea has a military.

[vaberella]

116. Their military is weird.

On reserve they have 4.5 million----thing is this counts older men and EVERY male in he nation since military service is required. However on active duty only about 680+K That's nothing. SK would be taken out by NK at a drop of a hat considering NK has required military and their tyrannical---they don't care about eradicating half their nation if it was a means to an end. This is based on wiki numbers.

[jberryhill]

139. Look at the South Korean defense plan

In the event of an attack, the ROK army is under US command.

The current administration has initiated a program of self-defense, whereby South Korea would be able to fully counter the North Korean threat with purely domestic means within the next two decades.

The defense of South Korea is a joint project, and we have committed to it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

109. ground invasion from North Korea?

that's bit far isn't it? If China is worried about it let them deal with it.

[vaberella]

115. I believe it's North Korea into South Korea. We have a vested interest in SK's prosperity.

China has several million troops. I believe they are about 3 million strong.

[vaberella]

113. This is the first thing that crossed my mind. Why? Thanks for making it clear. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

114. are you actually justifiying this?

unbelievable.

[LuckyTheDog]

124. Yep.

I don't like it, either. But, as long as North Korea is a threat, those mines will stay put.

[Better Believe It]

127. So you think the land mines will stop 2 million troops? Now that's really lame!

[TheWraith]

147. Stop? No. But it would slow down both ground forces and supply missions.

And it would prevent all 2 million troops coming across the DMZ in one crushing wave of force, as well as picking off some of the invaders.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. North Korea?

When they actually SAW South Korea and realized that what their government had told them, that South Koreans were slaves of the Americans living in abject poverty, was all lies, don't you think there would be massive defections?

It's a little known fact that one reason the Soviets failed in Afghanistan was that the USSR was going through worse economic times than usual and the Soviet soldiers were literally trading their weapons for Western consumer goods, which were freely available in Kabul at the time.

[AlphaCentauri]

174. Why it has to be a US war not a South Korean war?

[bhikkhu]

175. The height requirement for NK army is 4'3"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11/20091122/tpl-disturbing-human-rights-violations-i-0a1c1a1.html

They've had to lower it a couple of times in the past few years. Not that you can gauge the effectiveness of an army by its stature, but I don't think anyone here can fathom the deprivation that reduces a whole population to that size. I don't think landmines are an what we need there.

[elehhhhna]

224. Whoa -- my MIL qualifies!

[bowens43]

202. Why , is irrelevent. nt

[Djinn]

203. Yeah protecting the South Koreans is why

nothing at all to do with the cash rolling in from armaments lobbyists who don't want to loose a shitload of filthy lucre. Given the text of the Treaty the Korea excuse doesn't really stand up to scrutiny

[DCBob]

204. Surely the world's most advanced military can find a better way to defend a narrow strip of land..

Landmines are a scourge on mankind and have especially affected the young who have accidentally stepped on these stupid devices years and decades after being placed somewhere. I do not understand this decision.

[PaulaFarrell]

205. Clinton promised it would be signed in 2006

assuming 'alternatives' could be found - now what would alternatives be? no idea. and maybe given he knew he wouldn't be around in 2006, it was an empty promise. but it is inaccurate to say the only reason we are not signing it is the Korea issue - we certainaly had made a promise to sign at one point (with conditions) so shouldn't Obama at least have reverted to that position?

[No Elephants]

206. All the more reason for the US to sign the treaty.

[pokercat999]

216. Bullshit, if NK wanted to clear those mine fields they

would just send 30-40K troops across stomping their feet.

[GreenStormCloud]

267. Those massed foot stomper would be a prime target for our artillery.

Now you have lost 30-40K troops with nothing to show for it.

And new minefields can be laid in minutes by special artillery shells that have mines in them.

[sudopod]

222. Oy, hadn't thought of that.

Jeez. O_o

[KansDem]

238. Let North Korea and South Korea duke it out...

I'm sick and tired of "defending" South Korea. Look at what happened in Vietnam: we were soooo afraid the Viet Cong was going to roll over South Vietnam and down into Australia and eventually Main Street, USA, that for decades we were checking under our beds for the dreaded "communists." Well, we lost almost 58,000 US troops in "defending" South Vietnam only to lose the "war." And when Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam in 1995, US corporations, the very entities that, for decades, so fanatically warned us about "communism," fell all over each other to get into our former enemy to set up their fast-food outlets and factories. I've seen many garments at Target that are "Made in Vietnam."

I've had it with the Corporate Communists and the fucking fear-mongering. "Anything for a profit" is their motto; their "patriotism"...

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liquid diamond]

123. You and your kind need some new material.

Obama = Bush is so damn old.

[varelse]

226. Yes, it is getting old

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.

[Garam_Masala]

151. Yeah............let's bring in the Palin-Beck Admin

:wtf: :spank: :sarcasm:

[FiveGoodMen]

274. The right moves righter and the 'left' follows a step behind.

Both of them getting worse and worse.

How is this possible?

It's possible because people keep listening to you when they should be saying, "ENOUGH!"

Thanks for making the Dems just a little bit worse. :sarcasm:

[truthisfreedom]

2. Sigh. Where did I put my "Change" sign?

I know I had it around here somewhere.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Did you check under the catbox?

That's where mine ended up.

[AllyCat]

185. Bwaahhh!!! I almost blew beer out my nose.

Thanks for the chuckle. I've not had many the past 6 months from this Bush cabal, I mean the Obama Administration.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestateguy]

3. As I recall, it was also Clinton era policy too

nt

[MNDemNY]

5. So?

Does that make it the right policy?

[IndianaGreen]

32. Clinton kept the torture school at Fort Benning open

and he committed a war crime when he ordered the bombing of Belgrade's electric power plant in the middle of winter.

[ShortnFiery]

42. Didn't executions and reditions begin under Clinton's watch also?

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"<24> ”

Obama is also continuine BushCo's Summary Execution via Drone:

[MNDemNY]

43. And so, it is OK?

[ShortnFiery]

45. No, it is not O.K. Not at all.

Since there's no end to keeping the MIC "fat and sassy" regardless of which party is in the WH or in the Congress, count on me voting only for liberal democrats. Liberal PEACE-MONGERING ones at that. ;)

[MNDemNY]

50. Why do you hate America?

[ShortnFiery]

51. ...

I love America but I also weep for what we have become as a country.

However, hope springs eternal. ;)

[thegoodfight]

200. HE

has every friggin reason to hate America, thats why. I don't hate America, what I do hate is overtly patriotic people like you who don't like it when someone points out the truth about your oh-so perfect nation. The truth hurts buddy.

[ieoeja]

243. And this decision was just made by ... the State Department! (nt)

[DissedByBush]

293. This was long before Clinton

You probably have to go back to Truman for when the land mines were planted.

[villager]

4. What? No unrecs yet from the overworked "this isn't really what it seems!" crowd?

n/t

[MNDemNY]

7. They are busy cuttin' and pastin', they'll get here , soon.

[IndianaGreen]

106. They are burning incense as they prostrate themselves in front of their idols

Trying to formulate their next line of defence.

[rollingrock]

8. I think this calls for another peace prize!

err, maybe not.

[closeupready]

94. Which, like the other one, he can pick up on the way to the next War Council meeting.

n/t

[beyurslf]

9. We've never signed it, have we?

I think the argument is that it becomes a "slippery slope" when we agree to take one weapon out of our arsenal. While we don't use them, we refuse to say we won't use them. Yawn.

[sabrina 1]

12. We are in such company, again.

We are showing our true colors now. At least before, we could blame it on Bush. But these decisions demonstrate that the US is as much a part of the world's problem as any other Empire throughout history. I wonder how long before we are isolated completely from the rest of the civilized world, and how long before a majority of Americans stop fighting with each other, and start worrying about what kind of country they all live in.

Princess Diana took on this issue as a cause before her death. I remember, naively, assuming that the US would support her efforts. After all, aren't we the good guys who do not want to harm little children? That was the beginning of a long, sad awakening for me.

I doubt the war-mongers of the world, which includes the US, were terribly disturbed by her death.

[CreekDog]

13. Damn.

:grr:

[AllentownJake]

15. Of course they aren't

This is a surprise because?

[glitch]

16. More of the SHAME. So much for our brief illusion of change to international respectability. :( nt

[jberryhill]

17. It's all about Korea

It's 40 miles from Seoul to the DMZ. Nuking Pyongyang wouldn't put a dent in a push south.

[Bigmack]

24. As noted above.. a mine field would slow them for an hour..maybe. nt

[AllentownJake]

31. 15 minutes

They don't care about casualties, if they are coming over, they all are coming over, and they'll walk over their own dead to get to us.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. The minefield makes the idea of a quick land grab untenable.

To a degree, it lessens the chance of a full-on war, because it makes a quick, easy grab impossible.

It's all or nothing, and so far, NK has been reluctant to go all-in.

[liberation]

82. Oh, yeah... so they can't access to 0.0000001% of their land. Well, that makes all the difference

sure all the kids in the 3rd world getting half of their limbs blown up will understand.

I am fed up with the double standards my fellow compatriots seem to have no problem embracing. I guess, wanting to have it both ways is as American as apple pie.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Well, we aren't using land mines elsewhere in the world to my knowledge.

So I think it's sort of an empty double standard. There are no random leftover mines around South Korea from the DMZ, it's a clearly demarked location.

Hopefully in my lifetime, we'll have a great big party, and celebrate the reunification of Korea, and just detonate all the mines at a big party. And that will be that.

(more likely they will be deactivated, and we'll spend billions digging them all up and disposing of them)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

146. And they could always launch rockets and/or invade by sea

or parachute troops over the DMZ.

[jberryhill]

170. Rockets don't get them anything

And their naval and air forces are a joke.

They are pretty good at making Koreans, though.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

181. You're fighting the previous Korean War

You're still thinking "Chinese crossing the Yalu River."

The North and South have been making tentative overtures toward each other for years. It's not a linear process, but things have happened that would have been unimaginable when South Korea was a right-wing dictatorship.

[sofa king]

211. I'm thinking of a different war myself.

The way I see it, times are only going to get tougher for everyone, which means food subsidies to North Korea will become more difficult to extract. Unless the North Koreans move toward some sort of normalization or relations soon, they're limiting their options inexorably in the direction of war, because using their massive, offensive-trained army for a grab at South Korea's food supplies will be a seductive option.

So unfortunately, the DMZ and its minefield becomes an important diplomatic tool in addition to being a tactical and strategic barrier. The minefield can be exchanged for some reduction in North Korean capabilities, such as the deactivation of a few armored divisions.

But deactivating the minefield while leaving those North Korean armored divisions in place is a virtual invitation for the North Koreans to make raids for provisions, just as the Vikings, the Apache, and innumerable other nations did when their own territory didn't support their population.

The two nations really need to unify, because North Korea can provide the defensible geographic border that South Korea currently doesn't have, and South Korea can support the North Korean population. But if either attempts to exploit the other, they're both doomed.

[jberryhill]

237. I agree

Reunification is inevitable. Korean history since the 1890's is utterly tragic.

[newspeak]

303. I remember when north and south korea marched in the Olympics together

North and south korea were making overtures, UNTIL * CAME ALONG. Remember when he visited with the South Korean president and "shamed" him to keep that distance with north korea. * and his war mongers never knew the meaning of "diplomacy."

[avaistheone1]

18. How Bush of them.

Why did this country go through the expense of elections and an inauguration. It all seems like a farce,

[ClarkUSA]

101. Um, Clinton did it before Bush II. And the next 10 POTUS will do the same for the same reasons.

[Metta]

21. Bush 3.

What good can come from this wrong headed decision? And look at the company that puts us in with.

[niyad]

27. and yet another disappointment.

[IndianaGreen]

30. On this one issue, Obama equals Bush

For years progressives have been fighting to get the US to sign an international treaty banning land mines. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including children, have been killed or maimed by landmines planted during conflicts. Human decency demands the US stops producing mines, including the cluster bombs that kill so many civilians.

[ShortnFiery]

36. On this one issue, President Obama loses any sense of his humanity.

Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss!

[jberryhill]

141. = Clinton = Bush = Reagan = Carter = Ford = Nixon = LBJ = JFK

= Ike, under whom the last shots were fired in anger across the 38th parallel.

[tekisui]

239. It is time for a change.

[iandhr]

38. good

one of the thinks that prevents north korea from walking into south korea is a shit load of land-mines

[MNDemNY]

44. No, not really.

[gleaner]

40. So while US troops are .....

frequently injured or killed by "roadside bombs" making wars that Obama's predecessor started, but which Obama seems to be doing nothing to stop, he is coming down on the side of mines as a permissible weapon. Another trick he took right from the Bush playbook.

It doesn't matter what theoretical reason he may have for not doing signing a treaty to ban mines, the fact is there is really no justification for their use anymore than he can justify continuing his war in Afghanistan and not bringing troops home from Iraq, which amounts to the same thing.

And look at the other great freedom loving nations is keeping him company in this decision.:wtf: This stinks. It is bogus. You can rationalize any action that you take if you talk long enough, but rationalization is a bunch of crap. It is just another word for lie.

[ShortnFiery]

46. The rationalization is that there's lots of money to be made over those beloved mine munitions ...

weren't "daisy cutters" used in Lebanon air strikes? ... and they will be used again and again. Why? Because we need to keep the privatized corporations of the MIC RICH beyond their wildest dreams. Therefore, machines and munitions of death and destruction fit that ticket.

[gleaner]

93. I'd have to say you're right ....

and it doesn't matter who the weapons kill. If you have never read "The Arms of Krupp" by William Manchester, may I recommend it? The Krupp family made most of the munitions used in WWI and they were active in WWII.

They sold to all sides, and were protected by all sides even though the military and civilians in the combatant and non combatant countries who happened to be in the way were dying. It may not be the Krupps anymore, but I am sure it is one or more weapons manufacturer like them selling everyone the powder to blow themselves to Hell.

The book would be out of print, but if you want to take a look at it go to Amazon or Alibris and look for used books. The price is right in both places, and it is fascinating not only into the process of munitions and their sales but into the mindset of people who sell and buy without any thought or concern for the human cost of their actions.

[ensho]

241. true

nt

[arcane1]

48. potentially stupid question about the N Korea factor:

Doesn't S Korea produce its own land mines?

[wuushew]

112. Yes, I would like an answer to this question as well

them being one of Asia's great economic powers and all. The solution to moral dilema seems self evident by handing it off the ROK. The U.S. appears to presenting a false problem as a means of continuing a questionable behavior.

[jberryhill]

142. They make flat-screen TV's

[debbierlus]

49. Well, to be fair, we don't honor the treaties we already have....

So why waste the ink & paper...

Really!

[pscot]

52. Just when I think I'm losing my capacity for outrage....

President Obama finds a new nerve end.

[guyton]

53. are we evil yet?

I'm still waiting for this 3D chess master to shock and awe us with his morality.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Disheartening. nt

[Eyerish]

56. Absolutely Disgraceful... n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

57. The use of landmines are part of American Imperial policy...

This goes a way to explain why they should be banned.
Land-mines: A deadly inheritance

[proteus_lives]

59. It's because of Korea right?

It makes sense in purely military POV. Maybe there can a provision for the Korean situation.

BTW, I highly doubt that the 150 countries have destroyed their stockpiles.

[vaberella]

120. Yup...NK attacking SK is my guess. Most here think it's Bush-lite.

And this is the only one we have I've read.

[nyy1998]

163. Agreed

I'm sure Obama would love to sign the treaty if they got an exemption for the DMZ.

[pundaint]

61. The World is all stupid, we're the special ones

They don't even know how to get rich on sickness, and they probably try to find reasons not to have wars, see where that will get them.

[Davis_X_Machina]

65. And 67 Senators ratify it when signed, too..... n/t

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

68. We've been conned.

[budkin]

70. The real people in charge have clearly gotten to our candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. No, our candidate has clearly gotten to 'the real people in charge'

[happyslug]

71. The US opposition to the Mine ban has NOTHING to do with mine fields

Mine fields are always well marked so that the enemy, the locals as while as the side that planted the mine field knows it is a mine field. Almost no one gets killed in them, that is NOT their purpose. A mine field is design to deny access to a certain area, thus why it is always marked. It is useless if a enemy unit finds itself inside one, then the best way is to go forward through the mine field, a mine field is marked so enemy troops do NOT enter it, but go elsewhere.

The problems with mines since Vietnam (And in Vietnam) has NOT been conventional mines but "Route denial munitions" i.e. mines drop by planes. These tend to be very bright (often catch the eyes of children for that reason) and in unmarked areas (Because planes dropped them like bombs instead of being laid in a set pattern by people on the ground, who then mark the field). These mines are designed to bounce enough so a wide dispersal of the mines are made. They are designed to be seen by enemy troops (the reason they are so bright). These two characteristics is what make them so deadly. To survive an air drop, the mine has to be able to take a good bit of punishment and then when it is still to become sensitive to anyone coming in contact with it. Thus the mines can end up hundreds of feet from where they were dropped. They can be inactive enough that children play with them for a bit and then go off.

Route Denial munitions (The proper names for mines like these) are dropped behind enemy lines to deny roads and other transportation corridors to the enemy, including enemy travel by foot (I.e. can be dropped anywhere if you fear infantry can walk over the area and that means everywhere). These munitions are what kill children and civilian for unlike mines in proper mine fields no one knows where these mines are (Mine fields must not only be marked but surveyed i.e. every mine location is known and written down and reported to Battalion Headquarters, mine fields can ONLY be made if approved by Battalion, company and platoon level units can NOT plant a mine field WITHOUT Battalion permission).

Notice how mine fields are different then fields planted with these "Route denial munitions". The later are in unmarked fields, and are un-surveyed i.e. the mine can be anywhere, no one really knows.

Now the US (And to a limited extent Russia, China, India and the rest) want to be able to use Route Denial Munitions for it permits greater use of Air Power. For example, in the last year of WWII, the US Air Force dropped bombs on Japan, these where later determined to be ineffective when it came to Japan ability to do war (Japan did what Germany did, dispersed its manufacturing base thus made it harder for any one bomb to do damage). What hurt Japan much more then the bombing was the mining of its harbors. The US Air Force could mine those harbors faster then Japan could remove the mines. This forces the Civilian ships to run the risk of the mines (And such ships had massive desertion of their civilian crews in the last months of the war for this reason) and thus Japanese Industry came to a halt, not do to the bombing of the plants, but the mining of the harbors so things could NOT get to the plants or from the plants).

The US Air Force wants to be able to duplicate that in regard to ground forces and to do that you need Route Denial Munitions. The US could give up its rights to land mine fields and no one in the Pentagon will swank, but to deny the US Air Force its ability to drop mines behind enemy lines (even among Civilians) is something the US Military will fight to preserve.

Thus my comment, no one cares about the mine fields of Korea or any place else, what the Pentagon wants to preserve is its ability to drop such Route Denial Munitions anywhere it wants to.

[AllyCat]

187. Thank you for your explanation.

I know people will start saying "do you have a source?" if I bring this up in discussion. Any suggestions on where to read some of this in a nutshell?

[happyslug]

231. Nothing directly on point but here are some sites that mention Route Denial Munitions

http://www.pmulcahy.com/mines/us_mines.html

From the Mine action Information Center:
http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/supplemental/munitions/munitions.asp

Another name for such mines are "Area Denial Munitions":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_denial_weapons

US Army "ADAM" or Area Denial Artillery delivered Munitions:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/adam.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Denial_Artillery_Munition

Some papers on WHY Route and Area Denial Munitions are desired by the US Military:
http://www.peace.ca/warwithoutblood.htm

Here is Picatinny Arsenal bragging about their latest Area denial Munition:
http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypublic/products_services/products02.asp

Use of Weapons in Lebanon by Israel (This uses the even older name for such weapons "Cluster bombs":
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62428/section/11

More on "Cluster bombs" with some history of their use starting in WWII:
http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2533.pdf

[freddie mertz]

261. Thanks for this excellent information.

Change we were suckers to believe in.

[Nihil]

232. Thanks for the information. (n/t)

:thumbsup:

[bkozumplik]

79. no!!

We have to give Obama more time! Its only been about a year. Lets not evaluate him until the end of his term, thats just unfair.

He has so much on his plate, we shouldnt whine about his decisions.

The ship of state takes a long time to turn around, and I'm sure he's working feverishly behind the scenes. He doest lead from the front. its all behind the scenes.
Even though he's in charge and doesnt have to work behind anything.

Its all chess! and hes smarter than all of you! 3 dimensional chess!

We have to work WITH the war hawks and land mine lovers. bipartisanship is very very important.

He never said he'd abolish landmines! Where does it say anywhere he'd do that? thats right, nowhere! In fact, if you study his speeches, he never really said he'd do much.

He taught constitutional law, so...

The damned republicans are keeping him from doing anything right!

How dare you all not support our president, bunch of traitors..

How can he get anything done with his own base biting his heals? he needs our support and love, not our criticism, or expectations.
what else..

Oh right..
would you rather have president palin in charge? You all wanted the repubs to win a year ago didnt you!
lets talk about that election a year ago, again, and put it in todays context, that would be a real world discussion with value.

Carlos Santana said to give Obama more time, and Carlos Santana knows things.

You all just want ponies, wake up and live in the real world. We cant all have ponies. Or unicorns, or any of the other mythical creatures, you bunch of tools.

You're all single issue landmine voters arent you. Bunch of morons. grow up! wake up!

I hate you all, you make me so mad.

yes landmines are important, but hes so damn cute, I just want to look at pics of him all day long.

F you all! aaarrragghgh!

I think thats all I got.

[showpan]

90. New deal

He's obviously part of the new deal. Look at what he's done so far and tell me he's not an advocate of the New World Order. Corporate welfare, corporate health care, corporate trade agreements, Patriot Act, perpetual war, amnesty is coming and half of GW's people are still there directing him on the same old failed policies. More layoffs are coming because We've been punked again. The New Deal (collapse) is just on the horizon, just a little more push, it's almost there.
The mines in Korea are not a problem, its about the RDM's as stated.
Also, the North Koreans have so many tunnels that they wouldn't have to cross those fields, they would be behind us as they sent waves of Chinese prisoners across to "clear" those mines. Anyone on that line would be caught in a crossfire. South Korea would be taken very quickly, only what was left of it after the first artillary barrage. We would have no choice but commit to a nuclear strike. Also, this has already been discussed and a first strike nuclear policy is our way, it's not just for those without nukes.
This is redundant anyway since China is just going to let us tear us apart. As soon as America wakes up and realize we have been had, after the collapse of our dollar, they will declare marshall law.
end game , check mate.

[kiva]

98. One you forgot:

He really, really, really wants to do everything we want him to do, but he can't because the (pick one or more): CIA, military-industrial complex, special interest group (health insurance, wall street, or any other), secret cabal, conservative think tank, union of right wing talk show hosts, or some other mysterious and stealthy group will assassinate him if he tries.

This one has been popular lately, probably because of the anniversary of JFK's assassination.

[niyad]

138. think you got them all

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

149. Oh snap! nt

[nashville_brook]

271. this post made me snort.

[FarLeftFist]

87. America loves their Land mines.

[BlueJac]

88. Go figure........

the bought and paid for White House has not changed one bit. Obama is a hugh disappointment in every way.

[scytherius]

95. So what exactly has changed from the Bush years??????

Just curious.

[ClarkUSA]

100. He's ending the Iraq war, ordered the closing of Gitmo/secret prisons/detention camps...

This is what has changed in the last 10 months:

Appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace

Order the closing of Guantanamo Bay

Prohibit use of torture

Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed

Obama Sets Bold New Principles for U.S. Energy, Climate Policies

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 or FERA (PDF)

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (Kerry-Lugar includes funding for Obama's global poverty initiative)

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

End of 22-Year Discriminatory Travel Ban

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act

Stopping Conflict-related Sexual Violence Against Women and Children

The UN, Women & Girls

New policy steps towards Cuba

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia

Strategy to address the international nuclear threat

For the Media: "30+ Reasons Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize"

Russia on Nobel Peace Prize: Obama thawing 'second cold war'

World Reaction to Obama Winning the Nobel

Turkey, Armenia sign historic accord

Why the Stimulus Worked

Green jobs for real people: The story behind the recovery numbers

Obama's Plan: Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation (PDF)

Requiring Strong Supervision And Appropriate Regulation Of All Financial Firms (pdf)

Strengthening Regulation Of Core Markets And Market Infrastructure (pdf)

Strengthening Consumer Protection (pdf)

Providing The Government With Tools To Effectively Manage Failing Institutions (pdf)

Improving International Regulatory Standards And Cooperation (pdf)

House Panel Moves Derivatives Toward Obama’s Proposal

FACTBOX: Major U.S. financial regulation reform proposals

Obama says Senate bill on tax havens would stop abuses

Statement by President Barack Obama on House and Senate Introducing Legislation to Crack Down on Overseas Tax Havens

Obama to chair historic U.N. council nuclear meeting

G20 to Become Forum for Global Economic Cooperation

Next comes Obama's budget, health care reform and more.

[showpan]

157. while he is trying to close Gitmo

he was also going to house them in a town taken over by blackwater...wtg...which basically would have moved the secret prisons here.

Look at the rates for disabled vets, yeah thats really changed.

The Helping Families Save their Homes Act hasn't helped anyone because nobody qualifies and foreclosures are getting worse. It's certainly not going to help me, my home is worth much less than what I paid for it, which I really didn't mind because I was in it for the long haul.....but....

The stimulus hasn't really done much to create enough jobs to do anything. It only postponed a few layoffs. There are still over 15,000,000 out of work and more are getting layed off because companies are still moving since he has done nothing to renegotiate bad trade deals that a 6 yr old could have made better. There are a lot of people who's unemployment just ran out and how many more extensions are they hoping to get. As they get dropped off of unemployment, the U-3 goes down to paint a rosy picture of stimulus helping but the real unemployment goes up as they finally loose their homes. They can fudge the numbers all they want but it don't create jobs.

The change that we can believe in has not happened and won't because he has appointed a lot of Bush cronies who are all NWO which points to him belonging to the same group of folks. who would actually give credit card companies notice that their interest rates were going to be reeled in? who does he work for...it's obvious because he bailed them out instead and all they did was give it to their overpaid CEO's and hide it in another slush fund. More trickle down economics, more of the New Deal.

Where did $2 Trillion go? Out the back door of the FED....they should have been frozen immediately and their offices invaded just like any fraudulant, ponzi scheming, crook.

....meanwhile the U-6 has reached great depression levels.

Now I'm not a negative person by nature, I stuck by our President for as long as I could but I am also now out of work, with no job in sight, with two young children and my limited unemployment will not be able to cover my mortgage payments, bills and food for too long.

Our president has turned his back on us, because real change would have meant doing something to reel in the corporations and keep our jobs here. He has done just the oposite = Bush lite.

It turns out that Ross Perot was right all along and now I'm beginning to see what Ron Paul has been saying.

This is crazy...it's our country...not theirs.

[Stumbler]

96. Um, where's the "change" I believed in?

[ClarkUSA]

102. Really? So when did you hear candidate Obama promise to sign the land mine ban?

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

104. We'll make a point of remembering your rationalization when Obama runs for reelection

[ClarkUSA]

223. Not at all. Only 24/7 Haters use Outrage of the Day rationalizations to trash Pres. Obama.

Funny how your admiration for Bill Clinton survives (as evidenced on other threads) despite his also refusing to sign the land mines
ban during his entire presidency.

Such rationalizations... tsk, tsk. Bet you voted for his re-election, too. :eyes:

[L0oniX]

97. What companies make land mines? Follow the money?

The 3 U.S. companies that have profited most handsomely are Alliant, Hughes Aircraft (a subsidiary of General Motors), and Accudyne.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9802a/landmineusa.html

hmmmm ...well thanks for keeping the jobs here ...Obama.

[bhikkhu]

107. This crap is starting to get old

The Patriot act extended, and now the same stance on land mines that I hated * for. Maybe there's context besides the jobs and profits involved, but this is really starting to get old.

[humbled_opinion]

110. I guess some here will still be supporting Obama

after he becomes the 2nd Democratic President to drop nukes on women and children....


This decison is indefensible.

You know what the difference between BUSH and OBAMA is?

One of them actually stood up for what he said he believed.

Now that was awkward.

[vaberella]

121. It's indefensible? So you don't see NK as a threat? Wow. n/t

[showpan]

158. North Korea is only a threat

as long as we keep 30,000 troops poised on their border, same as Iran and soon Venezuela. Stop meddling in the affairs of others and our threats go away.
It's simple.
It is what our founding fathers warned us about.

[DonCoquixote]

161. And do you have any doubt

That if those troops left, Kim il Jung would not Trash South Korea? It is one thing to defend someone like a Chavez or castro, who at least made their countries better, who can defend Kim il Jung?

[Amonester]

165. Who cares about South Korea?

"free" trader$ (cheap labor exploiter$)

Who else? :shrug:

Ok. War $treet & profiteer$.

[mvd]

167. As long as we allow them, land mines can be used against us, and..

continue to kill innocents. BTW, I think North Korea knows they would be beaten back anyway.

[jberryhill]

168. Have You Been To South Korea?

Because it seems you don't know much about their people and their culture.

They are more than laborers. You should go sometime.

[Amonester]

171. Ok. So when will South Koreans bankrupt their own country...

and come to our rescue?

When they'll become an empire?

[jberryhill]

178. The Korean Conflict Was A UN Action Not A US Action

When will they come to our aid?

They sent 312,000 troops to support us in Vietnam.

[Amonester]

179. And Vietnam was?

for what?

More than 50,000 of U.S. died there, for WHAT? (or better yet, for WHO's pocket$)

Question: What other LIE started that destructive fiasco?

[jberryhill]

182. That's another set of questions...

You wanted to know when the South Koreans would come to the aid of the US. I answered your question.

Vietnam was not a UN action. Korea was.

[Amonester]

194. You didn't get what I'm thinking.

Nevermind.

[cstanleytech]

195. You should really read some history.

We tried that kind of thing before and it led to WWI as well as the atrocity called the Holocaust.

[madrchsod]

136. that nobel prize is getting a bit tarnished...

we are judged by the company we keep.


is this what we voted for?

[freddie mertz]

262. Maybe they will ask for it back.nt.

[williesgirl]

150. This is NOT what I campaigned for, donated to, and voted for. I'm quickly becoming ashamed

of Obama and his mis-administration. Continuing the Patriot Act provisions, expanding the war in Afghanistan, supporting the Bush policies - ENOUGH.

It's becoming obvious we need a third party in the US - hopefully a progressive and honest one.

[Lorien]

156. We do indeed. nt

[cstanleytech]

193. First, I agree with you about the patriot act provisions, his support is disappointing to me to.

This thing about the treaty though I will reluctantly support him on for now, if a modified treaty is presented that takes into account the DMZ with NK then I will fully support the signing of it until then I have to face the fact its not practical.

[Amonester]

154. How fast "change" morphed into "not to change"...

What a pity. :cry:

[Lorien]

155. WTF?????!!!!!

Holy f*cking Hell?! Who the f*ck did we put in the White House???

[MissDeeds]

172. Not the one I thought

I hoped Obama was better than this. Guess not.

[BrklynLiberal]

159. MAJOR disappointment...

x(

[Vidar]

160. So good of Obama to continue our renegade state status.

[mvd]

162. Not good company to be in there

Hope he re-considers in the future. North Korea is no excuse for having land mines.

[EndElectoral]

164. I'm starting to wonder if Obama will even win the 2012 primary with this bullshit

[Divine Discontent]

244. of course he will, half the people who vote every 4 years don't pay any attention to what's going on

and since a lot of his votes came from 1st time voters, you know they are behind him no matter what he does because they know no better.

I'm still supportive of him, but my support hangs by a thread. I expect noticeable accomplishments 18 months from his inauguration. I've been telling myself that all along. Congress is unfortunately, not helping a lot, however, he's the president and he should be leaning on them strongly because his party is in power. I know Republicans like Ben Nelson who are cloaked as "Democrats" don't care what Obama has to say, still, he can really push for Nelson to receive little support for his state, strip him of privileges with the help of Reid etc, if it really came down to it, if they wanted to!

[FiveGoodMen]

276. He'll win the primary

But not the election

[spoony]

166. But but, he didn't CAMPAIGN on this

we CAN'T criticise him on it!

[2Design]

169. this is so wrong - more killing and death for the people who say they are pro life is ridiculous n/t

[smoochpooch]

173. That is just fucked up. "We're the cops of the world" as Phil Ochs said.

Sorry, I don't give a shit about Korea, we stopped shooting 50 years ago. Enough already.

[Skittles]

180. tired of being bent over, everyone?

[AllyCat]

183. Has anyone checked to see if Bush is hiding inside Obama?

You know like the alien in Men In Black wearing the Edgar suit? I am so stinkin' mad at this President I can hardly see straight.

[Mosaic]

184. Where is the liberal, the socialist

Where is the liberal, the socialist all the rightwing nutjobs like to call him? It seems we have a rethug lite president, another hoodwinking of the public like we had with Clinton.

[JCMach1]

198. You are wrong, Obama has governed TO THE RIGHT of Clinton

so far :cry:

Back in the day, we used to call that REPUBLICAN

[ingac70]

196. That would be too many jobs lost for the US.

As ugly as it is, we can't afford to do it.

[benny05]

199. Why is anyone here shocked?

Obama is from a mining state.

[bowens43]

201. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss........

every day another disappointment. Seriously, I am seeing fewer and fewer differences between Obama and the idiot.

[onlyadream]

207. Really?????

Obama has some splaining to do. :(

[yellowwood]

213. This is Too Bad

If any Democrat leaders read this, please be aware--These issues are creating a problem for the Democratic party.

[Forkboy]

217. Go America!

[LeftishBrit]

218. Hope you can press the govt to reconsider...

Our (Labour) govt wouldn't do this for ages, but finally changed its mind.

[pokercat999]

220. Obama proves once again he is just another corporate

tool, piece of shit, POTUS. How many chances does he get before he can be labeled RETHUG LITE/DINO?

For you kool-aid drinkers: How many times does he have to tell you "the checks in the mail" before you stop making the trip to the post office?

[martymar64]

221. Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Another wonderful policy from Obama the Bloodthirsty.
He's gotta keep the Gods of Wars appeased, ya know.

[ClarkUSA]

227. And the Old Boss was the same as the Previous Boss, Pres. Bill Clinton "the Bloodthirsty"

<<He's gotta keep the Gods of Wars appeased, ya know.>>

Bullshit. Pres. Obama taken the global lead on nuclear disarmament and has reached landmark agreements
with Russia on the issue. That's also why he's cut major weapons programs that have been languishing
for years in money-watsing limbo. :eyes:

It's convenient for most DUers to ignore political reality as long as anything provides a reason to trash Pres. Obama, eh?

It's people like you who would have whined about WWII. How "bloodthirsty" do you think the American Revolution was?

[martymar64]

233. Whatever, dude. Tell me that next year when he escalates troops levels in A-Stan

Face it, we are going to be there for the next 20-30 years, and then we'll still lose. I predict he will escalate troop levels next year by 100k, and then another 100k the year after that, and so on. Just like LBJ. And just like LBJ, he'll be a one-termer.
He is withdrawing US troops from Iraq only to replace them with mercenaries.

The Gods of War look down on him and smile.

[ClarkUSA]

234. Psst...Obama campaigned on doing that, dude. No one's surprised except Obama Outrage Club members.

<<Face it, we are going to be there for the next 20-30 years, and then we'll still lose. I predict he will escalate troop levels
next year by 100k, and then another 100k the year after that, and so on. Just like LBJ. And just like LBJ, he'll be a one-termer.
He is withdrawing US troops from Iraq only to replace them with mercenaries.>>

Do you have any facts to back up your fantasyland rhetoric? I doubt it. :eyes:

<<The Gods of War look down on him and smile.>>

You mean the same ones that backed the American Revolution and WWII? :)

As a New Yorker, I know firsthand how important it is for the U.S. to make sure Al-Qaida doesn't reconstitute its cells into
strongholds in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obviously, you could care less.

[Moochy]

235. Convenient Labels for you.. dude

"Obama Outrage Club members"

Convenient for you to try and divide others instead of hearing the substance of their arguments.

Hooray for Just Wars and American Exceptionalism!

"Obviously you could care less"

Yeah we know you are scared and just need a general to give you a hug.

[ClarkUSA]

251. It's a particularly apt description. If the shoe fits...

:D

[freddie mertz]

263. So you SUPPORT the decision to not sign this treaty?

Cutting through the usual barrage of ad hominem bullshit, what is your opinion of the actual decision?

A lot of people are upset with this for moral reasons.

Land mines are an especially savage and random sort of weapon.

Can't you understand why people are disappointed by this?

[freddie mertz]

279. And crickets chirp, AGAIN.

Direct question, no answer.

[Moochy]

295. "And you will know them by their abandoned subthreads"

:D

[freddie mertz]

298. Indeed.It is so typical of this weird approach to "discussion"///

What annoys me the most is the insistence that there is something PERSONAL (ie anti-Obama or pro-Clinton) in the simple objection to, or disagreement with, a policy decision.

That would seem to reflect more on the politics and motives of the accuser than it does on the accused.

[Moochy]

299. "discussion" around here these days...

...needs to be peppered with caveats and loyalty oath gestures unless you want the ignored pep-squad members to set upon you with longknives drawn. I've just started adding anyone who is unreasonably jingoistic, pro-landmines, or pro-escalation to my temporary ignore list.

[freddie mertz]

302. That makes a lot of sense, actually.

I'm pretty sick of them myself.

[ensho]

240. Obama is wrong - no to land mines! our military brass has him by his

you know whats.

[ClarkUSA]

252. And you think Clinton was "wrong" too and the "military brass" had "him by his you know whats" too?

Guess Monica Lewinksy wasn't the only one, eh? :rofl:

[ensho]

256. yes - no to land mines

nt

[freddie mertz]

264. Clinton was wrong.

What is your point?

Do you even have an opinion on this?

[freddie mertz]

242. Another disappointment/outrage.

It's getting to be a long list.

Sigh.

[ClarkUSA]

253. Ah, the Outrage of the Day! Are people as outraged that Clinton refused to sign the ban for 8 yrs?

I doubt it. :eyes:

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

257. yup, I protested against it actually

so shove it, sycophant.

Are you intelligent enough to realize that the question of which President people criticize for this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ethics of refusing to sign the ban? It's a garbage argument.

[Moochy]

259. garbage arguments are all he's got

[Moochy]

258. There was no DU then

for all the dirty mine-hating hippies to channel their useless rage into.

[freddie mertz]

270. Back then we would call the White house and shit.

Guess I have to do that again (and again).

[U4ikLefty]

283. Moochy...great to see you!!!

Hope all is well.

[freddie mertz]

269. I was outraged THEN. This is NOW.

What is with this Clinton obsession anyway?

It is very much off topic.

[Steerpike]

254. Stop and think people.

If he does that, Korea will fall, and then like dominoes all of southeast asia will bow to the dominance that is communism! And, of course, right now is not the right time to do something this controversial. Maybe later.
It's a chess move that will pan out in the years to come...The president is playing 3D Romulan chess while the rest of us morons are just playing marbles.



>sarcasm<

[Agony]

305. Good one! nt

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

255. Stumpy the Afghan Girl Says: Thank You, Pres. Obama!!!

I'm sure she loves her beautiful new scars.

[GreenStormCloud]

266. Yes, the minefields in the Korean DMZ are an effective barrier to NK.

Lots of people here seem to have learned about mines and tactics from watching old movies. I will address some of the statements made in various above posts.

NK invading by sea{/b] Using what for amphibious assault craft? They don't have any. Radar would spot any seaborne attempt and the ships would be destroyed at sea.

NK invading by paratroop landings. NK does not have the airlift capability for a large scale airborne drop. Further, the planes would be subject to SK anti-air systems. Then they would have to be able to resupply the air-dropped forces.

The minefield will only slow the NK down by 15 minutes to an hour.
That's all we need. It does two things. It gives us that time to go to alert. That is all the time that many of our forces will need. Further, the effort spent on clearing a path through a minefield also tells the defender EXACTLY where the attacks is going to be made.

Further, that only applied to the existing minefields. New minefields can be placed in the NK line-of-advance in minutes.

The NK can get through by having soldiers walk in each other's exact footsteps
Whomever made that suggestion for the NK to defeat the mines has been watching way too much old TV. For some reason, in the movies, enemy minefields are almost never watched, never under enemy fire. Real world: Those single file troops will be easy targets as they carefully walk in each other's footsteps.

Further, many modern mines do not need to be stepped on. They are able to sense the approach of a target and detonate if the subject enters the effective radius. So much for walking in the steps of the guy ahead of you. He won't even step on the mine, he will just get close enough to it, then it will fire a charge into the air to explode about three feet off the ground.

And there are command detonated mines, such as the Vietnam era Claymore. When it is set off by an observer, it sprays shrapnel in a wide arc to the front of the mine.

Clear a path with an artillery barrage
If I were the defending commander I would love for my enemy to attempt exactly that.

First, your barrage is going to tell me where you plan to make your attack, before the actual attack starts. (BTW - In some WWII invasions Allied forces did without the pre-invasion bombardment for exactly that reason.)

Second: We have extremely high precision radar/computer systems that will detect your first artillery shell and pinpoint exactly where that shell came from - EXACTLY. While your shell is still in the air, a piece of high precision ordannce will be launched at your artillery piece. The system will then shift to take out another, then another, etc of your artillery pieces. You will be telling me where your artillery is - EXACTLY - and all you will gain is some plowed dirt, while I destroy your artillery.

Third: You are going to tear up the terrain, thereby making it difficult for your resupply trucks to take ammo and food to your troops. Slowing down your logistics slows you down greatly.

Mines have changed greatly since the old movies. Modern mines can be deployed by artillery fire. The artillery shell comes apart in the air over the zone and dozens of anti-personnel mines fly out of it, or nine anti-tank mines. There is a new type of scatterable anti-personnel mine that sends out its own trip-wires - nine of them - and sets them automatically. Brush one of those wires and you and those close to you are casualties.

The real target of mines is enemy armor. In modern war, if you can strip the armor from the attack, the troops that are left will be chewed to pieces. One type of mine will detect a tank and launch a charge that will attack the tank from the top, at ranges up to 100 meters. That mine must be set in place by a person, but it can be done so very quickly.

Most important, worth repeating, is that mines are rarely used by themselves. They are used in conjunction with the other weapons the defending force has. Nor or they used just anywhere, but would be used where the situation and terrain favor their use.

For the type of war that would be fought if NK made a grab for SK, mines would be hugely effective in disrupting the NK battle plan.

For the type of war being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, mines are pretty much useless.

BTW - Crude, but highly effective, mines (both anti-personnel and anti-armor)can be made in the field. They are called IEDs. Altough they weren't mines as such, punji sticks caused a lot of casualties in Vietnam, and slowed down units moving on foot in the field.

Obama made the right decision.

[w4rma]

272. Then I suppose the treaty needs to be amended to make the exception for the DMZ between NK and SK.

In fact, perhaps our nation could write an amended version and sign it and let the other nations do whatever they want with it, thus disarming the whole topic.

[harun]

273. Ahhh common sense, would be great if that existed in U.S. Foreign Policy.

[Moochy]

300. Message to other countries "Do as we say not as we do"

[unkachuck]

280. what....

....war-machine wants, the war-machine gets....

[boppers]

281. That's not what the link says.

"The Obama administration is backtracking on an announcement that it had reviewed its policy allowing military use of land mines and decided to leave it in place."

"On Tuesday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the administration had completed a review and decided not sign a treaty banning land mines.

But in a statement Wednesday, Kelly said that there had been only a partial review concerning who would represent the United States at a conference on the international Mine Ban Treaty next week in Cartegena, Colombia.

Kelly said the administration is still looking at its overall policy. The new statement follows criticism by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy."

Did the story change?

[BillDU]

285. Me

I would not support a ban.
I will simply support the idea that misusing them is unacceptable.

[Doctor_J]

294. Holy cow. It seems like Obama may be more of a Repuke than Clinton

amazing

[Generator]

296. Give that man a nobel peace prize, stat!

Thank JESUS that pesky irrational Lady named Di is not around anymore to put flies in these peace makers ointment.

[mbperrin]

297. Mines are designed to maim and place a heavy load on a country's

infrastructure by removing able bodied workers from the workforce and increasing costs of care and rehab at the same time.

That's a war crime and an evil thought.

Get out of Korea and buy some health care for US citizens.

Gosh, no! We have to look "tuff" by threatening a country around the size of Oklahoma.

[AlphaCentauri]

304. Obama is becoming a spoke person for the GOP foreign polices