[DRAFT] Repeal Landmine Convention

[Taeji]

Greetings sirs and madams, I represent The Free Land of Taeji and I have came here to discuss my poor draft on "Repealing The Landmine Convention (GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 40)".

Regrettably, this is my very first time on submitting a draft for the WA proposal. Even worse, my first language is not English. I sincerely appreciate any kind of help on this proposal with my good intentions with them.

Major arguments of this proposal are these: The terminology 'landmine' was defined very sketchy; thus prone to abuse, Landmines are mainly employed as cost-efficient defensive armament unlike Nuclear weaponry; thus the weaker nations are more vulnerable to its disarmament, WADA that the resolution have proposed to supervise the dismining process is has so little authority that the expected effectiveness is not guranteed.

Here is my weird first draft of the proposal.

RECOGNIZING that the landmines are dangerous weaponry to be deployed as civilian casualities are caused by employing such armament.

APPLAUSING the intention of the original resolution for contributing on world peace. And opening the room on promoting restless study on demining technique to minimize the civilian causalties.

HOWEVER ADMITTING that the landmines are efficient weapon against armored forced by the less economically-privileged nations. And NOTICING they are defensive-weaponry which are hard to be uaed in offensive operation, thus the agression, thus the invasion or any form of hostality against another Nation.

WORRIED on disarmament resolution of World Assembly have counter-acted the security of the member nations by discouraging the mean of defense.

YET CONCERNED that the resolution failed to address the current technological advancement of landmines by defining the landmine as "[E]xplosive devices ... designed to cause injury or death to persons [Sic] ..." Excluding IED (Not 'designed'), Anti-tank mines (Not 'to persons'), Biological mines, EMP mines, Flamethrowing mines and even Nuclear mines (Not 'explosive') due to ABUSABLE definition that failed to embrace the whole possible concept and the potential technological advancement in future.

QUESTIONING the good of WADA or World Assembly Demining Agency which was proposed to be organized on the resolution for LACKING the authority to be protected during the demining operation to ensure the flawless intervention, not to mention the absent of anti-corruption system for sustaining neutrality on imposing disarmament on a certain nation.

SUGGESTING The future resolution may not prohibit the usage of the landmines, but focus solely on limiting the design.

HEREBY repeals the resolution ~~~~

[Separatist Peoples]

Greetings sirs and madams, I represent The Free Land of Taeji and I have came here to discuss my poor draft on "Repealing The Landmine Convention (GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 40)".

Regrettably, this is my very first time on submitting a draft for the WA proposal. Even worse, my first language is not English. I sincerely appreciate any kind of help on this proposal with my good intentions with them.

Major arguments of this proposal are these: The terminology 'landmine' was defined very sketchy; thus prone to abuse, Landmines are mainly employed as cost-efficient defensive armament unlike Nuclear weaponry; thus the weaker nations are more vulnerable to its disarmament, WADA that the resolution have proposed to supervise the dismining process is has so little authority that the expected effectiveness is not guranteed.

Here is my weird first draft of the proposal.

RECOGNIZING that the landmines are dangerous weaponry to be deployed as civilian casualities are caused by employing such armament.

APPLAUSING the intention of the original resolution for contributing on world peace. And opening the room on promoting restless study on demining technique to minimize the civilian causalties.

HOWEVER ADMITTING that the landmines are efficient weapon against armored forced by the less economically-privileged nations. And NOTICING they are defensive-weaponry which are hard to be uaed in offensive operation, thus the agression, thus the invasion or any form of hostality against another Nation.

WORRIED on disarmament resolution of World Assembly have counter-acted the security of the member nations by discouraging the mean of defense.

YET CONCERNED that the resolution failed to address the current technological advancement of landmines by defining the landmine as "[E]xplosive devices ... designed to cause injury or death to persons [Sic] ..." Excluding IED (Not 'designed'), Anti-tank mines (Not 'to persons'), Biological mines, EMP mines, Flamethrowing mines and even Nuclear mines (Not 'explosive') due to ABUSABLE definition that failed to embrace the whole possible concept and the potential technological advancement in future.

QUESTIONING the good of WADA or World Assembly Demining Agency which was proposed to be organized on the resolution for LACKING the authority to be protected during the demining operation to ensure the flawless intervention, not to mention the absent of anti-corruption system for sustaining neutrality on imposing disarmament on a certain nation.

SUGGESTING The future resolution may not prohibit the usage of the landmines, but focus solely on limiting the design.

HEREBY repeals the resolution ~~~~

I'm not going to pick on your spelling or grammar because you said that English isn't your first language, and that would be mean. But I do struggle with how this effectively counters what I feel to be the main point in the original legislature: that landmines are incapable of distinguishing between enemy or innocent civilian.

As to your argument that the definition of landmine is being stretched, I feel you are approaching a "slippery slope" sort of point with that argument. Biological, EMP, Flamethrowing mines would all be wildly ineffective. The only mine you listed that would be remotely useful would be a nuclear mine, and I believe that the manner in which nuclear mines detonate can be considered, for the sake of this resolution, an explosion.

[Weemike]

landmines are an extremely barbaric weapon, designed to maim rather than kill. And what's worse, they're incapable of discriminating whether it's a soldier or a civilian walking over. As such, any attempt to stop this is better than none, and you'd better have a damn good proposal waiting to replace it if you want my support.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Well, personally I feel the landmine ban is going too far in NationStates and RL both, but that may come from remembering cold war era, living in a small "Western" country next to the big and scary Soviet Union. Putting landmines on the border between the two countries always sounded like a good idea to me. Still does, when it comes to small nations defending themselves from larger ones.

I understand the humanitarian reasons and know what horrible damage landmines can do to unsuspecting civilians, which is why they should be thoroughly mapped and heck, preferably marked on the terrain - they would at least slow the enemy's land forces down.

IC: If nuclear bombs are not and will not be banned by this assembly, I really see no reason for any other indiscriminate weaponry to be so. Or, inversely, if biological weapons and landmines are banned on grounds of not distinguishing the enemy soldiers from the civilians, and causing untold suffering, then why are chemical weapons and nuclear weapons allowed on that same justification?

[United Federation of Canada]

If nuclear bombs are not and will not be banned by this assembly, I really see no reason for any other indiscriminate weaponry to be so. Or, inversely, if biological weapons and landmines are banned on grounds of not distinguishing the enemy soldiers from the civilians, and causing untold suffering, then why are chemical weapons and nuclear weapons allowed on that same justification?

With any luck, Chemical Weapons will be banned soon as well.

[Weemike]

If nuclear bombs are not and will not be banned by this assembly, I really see no reason for any other indiscriminate weaponry to be so. Or, inversely, if biological weapons and landmines are banned on grounds of not distinguishing the enemy soldiers from the civilians, and causing untold suffering, then why are chemical weapons and nuclear weapons allowed on that same justification?

With any luck, Chemical Weapons will be banned soon as well.

I second that hope.

[Separatist Peoples]

Chemical weapons ban? Yikes! No thank you...talk about a massive strategic pin of the C.D.S.P.'s offensive capabilities...

[Araraukar]

Chemical weapons ban? Yikes! No thank you...talk about a massive strategic pin of the C.D.S.P.'s offensive capabilities...

So what's your justification for banning landmines (and biological weapons)?

[United Federation of Canada]

Chemical weapons ban? Yikes! No thank you...talk about a massive strategic pin of the C.D.S.P.'s offensive capabilities...

So what's your justification for banning landmines (and biological weapons)?

That was going to be my question.

[Separatist Peoples]

Our chemical engineers are confident they can control the area of affect of our chemical weapons to reduce civilian casualties. Since our compounds are not designed to linger or spread beyond the cleared area, we can justify their usage as being as discriminatory as conventional explosives. Unlike many, our chemical weapons aren't sprayed helter-skelter over population centers via ballistic missiles. Take umbrage if you will.

[Imperializt Russia]

landmines are an extremely barbaric weapon, designed to maim rather than kill. And what's worse, they're incapable of discriminating whether it's a soldier or a civilian walking over. As such, any attempt to stop this is better than none, and you'd better have a damn good proposal waiting to replace it if you want my support.

Several hundred metal fragments and/or ball bearings are designed to kill. It's merely a function of what shrapnel is that lethal radius is significantly lesser than casualty radius - a phenomenon that can be experienced from pretty much any shrapnel-throwing weapon.

So long as minefields are planned, marked and recorded adequately, there can be reasonable efforts made to clear minefields at the end of hostilities. When a minefield is being actively used for defensive purposes, there can be a reasonable expectation that a rambler is not at risk of injury from blundering into it.
Since, what rambler is idiot enough to wander into a zone in which they not only put themselves at risk of landmine injury, but also artillery strike, sniper fire, machine gun fire and generally blundering into the middle of a war zone in which there may be thousands of artillery pieces and armoured vehicles and thousands more infantry fighting.

[United Federation of Canada]

landmines are an extremely barbaric weapon, designed to maim rather than kill. And what's worse, they're incapable of discriminating whether it's a soldier or a civilian walking over. As such, any attempt to stop this is better than none, and you'd better have a damn good proposal waiting to replace it if you want my support.

Several hundred metal fragments and/or ball bearings are designed to kill. It's merely a function of what shrapnel is that lethal radius is significantly lesser than casualty radius - a phenomenon that can be experienced from pretty much any shrapnel-throwing weapon.

So long as minefields are planned, marked and recorded adequately, there can be reasonable efforts made to clear minefields at the end of hostilities. When a minefield is being actively used for defensive purposes, there can be a reasonable expectation that a rambler is not at risk of injury from blundering into it.
Since, what rambler is idiot enough to wander into a zone in which they not only put themselves at risk of landmine injury, but also artillery strike, sniper fire, machine gun fire and generally blundering into the middle of a war zone in which there may be thousands of artillery pieces and armoured vehicles and thousands more infantry fighting.

Yes, because as you know we always mark our mine fields, and announce to everyone where they are, so they don't accidentally send troops, or tanks over them

Will you please drop these delusions that WMD's and landlines are actually useful combat weapons, and get a grip on reality please.

[Imperializt Russia]

If your enemy knows there is a minefield there, he will either waste a day trying to get through it, or he will go around it and into a carefully crafted killing zone you have constructed to your explicit advantage.
Alternatively, you can make your enemy think there is a minefield there and achieve the same effect. An hour your opponent wastes on a ruse they cannot afford to chance is an hour more you have to assess their own force by reconnaissance and modify your defences accordingly.

Incredibly simple misdirection misinformation sent the bulk of the Nazi's forces in the buildup to Operation Overlord to Calais and Norway. The Norwegian troops remained stationed there for the remainder of the war.

[United Federation of Canada]

If your enemy knows there is a minefield there, he will either waste a day trying to get through it, or he will go around it and into a carefully crafted killing zone you have constructed to your explicit advantage.
Alternatively, you can make your enemy think there is a minefield there and achieve the same effect. An hour your opponent wastes on a ruse they cannot afford to chance is an hour more you have to assess their own force by reconnaissance and modify your defences accordingly.

Incredibly simple misdirection misinformation sent the bulk of the Nazi's forces in the buildup to Operation Overlord to Calais and Norway. The Norwegian troops remained stationed there for the remainder of the war.

Or better yet, I can detonate the whole thing with a few cluster munitions from a cruise missile launched from 500 miles away, and drive right on though. Hell skip that entirely and just use helicopters, and my airforce and fly over it.

As you like to throw RW references around to backup your strawman arguments, you seem to fail to realize 161 countries ratified the Ottawa Treaty, for good reasons. Land mines are just as dangerous to friendly forces, as they are to enemy forces. How many people have died in Europe over the last seventy years, stepping on antiqued landmines?

Really? Operation Overlord? You are going to use that as an argument? Welcome to the 21st Century man.

[Metox]

I am for this resolution. After my first and last foray into weapons control, I hope to rebuild my now horribly tarnished my reputation.

Landmines provide an inexpensive way of destroying an expensive enemy. They allow nations with lesser militaries to stand against stronger nations with larger, better equipped militaries.
Their civilian cost is easily negated by documentation and clear marking of minefields. Additionally, unlike most other weapons, landmines are almost purely defensive. You can't assault a position with landmines.

Another thing to note is that 'explosive devices' does not include non-explosive traps such as caltrops and punji sticks.

[Imperializt Russia]

If your enemy knows there is a minefield there, he will either waste a day trying to get through it, or he will go around it and into a carefully crafted killing zone you have constructed to your explicit advantage.
Alternatively, you can make your enemy think there is a minefield there and achieve the same effect. An hour your opponent wastes on a ruse they cannot afford to chance is an hour more you have to assess their own force by reconnaissance and modify your defences accordingly.

Incredibly simple misdirection misinformation sent the bulk of the Nazi's forces in the buildup to Operation Overlord to Calais and Norway. The Norwegian troops remained stationed there for the remainder of the war.

Or better yet, I can detonate the whole thing with a few cluster munitions from a cruise missile launched from 500 miles away, and drive right on though. Hell skip that entirely and just use helicopters, and my airforce and fly over it.

As you like to throw RW references around to backup your strawman arguments, you seem to fail to realize 161 countries ratified the Ottawa Treaty, for good reasons. Land mines are just as dangerous to friendly forces, as they are to enemy forces. How many people have died in Europe over the last seventy years, stepping on antiqued landmines?

Really? Operation Overlord? You are going to use that as an argument? Welcome to the 21st Century man.

What? Using cluster munitions to "defeat" a minefield is beyond idiotic. All you're doing is adding to the unexploded ordnance that's down there. Cluster munitions have a worryingly high failure rate and unlike a landmine, you can't be sure where it's been placed. A significant factor behind why those have been banned in the real world. They're more hilariously dangerous post-conflict than mines, arguably.

Flying over minefields in helicopters also displays such a disdain for basic logic. You will be flying into the jaws of air defences. Man-portable missiles, SPAAGs and combination platforms like Pantsir. Divisional air defence will be able to spot you from dozens if not hundreds of kilometres distant and engage you from less. You'd also be completely at the mercy of an enemy fighter force, simply trying to hop thousands of troops over a minefield at unfathomable expense and vulnerability by transport helicopter.

[United Federation of Canada]

Or better yet, I can detonate the whole thing with a few cluster munitions from a cruise missile launched from 500 miles away, and drive right on though. Hell skip that entirely and just use helicopters, and my airforce and fly over it.

As you like to throw RW references around to backup your strawman arguments, you seem to fail to realize 161 countries ratified the Ottawa Treaty, for good reasons. Land mines are just as dangerous to friendly forces, as they are to enemy forces. How many people have died in Europe over the last seventy years, stepping on antiqued landmines?

Really? Operation Overlord? You are going to use that as an argument? Welcome to the 21st Century man.

What? Using cluster munitions to "defeat" a minefield is beyond idiotic. All you're doing is adding to the unexploded ordnance that's down there. Cluster munitions have a worryingly high failure rate and unlike a landmine, you can't be sure where it's been placed. A significant factor behind why those have been banned in the real world. They're more hilariously dangerous post-conflict than mines, arguably.

Flying over minefields in helicopters also displays such a disdain for basic logic. You will be flying into the jaws of air defences. Man-portable missiles, SPAAGs and combination platforms like Pantsir. Divisional air defence will be able to spot you from dozens if not hundreds of kilometres distant and engage you from less. You'd also be completely at the mercy of an enemy fighter force, simply trying to hop thousands of troops over a minefield at unfathomable expense and vulnerability by transport helicopter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining

In these mine clearance operations, the methods that are applied for detection and removal are quicker, but less exacting. These methods include those that detect and remove in a single action, such as mechanical demining, carpet bombing, burning of the land or the use of Bangalore torpedoes or mine-clearing line charges.

[Metox]

If your enemy knows there is a minefield there, he will either waste a day trying to get through it, or he will go around it and into a carefully crafted killing zone you have constructed to your explicit advantage.
Alternatively, you can make your enemy think there is a minefield there and achieve the same effect. An hour your opponent wastes on a ruse they cannot afford to chance is an hour more you have to assess their own force by reconnaissance and modify your defences accordingly.

Incredibly simple misdirection misinformation sent the bulk of the Nazi's forces in the buildup to Operation Overlord to Calais and Norway. The Norwegian troops remained stationed there for the remainder of the war.

Or better yet, I can detonate the whole thing with a few cluster munitions from a cruise missile launched from 500 miles away, and drive right on though. Hell skip that entirely and just use helicopters, and my airforce and fly over it.

As you like to throw RW references around to backup your strawman arguments, you seem to fail to realize 161 countries ratified the Ottawa Treaty, for good reasons. Land mines are just as dangerous to friendly forces, as they are to enemy forces. How many people have died in Europe over the last seventy years, stepping on antiqued landmines?

Really? Operation Overlord? You are going to use that as an argument? Welcome to the 21st Century man.

How would you know that the minefield was 'cleared'?
If they went through the care of placing a minefield, you'd thing they'd be smart enough to have air defenses, SAMs and ZSU analogs at the least, if not fighter cover.

And instead of rehashing what Imperializt has already said:
You can only airlift so much. Men, and their equipment. Maybe small artillery pieces and transport vehicles. But unless you're using M551s, you're not airlifting tanks.
Plus helicopters are horrifically inefficient suppliers. You would have to have an astronomically large number of helicopters to move an entire corps of men, let alone their equipment, supplies, and other necessities of an army. And then you have the inevitable losses do to malfunction, AAA, and enemy aircraft. Landmines make it difficult to assault a position. You can't just jump over it.

Edit: Carpet bombing and cluster munitions are not the same thing. Cluster munitions are randomly dispersed. Carpet bombing is not.

[United Federation of Canada]

Not going to quote your massive post there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97

[Metox]

Not going to quote your massive post there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97

And how are these useful for clearing minefields? They're designed for use against armoured vehicles. Not landmines.

[United Federation of Canada]

Not going to quote your massive post there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97

And how are these useful for clearing minefields? They're designed for use against armoured vehicles. Not landmines.

Different sub-munitions perhaps?

[Imperializt Russia]

You can carpet bomb without using cluster munitions.
Cluster bomb submunitions may have a failure rate of anywhere between 10 to 25% depending on weather conditions and impact surface. The F-117, a highly advanced stealth bomber of its day, had a 25% failure in Desert Storm to even drop its bombs. It was also reported to have an accuracy of between 55 and 80% with unguided munitions, like cluster bombs.

A 10% failure rate can mean anywhere between 10 and 50 or even 75 unexploded bomblets, each capable of killing your own tanks, engineering vehicles, IFVs or infantry. You can't even guarantee that a "hit" bomblet that detonates will actually clear any mines in its periphery. This is why people who were not idiots, ie, the US Military, built vehicles such as the Assault Breacher Vehicle which launches a length of explosive cable into a minefield to clear a rough path. It achieves a much greater effectiveness in such a role over cluster bombs because it is a single munition, is much larger than individual or even grouped cluster submunitions and is confined to a small area and poses a lesser risk to friendly forces - especially the ABV, which is required to sit on the edge of a minefield to do this.

[United Federation of Canada]

You can carpet bomb without using cluster munitions.
Cluster bomb submunitions may have a failure rate of anywhere between 10 to 25% depending on weather conditions and impact surface. The F-117, a highly advanced stealth bomber of its day, had a 25% failure in Desert Storm to even drop its bombs. It was also reported to have an accuracy of between 55 and 80% with unguided munitions, like cluster bombs.

A 10% failure rate can mean anywhere between 10 and 50 or even 75 unexploded bomblets, each capable of killing your own tanks, engineering vehicles, IFVs or infantry. You can't even guarantee that a "hit" bomblet that detonates will actually clear any mines in its periphery. This is why people who were not idiots, ie, the US Military, built vehicles such as the Assault Breacher Vehicle which launches a length of explosive cable into a minefield to clear a rough path. It achieves a much greater effectiveness in such a role over cluster bombs because it is a single munition, is much larger than individual or even grouped cluster submunitions and is confined to a small area and poses a lesser risk to friendly forces - especially the ABV, which is required to sit on the edge of a minefield to do this.

So you are now defending my point, that Land mines are useless? Finally reason has prevailed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not at all.
I'm saying that using cluster munitions to defeat minefields is like putting rat poison on your own food to stop the rats eating it.

You're adding to the danger, because cluster munitions are practically air-deployed mines. They have poor failure rates and are individually ineffective for the purpose of engaging mines for which better systems exist, which I have outlined.

And you accuse me of strawman arguments.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not going to quote your massive post there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97

That's like going at a minefield with a needle totally randomly, and with a certain risk that you add more explosive surprises in your way. IMHO the best way, if we are to emulate you is to plough the entire field up with 50,000 Mk-82's. But then the cost-benefit ratio just swung over massively to your enemy's side and that S-400 battery you see over there? Your entire bomber force you sent out just went down in the minefield with their bombs. Even after a thorough bombing campaign in which your 4x4 km target area is looking more like the Lunar surface you cannot be totally sure that all mines have been thrown clear or exploded. If just one of your guys proceeding through this area flies skyward because of an uncleared mine your entire column must now stop, fall back through the same path from which they came from, and redo the entire costly matter, possibly losing another one of your bomber regiments in the process. You are now also at least a week behind schedule and your commanding general is wondering why the FUCK you are wasting hundreds of bombers and millions of tons of bombs, with no apparent gain. Which is why ABV's and other less costly and faster methods exist.

Secondly, modern landmines may sport fuses that instead of triggering the mine seizes up upon an intense but brief shock, like an explosion. Congratulations, all I need to do is to mine my frontage with shock-insensitive mines and you will be throwing all your air force on it, losing 50% of it, and still, you will have cleared a maximum of 10% of the minefield.

So you are now defending my point, that Land mines are useless? Finally reason has prevailed.

How, in the name of all that's sweet and lovely did you come to that conclusion? Are you completely blocking out Samoz and just hearing what you want to hear? If so then this conversation is over.