> Mines used in a limited and responsible way can do more good then harm
In the case of landmines, a lot, really a lot of countries do seriously think they do more harm than good.
I read here:
icbl.org
"The United States last acknowledged using antipersonnel mines in 1991 in Kuwait and Iraq, scattering 117,634 landmines mostly from airplanes.[14] In a September 2002 report, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) stated that it did not receive any data from the Pentagon to indicate, either directly or indirectly, that any enemy casualties, equipment loss, or maneuver limitations were caused by the use of mines by the US.[15] The GAO also reported that there was reluctance among some US commanders to use mines because of their impact on mobility, fratricide potential, and safety concerns"
Frankly, I have no idea what's the meaning of "scattering" ~ 120'000 landmines from an airplane in a "responsible way".
A weapon so dangerous, that US commanders are reluctant to use it.
To illustrate further: My understanding was that not a few soldiers are injured by friendly landmine fire.
So really, how can you use such weapon in a "responsible" way?
> I don't think its as much a specific intention
A lot of countries have been able to express a specific intention about the use of landmines. Among them, a good number is at least as honest in as the US.
And given the US military strength, I don't think there is military worth of such a cruel and dangerous weapon is big enough to justify another move in the Paria corner of international law and treaties.
Safety of US citizens is not at stake, I think. I really hope the US is not going to develop a kind of paranoic, unilateral martyrium. |
