It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Laptop-controlled landmines heading to Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Old dummy mines should not be banned but only used with caution and only deployed in open areas not urban environed.
In the 80's the UN banned using incendiary bombs but the U.S. did not sigh the treaty, I doubt we or other nations would stop using mines even if they were unpopular.




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Old dummy mines should not be banned but only used with caution and only deployed in open areas not urban environed.

Why?
If its ok to be used in open area's someone is going to decide the number of people needed to classify it as "urban".....if they are used, civilians will die.
More civilians will die than military targets.


In the 80's the UN banned using incendiary bombs but the U.S. did not sigh the treaty, I doubt we or other nations would stop using mines even if they were unpopular.

Yeah, the US the leading super power didnt help set an example.
I think we should stop using dummy mines, there use in combat is outweighed by the cost in civilian lifes by them.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I don't think the civilians outweigh the military advantages of using landmines. Sure some civilians will get killed but that is war, its harsh, but its the truth.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't think the civilians outweigh the military advantages of using landmines. Sure some civilians will get killed but that is war, its harsh, but its the truth.

Uh yes, civilians do outweigh military advantages, you start thining civilians as "expendable" and you lose what the armed forces are today.

Every month over 2,000 people are killed or maimed by mine explosions. Most of the casualties are civilians who are killed or injured after hostilities have ended.

Tell me how 2000 lives per month is an "advantage"?
I see it as a F up on a grand scale.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Why should every country have to follow a ban on land mines, when they haven't deployed land mines in civilian areas? Every weapon can be misused, are you going to ban assault rifles because some country goes around shooting civilians?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why should every country have to follow a ban on land mines, when they haven't deployed land mines in civilian areas? Every weapon can be misused, are you going to ban assault rifles because some country goes around shooting civilians?

Those in iraq, serbia, pakistan and africa sure arent in civilian areas are they?
Mines cant be stopped as easily as a bullet.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Is it the whole worlds fault that a few countries carelessly deploy dummy mines? NOPE. And like I said before any weapon can be misused.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Is it the whole worlds fault that a few countries carelessly deploy dummy mines? NOPE. And like I said before any weapon can be misused.

Its not just a few countries, its everyone.
The US, the UK, the french, the russians, everyone!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I still don’t think they should be banned, they should just make laws regulating their use not ban all of them.




West Point, Out.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I still don’t think they should be banned, they should just make laws regulating their use not ban all of them.

Why?
They cause serios civilian casualties and cost the UN and the US more than 6 times the cost of a person getting shot.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Yeah but your also forgetting that they are a great tool to have in a war.
And are you saying that building a mine cost more than a person getting shot?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah but your also forgetting that they are a great tool to have in a war.

So is chemical and biological weapons....do you want to use chemical and bio weapons on a town?
Same with forgetting human rights, thats a great advantage.


And are you saying that building a mine cost more than a person getting shot?

No a mine costs $3-30 and a bullet costs $0.08 dollars.....
I am sayng it costs 6 times as much to save a person from being blown up by a mine than being shot.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Why would you use chemical weapons on a town? You cant control the spread of chemical weapons but you can control where to plant your land mines.

And DevilW can a bullet do everything a mine can do?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I think those mines are OK as long as they remember where they put them and remove them after the war. It'd be even better if the mine can also identify incoming targets before blowing itself up.

War is not pretty in the first place. What the UN should concentrate on is to prevent war in the first place instead of putting restrictions on it to make it look pretty and civilised, which it's not going to be even with all those restrictions.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why would you use chemical weapons on a town?

A hypothetical scenario..... an example...


You cant control the spread of chemical weapons but you can control where to plant your land mines.

You control where you put the mines but can you control who steps on the mine?


And DevilW can a bullet do everything a mine can do?

Depends who's fireing the bullet....



Originally posted by Taishyou
War is not pretty in the first place. What the UN should concentrate on is to prevent war in the first place instead of putting restrictions on it to make it look pretty and civilised, which it's not going to be even with all those restrictions.

It doesnt matter if its meant to pretty or not....the fact is we should be controlling how we fight it instead of using any tool.
They do try and stop wars....they have to try and cover all the bases. Depends....restrictions work in more than the physical sense...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

You control where you put the mines but can you control who steps on the mine?


That not my problem as long as I put the mine’s in a place where only military forces operate in then I have acted responsibly. If some poor farmer comes by with his goats then there is nothing I can do about it.


Depends who's fireing the bullet....


Not really, your going to have a hell of time trying to take out a tank with a rifle, or pistol.


I think those mines are OK as long as they remember where they put them and remove them after the war. It'd be even better if the mine can also identify incoming targets before blowing itself up.


I agree, there should be mines that if the PSI is blew a certain level the mine should not go off.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That not my problem as long as I put the mine’s in a place where only military forces operate in then I have acted responsibly. If some poor farmer comes by with his goats then there is nothing I can do about it.

Then your admitting your an acessory to murder, if you knew the enemy and civilians where there you have just admitted to murder.
I'm sorry but its your mines, your responseiblilty and therefore your problem.



Not really, your going to have a hell of time trying to take out a tank with a rifle, or pistol.

Last time I checked the .50was called an anti vehicle weapon.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Its not my problem, I put the mine where military forces operate and if one day out of nowhere some farmer walks on it well too bad, war is a messy business.

And why try and take out a tank with a .50 cal or with any other close combat system exposing troops, when you can just place a mine in the ground and walk away.

DW listen I don't fee like continuing posting back and forth over this topic, you say ban dummy mines I say regulate their use. No further need for discussion.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Its not my problem, I put the mine where military forces operate and if one day out of nowhere some farmer walks on it well too bad, war is a messy business.

Using that logic then I can put a stinger trap in an area known to have street racers in it and not pay for any dammage caused by "colateral damage"
You forget the fact that these weapons make the war "messier"


And why try and take out a tank with a .50 cal or with any other close combat system exposing troops, when you can just place a mine in the ground and walk away.

Because the mine will most likely not kill a tank but a car load of people, if you want that to happen go ahead.
Its against my morals so I will try and do everything I can to stop you but go ahead.


DW listen I don't fee like continuing posting back and forth over this topic, you say ban dummy mines I say regulate their use. No further need for discussion.

Fine leave, but history will tell of how "effective" these weapons are......




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join