NationStates

Landmine Safety Protocol
International Security | Mild

---

The World Assembly,

Pursuing endlessly the goals of Peace and Goodwill throughout the world,

Recognizing that landmines, in particular, are indiscriminate and persistent tools of war that inherently threaten the long-term safety of civilians in and near conflicted areas,

Finding the use of those inherently indiscriminate weapons as utterly abhorrent,

Concerned that conventional measures of mitigating risk, such as marking or mapping these weapons, is ultimately useless, due to mine migration, changes in topography, and difficult detection,

Hereby declares:

Landmines, or mines for brevity, shall be defined as weapons adopted and issued by recognizable military services, designed to be deployed on or below the ground, detonate via some manner of proximity, and utilized as a means of ambush, area denial, or tactical boundary in conflict.

Member states shall consider extant laws relevant to the customs of war to apply to their use of landmines, and observe them appropriately.

Landmines must have at least one of the following features:

• A pre-set timed deactivation function that will reliably cause the mine to automatically become inert and inactive after such time as the tactical value of the mine is no longer immediate;
  
• A remote deactivation function that will reliably cause the mine to immediately become inert and inactive;
  
• A trigger function that reliably lends itself to selectively target hostiles instead of civilians, vehicles instead of personnel, or characteristics inherent to military hardware instead of civilian hardware.
  
• A remote or pre-set timed detonation function in lieu of a victim-activated trigger.

Member states shall not utilize, purchase, manufacture, stockpile, or transfer in any way mines that do not retain at least one of the listed features.

Member states shall take every practical precaution to avoid collateral damage to civilians or civilian infrastructure in their placement of mines.

Member states shall remove or render inert those mines deployed outside their territory at the conclusion of hostilities.

Benjamin Bell stands at the podium of the debate hall, his newest drafts presented before the Assembly for debate. Stood and flickered a bit.

"Hello. If you are seeing this, I am dead."

Bell snickers, then bursts out laughing.

"Ok, no, I'm not dead, but I'm not here for some reason. I probably finally got permission for a vacation back home, and wanted to make sure I could still do some work without actually doing any work. That's triple overtime per hour. At any rate, this is an interactive hologram. I found it in Enta's office when I assumed the Monkey Island delegacy, and I've recorded a number of response algorithms. I think. I have no idea how this works, and I've been basically pressing buttons. I can't read Ainocran, you see.

"Eh, at any rate...um...here?"

"I find the underlining of 'in lieu' unnecessary and gratuitous. Otherwise, I think this is ready for submission, Holobell."

"Good to see ya, holo-Bell... uh, nope, that sounds too much like hollow bell," Steph says, intoning the words ominously. "Let's go with 'Ambassador Lightshow.' Sounds like 'Freakshow,' but politer."

She clears her throat.

"Whatever manner of construct you are, can you tell us about the phrase 'manufactured by recognizable military services?' I could see 'deployed' or even 'requisitioned' or 'procured' if the goal is to legislate narrowly on state-used mining systems rather than those of guerrillas or insurgents; where 'manufactured' looks to leave major loopholes for saying 'Well, this was manufactured by MegaKillOBlastiCorp, not the Exemplar Republican Army.'"

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Good to see ya, holo-Bell... uh, nope, that sounds too much like hollow bell," Steph says, intoning the words ominously. "Let's go with 'Ambassador Lightshow.' Sounds like 'Freakshow,' but politer."

She clears her throat.

"Whatever manner of construct you are, can you tell us about the phrase 'manufactured by recognizable military services?' I could see 'deployed' or even 'requisitioned' or 'procured' if the goal is to legislate narrowly on state-used mining systems rather than those of guerrillas or insurgents; where 'manufactured' looks to leave major loopholes for saying 'Well, this was manufactured by MegaKillOBlastiCorp, not the Exemplar Republican Army.'"

"It was included specifically to exclude improvised explosive devices, Ambassador ##DATA_NOT_FOUND##. Despite that we can probably all agree that improvised explosive devices deserve some measure of attention from the World Assembly, they likely belong in a rehashing of a counter-terrorism law, not in a landmine treaty. The language can be adjusted to include "procured" or "issued" to cover those services that are supplied by manufacturers that are allowed greater freedom in contracting than the average government."

A staff officer from the diplomatic corps, dressed in a slightly misshapen suit walks up and hands a letter to Bell's hologram (OOC: Let's pretend holograms can hold letters now). He gives a short bow and says, 'From the Lord Permanent Representative-' and stops before he says the standard 'Your Excellency' when he sees the shimmering blue hologram. The text, in typewritten letters says:

I WILL REGARD COMMA YE COMMA THT ABOVE AND UPON DIRECTLY EXCLUDES UNDER STOP VERY GOOD TO KNOW STOP

Imperium Anglorum wrote:A staff officer from the diplomatic corps, dressed in a slightly misshapen suit walks up and hands a letter to Bell's hologram (OOC: Let's pretend holograms can hold letters now). He gives a short bow and says, 'From the Lord Permanent Representative-' and stops before he says the standard 'Your Excellency' when he sees the shimmering blue hologram. The text, in typewritten letters says:

I WILL REGARD COMMA YE COMMA THT ABOVE AND UPON DIRECTLY EXCLUDES UNDER STOP VERY GOOD TO KNOW STOP

The hologram, not programmed to read, ignores the comment. Fortunately, a well-placed janitor reads the letter aloud. When the hell did janitors start working in the General Assembly main hall while it was in use? Your General Fund donations at work, right?

"Thank you for bringing that oversight to my attention, JANITOR SCRUFFY. "Above" has been altered to read "below", and the exception for timed detonation as well as remote detonation has been made, as it serves essentially the same function. Such weapons, JANITOR SCRUFFY, would remain legal, as they are not victim-activated."

Parsons enters the conference room in his Colonel's uniform, having just returned from a military exercise in Cambigta. Placing his briefcase on one of the desks, he opens it and pulls out a military report titled 'Lessons Learnt from the Parussian War'.

Flipping to page 37, he reads and after a few moments, stands up, saying 'in the recent war in Cambigta, trenches were dug and landmines were used. Given the lack of existing technologies for the deactivation of such landmines remotely or the building of an internal timer which would deactivate those landmines, along with the failure rate of fuses, is the Excellent ... Representative? ... suggesting that we be prohibited from defending ourselves using technologies integral in area denial?'

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons enters the conference room in his Colonel's uniform, having just returned from a military exercise in Cambigta. Placing his briefcase on one of the desks, he opens it and pulls out a military report titled 'Lessons Learnt from the Parussian War'.

Flipping to page 37, he reads and after a few moments, stands up, saying 'in the recent war in Cambigta, trenches were dug and landmines were used. Given the lack of existing technologies for the deactivation of such landmines remotely or the building of an internal timer which would deactivate those landmines, along with the failure rate of fuses, is the Excellent ... Representative? ... suggesting that we be prohibited from defending ourselves using technologies integral in area denial?'

"Ambassador JANITOR SCRUFFY, yes. I am. You have other options, not the least of which are remote-detonating mines, be that via electronics or long burning fuse. Victim-activated mines without additional safety precautions are a persistent, deadly weapon with has few effective means of safe removal, and disproportionately affect civilian populations in the long term. My sympathy for their use is zero, always. Especially when one takes half a moment to look at the pictures or read the accounts of the results. Yes, I'm using a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument, and I don't especially care. When you see photos of little boys and girls missing half their limbs because of a weapon that was deployed when their parents were children, it stops seeming so silly, now doesn't it?"

OOC: why "proliferation"? There has to be a better word.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons enters the conference room in his Colonel's uniform, having just returned from a military exercise in Cambigta. Placing his briefcase on one of the desks, he opens it and pulls out a military report titled 'Lessons Learnt from the Parussian War'.

Flipping to page 37, he reads and after a few moments, stands up, saying 'in the recent war in Cambigta, trenches were dug and landmines were used. Given the lack of existing technologies for the deactivation of such landmines remotely or the building of an internal timer which would deactivate those landmines, along with the failure rate of fuses, is the Excellent ... Representative? ... suggesting that we be prohibited from defending ourselves using technologies integral in area denial?'

"Ambassador JANITOR SCRUFFY, yes. I am. You have other options, not the least of which are remote-detonating mines, be that via electronics or long burning fuse. Victim-activated mines without additional safety precautions are a persistent, deadly weapon with has few effective means of safe removal, and disproportionately affect civilian populations in the long term. My sympathy for their use is zero, always. Especially when one takes half a moment to look at the pictures or read the accounts of the results. Yes, I'm using a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument, and I don't especially care. When you see photos of little boys and girls missing half their limbs because of a weapon that was deployed when their parents were children, it stops seeming so silly, now doesn't it?"

Parsons looks quizzically, 'there exist no such electronics... and a long-burning fuse wouldn't be a landmine, it would basically be a shell. If you want landmines to not affect civilian populations, clean them up or prevent civilians from entering such areas. Humanitarian considerations are why the Democratic Empire is happy to give its support for your resolution on Explosive Remnants of War. Yet, this would put an undue strain on the ability of our nation to defend our trench lines in any upcoming war'.

OOC: I have to say, I rather like the compromise reached in real life on the topic in the Convention on Conventional Weapons, Protocol II.

Wrapper wrote:OOC: why "proliferation"? There has to be a better word.

OOC: Because I find conventional naming tropes ungood, and Landmine Convention is the historical precedent that I want to avoid.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons looks quizzically, 'there exist no such electronics... and a long-burning fuse wouldn't be a landmine, it would basically be a shell. If you want landmines to not affect civilian populations, clean them up or prevent civilians from entering such areas. Humanitarian considerations are why the Democratic Empire is happy to give its support for your resolution on Explosive Remnants of War. Yet, this would put an undue strain on the ability of our nation to defend our trench lines in any upcoming war'.

"Ambassador JANITOR SCRUFFY, I respect your decision to place the use of a comparatively niche weapon over the long-term, persistent dangers to civilian populations. I continue to respect your decision to utilize a weapon that is capable of killing decades after it's operator has, himself, died, which has zero human input on it's lethal deployment, unlike every other conventional weapon, including artillery, small arms, and even strategic arms. The fact that these weapons, unlike missiles, tanks, and hand grenades, operate on an timeline that exceeds the length of the war itself, and are designed to do so, unlike every other such weapon being an insufficient reason to protest their use is your right, and I will defend your right to hold that belief until my dying breath. It is, after all, your right to be wrong.

"I, however, and confronted by photographs of the victims of these weapons. I read the case files during my due diligence of background research, Ambassador JANITOR SCRUFFY. And I disagree that it is your nation's right to deploy weapons that are just as indiscriminate as biological weaponry. Further, I disagree to allow a loophole when dealing with what amounts to the targeting of civilians, merely because the entity doing the targeting consists of three springs and a fistful of screws rather than a sapient being. It is nothing short of the most egregious loophole left in my ongoing project on the customs and laws of war, you see. As such, I have no compunctions with telling your nation that increased cost in production of this aforementioned niche weapon is meaningless to me compared to the value in saving lives. You are lucky, Ambassador JANITOR SCRUFFY, that holograms are incapable of feeling personal or professional respect, because the real Benjamin Bell would view this stance as callousness on par with the most hardened of criminals."

"Your "compromise", such as it is, takes into account absolutely none of the realities of land mines, such as the fact that they migrate as seasons change and topography shifts, that markers fall down, and fences move. Your compromise, by many accounts, seems to ignore all conventional wisdom gleaned through the passage of time and hard-won experience. Perhaps this would be acceptable if all civilians were trained on and issued the most up-to-date minesweeping equipment?"

OOC: So, you want the rapid expansion or excessive spread of landmines?

Wrapper wrote:OOC: So, you want the rapid expansion or excessive spread of landmines?

OOC: Grammatically speaking, its a treaty that deals with the proliferation of landmines. And it doesn't actually reduce the spread of landmines, it, taken simply, requires that the mines have systems to facilitate removal or detonation. This has no hard effect on the number of mines in use.

Separatist Peoples wrote:And I disagree that it is your nation's right to deploy weapons that are just as indiscriminate as biological weaponry.

Parsons: Or, you could mark that there exist mines there... and tell civilians not to go near them. All you need is a sign.

OOC: This is the compromised reached in Protocol II of the real Convention on Conventional Weapons. You can put your landmines down... as long as you put signs, fences, and guards around it saying that there are landmines there.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Further, I disagree to allow a loophole when dealing with what amounts to the targeting of civilians, merely because the entity doing the targeting consists of three springs and a fistful of screws rather than a sapient being.

Parsons: Targeting of civilians would require (1) that civilians be purposefully selected and (2) that weapons be directed to those civilians. I agree in that landmines should not be targeted against civilians due to the fact that it is a bitch to get them all out. Now, laying landmines in a military war zone, declared by both sides to be a war zone, surrounded by trenches stringed with barbed wire giving context that it is in fact a war zone, in the middle of intermittent artillery bombardment which shows this is a war zone, and filled with bullets that show in fact this is a war zone, I feel is fine.

Separatist Peoples wrote:As such, I have no compunctions with telling your nation that increased cost in production of this aforementioned niche weapon is meaningless to me compared to the value in saving lives.

Parsons: No such technology exists.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wrapper wrote:OOC: So, you want the rapid expansion or excessive spread of landmines?

OOC: Grammatically speaking, its a treaty that deals with the proliferation of landmines. And it doesn't actually reduce the spread of landmines, it, taken simply, requires that the mines have systems to facilitate removal or detonation. This has no hard effect on the number of mines in use.

OOC: Hate to be a stickler on this, but if it doesn't do anything to increase the number of mines in use then it isn't a proliferation treaty. (Just like, if it doesn't do anything to decrease the number of mines in use, then it isn't a non-proliferation treaty.) Proliferation is an increase in numbers, a rapid expansion, a spread; if this is doing none of those things it isn't a proliferation treaty.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:And I disagree that it is your nation's right to deploy weapons that are just as indiscriminate as biological weaponry.

Parsons: Or, you could mark that there exist mines there... and tell civilians not to go near them. All you need is a sign.

"This assumes that signs do not move, fade, blow away, end up stolen, become inaccurate, or generally fail in their existence So, its this, or you can learn to quantum lock your signs."

OOC: This is the compromised reached in Protocol II of the real Convention on Conventional Weapons. You can put your landmines down... as long as you put signs, fences, and guards around it saying that there are landmines there.

OOC: Its also a terrible compromise that fails to account for any number of real faults in their usage. Why duplicate failure?

Parsons: Targeting of civilians would require (1) that civilians be purposefully selected and (2) that weapons be directed to those civilians. I agree in that landmines should not be targeted against civilians due to the fact that it is a bitch to get them all out. Now, laying landmines in a military war zone, declared by both sides to be a war zone, surrounded by trenches stringed with barbed wire giving context that it is in fact a war zone, in the middle of intermittent artillery bombardment which shows this is a war zone, and filled with bullets that show in fact this is a war zone, I feel is fine.

"Then, ambassador JANITOR SCRUFFY, we are left with two interpretations of how these weapons are targeted: mine, which determines that in the act of being activated by a civilian, a mine is targeting it's intended audience, and is therefore targeting civilians, or yours, in which a mine is inherently unable to target. As a result, they are inherently uncontrolled, which is the exact reasoning for the banning of biological weaponry.

"Laying mines in a warzone is perfectly acceptable. What become unacceptable is when you can't get them all out again, and they remain in the ground long after the war. Nobody is claiming that civilians are prone to walk through a battlezone, even though in modern conflict, this is a very common happenstance. What I am arguing, and what is categorically true, is that these weapons remain a threat infinitely longer than a shot bullet, because they don't stop being on that battleground. Ever. Even when that battleground becomes somebody's farm, like it was before the war.

"Reflecting that, nobody here has attempted to ban mines. They have been required to have certain safety mechanisms inherent to them.

Parsons: No such technology exists.

"Best set your scientists on it, then. Not being able to do something safely or reasonably is no excuse for doing it anyway. Or shall we allow slavery to revert in those lands where the technology doesn't exist to make agriculture practical without it? After all, by your logic, them pesky human rights are an unacceptable hindrance to national economy. You know, if we wanted to play the game of expedience succeeds morality."

Wrapper wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Grammatically speaking, its a treaty that deals with the proliferation of landmines. And it doesn't actually reduce the spread of landmines, it, taken simply, requires that the mines have systems to facilitate removal or detonation. This has no hard effect on the number of mines in use.

OOC: Hate to be a stickler on this, but if it doesn't do anything to increase the number of mines in use then it isn't a proliferation treaty. (Just like, if it doesn't do anything to decrease the number of mines in use, then it isn't a non-proliferation treaty.) Proliferation is an increase in numbers, a rapid expansion, a spread; if this is doing none of those things it isn't a proliferation treaty.

OOC: Thats silly. You're silly.


Fine...I see your point. I'll see what I can do that isn't totally trite, I guess.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wrapper wrote:OOC: Hate to be a stickler on this, but if it doesn't do anything to increase the number of mines in use then it isn't a proliferation treaty. (Just like, if it doesn't do anything to decrease the number of mines in use, then it isn't a non-proliferation treaty.) Proliferation is an increase in numbers, a rapid expansion, a spread; if this is doing none of those things it isn't a proliferation treaty.

OOC: Thats silly. You're silly.


Fine...I'll see what I can do that isn't totally trite, I guess.

Dude. My silliness has never been in question.

"Planning in advance for a claim I know is coming up...

"A timing device built like a mechanical clock designed to, at the end of a particular period of time, change the alignment of the mechanical detonator such that it cannot strike the primary charge is available to anybody who has the skills to build mechanical detonators in the first place. This is limited only by the size and complexity of the gears and the size of the mine case. Chemical fuses have been around since basically ever. Claims that the technology doesn't exist are just ridiculous on their face.

"Moreover, in addition to thinking of the children, I would like to think of the disadvantaged ethnic minorities, who, being so often on the borders between two nationalities or ethnicities, so very often see these conflicts literally in their backyards. Let us please think of the children and those already so often in the middle of conflict, who are disproportionately affected by these weapons.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:As such, I have no compunctions with telling your nation that increased cost in production of this aforementioned niche weapon is meaningless to me compared to the value in saving lives.

Parsons: No such technology exists.

"Come, sir. Do Democratic-Imperial chemists and mechanics not have the wherewithal to make a trigger that reliably decays or deactivates after a period of months into something unusable? This is simply a chemistry and/or engineering problem, not something totally egregious militarily."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: No such technology exists.

"Come, sir. Do Democratic-Imperial chemists and mechanics not have the wherewithal to make a trigger that reliably decays or deactivates after a period of months into something unusable? This is simply a chemistry and/or engineering problem, not something totally egregious militarily."

OOC: Make, yes. Reliably? No. Not mechanically. I mean, during the First World War, they wanted every shell they launched over to the other side of explode. Turns out, failure rate was at least 10%. The fuses which were used still blow up shells today. For argument's sake, let's pretend everyone has MT tech for this post.

To make something that is going to reliably deactivate a landmine after however many years it takes for the war to end... would require solid-state electronics (otherwise, it would degrade and fail most of the time) and a power source. Power sources run out. Electronics, whilst better than something like an internal clock, still degrade. Making a system to do it? Totally possible. Making it have a battery that will last years in the open? Keeping the deactivation circuit working? Probably not reliably.

Doing that in 1913? Nope. Doing that in 1930? Nope. Doing that in 1945? Also nope. (Aside: all these years are before the invention of the first reasonably mass-producable transistor in 1947). In real life, I would probably support such a proposal of banning landmines. Requiring that they have ridiculously stringent requirements means nobody will use them (or... would just flaunt such regulations openly by simply not signing the convention). I say probably because such a radical move would not stop anyone in real life. You can 'ban' nuclear weapons in the real world. Just none of the nuclear weapon states would ever sign that treaty, making it entirely useless. But that is a discussion for another time.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Come, sir. Do Democratic-Imperial chemists and mechanics not have the wherewithal to make a trigger that reliably decays or deactivates after a period of months into something unusable? This is simply a chemistry and/or engineering problem, not something totally egregious militarily."

OOC: Make, yes. Reliably? No. Not mechanically. I mean, during the First World War, they wanted every shell they launched over to the other side of explode. Turns out, failure rate was at least 10%. The fuses which were used still blow up shells today. For argument's sake, let's pretend everyone has MT tech for this post.

To make something that is going to reliably deactivate a landmine after however many years it takes for the war to end... would require solid-state electronics (otherwise, it would degrade and fail most of the time) and a power source. Power sources run out. Electronics, whilst better than something like an internal clock, still degrade. Making a system to do it? Totally possible. Making it have a battery that will last years in the open? Keeping the deactivation circuit working? Probably not reliably.

Doing that in 1913? Nope. Doing that in 1930? Nope. Doing that in 1945? Also nope. (Aside: all these years are before the invention of the first reasonably mass-producable transistor in 1947). In real life, I would probably support such a proposal of banning landmines. Requiring that they have ridiculously stringent requirements means nobody will use them (or... would just flaunt such regulations openly by simply not signing the convention). I say probably because such a radical move would not stop anyone in real life. You can 'ban' nuclear weapons in the real world. Just none of the nuclear weapon states would ever sign that treaty, making it entirely useless. But that is a discussion for another time.

Ooc: modern times mines degrade after a matter of days. That technology exists in spades. The requirement for timed mechanisms specifically targets the tactical usefulness of a mine, not the strategic use of the mine. Especially with cluster munitions, this runs out between 72 and 96 hours, generally, and require redistribution via artillery shell.

Massive fields of mines, marked or otherwise, are static defensive placements that are historically and practically less efficient than placing troops somewhere. All I can say to this is that if your blind lust for total war exceeds any notion of compassion for civilians, the WA is not for you. Alternatives to persistent minefields exist, and should be pursued, and I'm really not going to take more than passing note of PT RP for an assembly almost entirely geared to MT or PMT tech.

(Ari enters the debate hall, hearing a familiar voice. Ah. It's holo-Benjamin. Haven't played with him and Vic Fontaine for awhile.)

Hmmm... well, firstly, holo-Ambassador, that is one awesome title. Design criteria, sounds very engineering-like. Whoever came up with it deserves undying adulation. Or a kick in the ass for being such a smarty-pants. Nobody likes a smarty-pants around these parts, right, Wad Ahume?

As to where we stand on this, yes, this is a conundrum. As you know we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper would never sign on to any legislation that explicitly permits the use of such brutal weapons and tactics. On the other hand, your sensible approach to their use would no doubt reduce future "collateral damage" as you warmon-- er, as some military types would call it, making it safer for civilians once war is over. For now we shall abstain, but we will provide input as we feel necessary.

We do take note that naval mines are not included. Nor for that matter are space mines. Perhaps you would consider... eh, never mind, this is complicated enough. Let's move on.

You use the phrase "become inert and safe" in a couple of places. Perhaps you mean "deactivated" instead?

OOC: UXO usually cannot be considered "inert and safe" unless there is some sort of self-destruct. Yes, the power supply may drain in a short period of time (e.g. by using a small lithium cell to power the mine and/or the fuze), rendering an explosive device unarmed, but unarmed does not necessarily equate "inert and safe". The explosive chemicals, such as RDX or HMX, can still be present in an active form. "Inert" specifically means there is no UXO present; the most reliable way to render UXO inert is to expend it (or "blow that shit up" in military parlance), which is why that's the preferred method of disposal. Just food for thought for the most part.

Wrapper wrote:OOC: UXO usually cannot be considered "inert and safe" unless there is some sort of self-destruct. Yes, the power supply may drain in a short period of time (e.g. by using a small lithium cell to power the mine and/or the fuze), rendering an explosive device unarmed, but unarmed does not necessarily equate "inert and safe". The explosive chemicals, such as RDX or HMX, can still be present in an active form. "Inert" specifically means there is no UXO present; the most reliable way to render UXO inert is to expend it (or "blow that shit up" in military parlance), which is why that's the preferred method of disposal. Just food for thought for the most part.

OOC: This is a pretty good point here. I was thinking of the manner of deactivation earlier. I presumed that it would just trigger when the timer runs out, but then 'what happens to anyone so unfortunate to be sitting when that happens?' is an important question. Also, does shelling the minefield (to activate the mines) count as deactivating it?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Wrapper wrote:OOC: UXO usually cannot be considered "inert and safe" unless there is some sort of self-destruct. Yes, the power supply may drain in a short period of time (e.g. by using a small lithium cell to power the mine and/or the fuze), rendering an explosive device unarmed, but unarmed does not necessarily equate "inert and safe". The explosive chemicals, such as RDX or HMX, can still be present in an active form. "Inert" specifically means there is no UXO present; the most reliable way to render UXO inert is to expend it (or "blow that shit up" in military parlance), which is why that's the preferred method of disposal. Just food for thought for the most part.

OOC: This is a pretty good point here. I was thinking of the manner of deactivation earlier. I presumed that it would just trigger when the timer runs out, but then 'what happens to anyone so unfortunate to be sitting when that happens?' is an important question. Also, does shelling the minefield (to activate the mines) count as deactivating it?

OOC: Shelling renders the device "inert and safe", so I'll be going with that.