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.

 

U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

U.S. won't join landmine ban, administration decides


www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) -- The United States won't join its NATO allies and many other countries in formally banning landmines, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said during his midday briefing Tuesday.

"This administration undertook a policy review and we decided our landmine policy remains in effect," Kelly said in response to a question. "We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention."

Opponents of the U.S. landmine policy said they were surpris
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Wow, I am a bit surprised by this development. You'd think that the US would really not have much use for land mines these days with the invent of drones and what not.


The U.S. is proud to be the world's single largest supporter of humanitarian mine action," Kelly said. "Since 1993 the U.S. has provided more than $1.5 billion worldwide dedicated to building new partnerships with more than 50 post-conflict countries and supporting efforts by dozens of NGOs to promote stability and set the stage for recovery and development through mine clearance and conventional-weapons destruction programs."


I think that statement is pretty funny considering they won't sign the biggest piece of anti land mine legislation brought forth yes.

So the US will pay other countries to remove the mines, but won't stop using them.

Smart..

~Keeper


www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The US has never signed that treaty before. It really surprises me though that still to this day, we "need" to have mines.

Especially with all the supposed CHANGE we were promised last November....



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
you would think with all the "land mines" this administration is trying to leave behind they would be a little more concerned.


Note to OP;sorry I couldn't resist



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
The US has never signed that treaty before. It really surprises me though that still to this day, we "need" to have mines.

Especially with all the supposed CHANGE we were promised last November....


ermmm interesting.... with your signature, you know the Adolf one about telling lies, I thought you would of known better than to trust Obama.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I'm not entirely surprised, disappointed yes but not surprised.

The US is a military superpower, and unless they definitely have to, they're not going to relinquish a weapon that they may (however unlikely) have cause to use again.

In a way you have to admire their resolve, while at the same time shaking your head in disgust!

we should send this to them:



When will we ever learn?

All the best kiwifoot

[edit on 24-11-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Ha!
I never said I trusted him or voted for him. Just said that's what was promised to the American people. There's very little I actually trust or believe.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
Ha!
I never said I trusted him or voted for him. Just said that's what was promised to the American people. There's very little I actually trust or believe.


I know...... I just think a lot of people were dooped by Obama.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Definitely have to agree with ya there.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Chalk one up for the MIC lobbyists! Way to go, guys! Keep those people employed building those antipersonnel mines!

This is 5 years old but still a pretty interesting read. We appear to not have signed before, along with Cuba. Also, we appear to use humane mines that self-destruct or self-deactivate. Guess that's okay if you don't happen to be on top of one when it self-destructs. They also appear to have a pretty high fail rate at this. Wonder if the one U.S. manufacturer is still even making these things....



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


There are many different land mines we use, while we still have the buried in the ground mines we dont use them as much as claymores. Claymores are "land mines" that we used heavily in Iraq, they are trigger mines, which can be remote or laser denotated.


Also anti tank mines dont forget them



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Also anti tank mines dont forget them


These can't detonate under human weight. Not really part of the discussion, imo. I'm sure the technicalities of the proposed ban state anti-personnel mines.

A predictable result from the American government.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
How many of you have any knowledge of mines past old war movies?

Mines have a place on the modern battlefield, and a big one. No Army can be everywhere and mines provide the crucial role of providing obstacles to enemy forces.

And, as poedxsoldiervet pointed out, claymores are crucial to the survival of some troops. I was a US Army Cavalry Scout, or Armored Reconnaissance Specialist. A large part of my job was sneaking forward of friendly forces into enemy territory and reporting intel in two man teams. We were two soldiers surrounded by enemy. To help give us a sliver of a chance of survival if our observation point was discovered by an enemy patrol, we placed shaped charges called Claymore mines around our position. They were detonated with a 'clacker,' a handheld remote detonator.

Basically, what I am getting at is that so many of you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, and yet you have formed an opinion on the matter. This is the problem inherent in democracy.

And to the person who posted the picture of the little boy: I assume that it is relevant because he lost his leg due to an American land mine? I would support a ban on selling land mines to retarded militants in third world countries. Don’t blame the idiocy of some Somalia ‘soldier’ on modern American forces.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Land mines are just IEDs for rich people. It's okay though because they're professionally manufactured and distributed.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
HopeyMcChange is sure bringing us real some good change... NOT.

That was an easy joke and told millions of times already... but you know, if he actually did what he promised, this joke wouldn't work... so, it's his fault.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Also anti tank mines dont forget them


These can't detonate under human weight. Not really part of the discussion, imo. I'm sure the technicalities of the proposed ban state anti-personnel mines.

A predictable result from the American government.


Again, a case of going off half cocked without knowing what you are talking about.

Many anti-tank mines are detonated by magnets. When we clear minefields by hand, the first thing we do is remove ALL metal from our bodies so we dont detonate mines in our path. We also use wooden dowels to detect the mines, not knives like you will see some poorly trained troops doing.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Land mines are just IEDs for rich people. It's okay though because they're professionally manufactured and distributed.


How in the world can anything manufactured for a specific purpose be an IMPROVISED explosive device.

Back in the good old days of ATS we had to actually think about what we were saying. Now you can get by just following the popular position.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
The biggest problem and why the US will no sign is the claymore mine and defensive mine fields like between the Korea's

Almost no one is killed by accident in the Korean field because its a no mans land between the two countries.

And no one is killed by accident with claymore mines because they are command fired mines used for defence against human wave type attack or at fortifications.

Since May 2004 three governments have been confirmed to use antipersonnel landmines: Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, and Russia.
You will note that the US has not used land mines in years but would if another country used them againt our troops.

Also this ban does not cover another type mine and that is a sticking point with the US.
That type mine is called IEDs.
Both treaties address the use of mines by State actors only and non-state actors (NSAs) do not have any obligations.
This means that torrerist can use IEDs without fearing any action.

The US wants IEDs banned for all users.(A country could sign the treaty then use IEDs without any problem)
This will allow the US(and any other country) to try torrerist for use of IEDs as mines.
blogmeisterusa.mu.nu...

Also the US does not like a treaty that will prohibit the use of land mines IN the US to stop a invading army the US.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


It's MY position...popular or not. No need to be insulting. And it was an analogy that requires some thought on your part. Hope that was blunt enough for you.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Nope.

It is not an administrative decision, Obama, Bush or Clinton they don't decide jack about what the military can or can not do, use or manufacture.

Point is, even back in 2006 when I re-enlisted in the US Army for the second time, we in the 19Delta "Cav"alry Scout MOS/Military Occupational Specialty aka job. Still recieved mine emplacement and removal classes for our soldier specific training.

So, think about it. Current training and doctrine has anti-personel and vehicle/armor mine use and removal. Why would they be against some thing that is still taught and used.

Difference between yestercenturies mines and todays is modern mine munitions are smarter and can be turned off or deactivated after a specified and or predetermined time.

Their locations are GPS tagged/marked and can be found 100% using technology for that reason. No longer are the days of 1,000s air delivered carpet mines.

Not saying the issue and problem isnt relevent, it is a shame that thousands upons thousands of mines are still in place from previous wars. Reality how ever dictates life, not fancy dreams and wishes for the other wise.

Mines are a deterent, if people know the area is mined they are more likely to avoid or go around the zone. Defensive they are beneficial, but when used to actively exploit areas of high traffic, it becomes less than honorable for their use in my opinon.

Just my $.02

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ADVISOR]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join