Obama Rejects International Convention Banning Land Mines

[Xellos2099]

Exactly, which is why we lost Vietnam and Korean war, we were not forceful enough. We actually try to have peace talk with them during the war, which defeat the point of a war. But it is the exactly this reason why being a soldier is a terrible job as the best soldier is also the most efficient at killing other human being.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I agree with Obama and the statement regarding Claymores.

If you dont demand an absolute surrender, then what is the point of going to war?

Here is why a war need not be fought until one side unconditionally surrenders:

http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK1ch01.html

The law of the extreme, the view to disarm the adversary, to overthrow him, has hitherto to a certain extent usurped the place of this end or object. Just as this law loses its force, the political object must again come forward. If the whole consideration is a calculation of probability based on definite persons and relations, then the political object, being the original motive, must be an essential factor in the product. The smaller the sacrifice we demand from our opponent, the smaller it may be expected will be the means of resistance which he will employ; but the smaller his are, the smaller will ours require to be. Further, the smaller our political object, the less value shall we set upon it, and the more easily shall we be induced to give it up altogether.

Thus, therefore, the political object, as the original motive of the war, will be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force, and also the amount of effort to be made. This it cannot be in itself; but it is so in relation to both the belligerent states, because we are concerned with realities, not with mere abstractions. One and the same political object may produce totally different effects upon different people, or even upon the same people at different times; we can, therefore, only admit the political object as the measure, by considering it in its effects upon those masses which it is to move, and consequently the nature of those masses also comes into consideration

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly, which is why we lost Vietnam and Korean war, we were not forceful enough. We actually try to have peace talk with them during the war, which defeat the point of a war. But it is the exactly this reason why being a soldier is a terrible job as the best soldier is also the most efficient at killing other human being.

1.) We didn't lose the Korean War.
2.) There is almost nothing we could have done to use more force in Korea without igniting WWIII. We unleashed horrifying force.
3.) I won't get into Vietnam because it's been done to death, but the 'we didn't use enough force' thing about Vietnam ignores the entirety of Vietnam's history.

 

[Lemon law]

The prevalent myth on this thread is that we were at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. We had no quarrel with the Iraqi or Afghan people, the stated aim was to replace the top leadership, be it Saddam or the Taliban.

Where we blew it in each case was in having insufficient troops to prevent anarchy after we toppled the governments we did not like. And therefore we are then unable to rebuild a government more friendly to us. Which prevents us from leaving mission accomplished and leaves us stuck in a QUAGMIRE.

 

[JEDIYoda]

1.) We didn't lose the Korean War. Technically the Chinese allowed us to save face and come out of the Korean war with a draw...after the Chinese kicked the UN back to the start line .....
2.) There is almost nothing we could have done to use more force in Korea without igniting WWIII. We unleashed horrifying force.
3.) I won't get into Vietnam because it's been done to death, but the 'we didn't use enough force' thing about Vietnam ignores the entirety of Vietnam's history.

 

[sandorski]

Aren't landmines used extensively on the Korean border? I was under the impression that is why we are against them.

Ya, I suspect that's the main reason as well. Perhaps a vow not to use them anywhere else could be satisfactory, but removing them from Korea is not really a practical nor likely wise thing to do.

 

[Triumph]

Landmines are an incredibly effective maneuver weapon against a conventional enemy. Giving up the option to use landmines would severely limit our defenses against a ground based attack in a future conflict. "Oh you're living in the past, today's warfare doesn't happen that way! It's all low intensity conflict!" Ok, well then what's so bad about us holding a stockpile, since landmines don't work in LIC and we wouldn't use them?

Treaty would be meaningless anyway, because if we ever got into a real war again, we would simply ramp up production of mines anyway. Especially if the enemy uses them first.

 

[fskimospy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy
1.) We didn't lose the Korean War. Technically the Chinese allowed us to save face and come out of the Korean war with a draw...after the Chinese kicked the UN back to the start line .....

That's not accurate in the slightest. MacArthur made a catastrophic mistake in thinking the Chinese would not enter the war and left his forces open for a devastating surprise attack. After that the Chinese retook the entire north and most of the south. The US fired MacArthur and sent even more resources over, at which point we slaughtered the Chinese in a series of battles in the mid south. Afterwards the Chinese retreated and we advanced slightly into the north again and a long period of stalemate ensued until both countries ended the war.

There was no allowance to save face.

 

[yllus]

Treaty would be meaningless anyway, because if we ever got into a real war again, we would simply ramp up production of mines anyway. Especially if the enemy uses them first.

Hah, never thought about it that way, but that would indeed be how it would work...

 

[BladeVenom]

Do we really need landmines anymore? We can use sentry robots instead.

 

[piasabird]

I dont think a vehicular accident pulling out of a driveway is all that news worthy?

This is almost a Non-Event. It could be a God-Send to a few golfers.

 

[ShawnD1]

Treaty would be meaningless anyway, because if we ever got into a real war again, we would simply ramp up production of mines anyway. Especially if the enemy uses them first.

I think the general idea behind bans is that certain weapons are not used unless absolutely necessary. As an example of this, we don't see crazy stuff like the US military using chemical or nuclear weapons against Iraq. It's not required, so it's not used; it would be bad PR. If the US was attacked by a more serious threat such as China, you can be fairly certain that everything under the sun would be used against them including biological and chemical weapons.

We know bans against land mines don't really mean anything, but it's more of a way to say we won't use this weapon as a first line of defense.