The use of anti-personnel mines ?

PatsytheNazi

Just wondering, would some of you guys agree to the banning of anti-personnel mines ? Now I know some will point out their military value, but in too instances, since they are left hidden for years in the ground, too often it is innocent civilians and indeed children who are killed or mutilated by them, often when the conflict is long over.

So I'm wondering, their not exactly a war winner and too often kill and maim innocents whom they were designed for, what's your feelings on them ?

Also, I'm sure those of you who have served in the army must know of enginners who have dealt with them and even volunteered after leaving/retiring from the army to go to places like former Yugoslavia etc to defuse them. What was their experiences ?

Hwere is a good wiki article on them - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Ban_Landmines

( BTW, their is a Treaty called the Ottawa which prohibits them which has been signed by Ireland and countries such as France, Germany, UK, Canada etc. Crucially the big boys such as the USA, China and Russia along with 37 others have'nt signed)

Morpheus

yes ban them. low tech area denial weapon, whilst effective is not an ideal item for use due to eventual civilian losses long after a conflict has abated. cluster munitions too, although i would say they have legitimate strategic value in use upon a military target for area denial such as dropping on an enemies airbase to prevent the runway from being used.

BrianD

Ban them. Warfare has changed and it's civilians who are being killed and maimed by this devices.

Cluster bombs should also be banned as well. Recent events have shown that there are better ways of denying runways etc.

BigDuffman

Claymores, are they classed as a mine? Both are anti-personnel and used for explosive area denial?

Donny5

BigDuffman wrote: »

Claymores, are they classed as a mine? Both are anti-personnel and used for explosive area denial?

They are banned if automatically detonated, but not if command detonated by a human, as with all mines.

Morpheus

what about booby traps?

the old grenade with a piece of wire trick .......

Manic Moran

I do not agree with a total ban. I have no quarrel with the terms of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, however, (to which the 'big boys' such as the US and China are signatories), which include a requirement for them to have a self-destruct or remote-destruct capability. That eliminates the vast majority of the 'after-war' effects whilst still retaining the military utility of the things. The Ottawa treay, I think, goes too far.

NTM

Donny5

Morphéus wrote: »

what about booby traps?

the old grenade with a piece of wire trick .......

Yeah, hand grenade booby traps are classed as victim-operated improvised anti-personnel mines and are illegal under Ottawa 2.

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

I do not agree with a total ban. I have no quarrel with the terms of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, however, (to which the 'big boys' such as the US and China are signatories), which include a requirement for them to have a self-destruct or remote-destruct capability. That eliminates the vast majority of the 'after-war' effects whilst still retaining the military utility of the things. The Ottawa treay, I think, goes too far.

NTM

Do you not think that they have been overtaken by technology? Granted, that they are probably cheap as chips when compared with the high tech alternatives. The reality is that we haven't been able to get rid of the after war effects.

Manic Moran

Do you not think that they have been overtaken by technology? Granted, that they are probably cheap as chips when compared with the high tech alternatives.

Which is exactly why they haven't been so overtaken. They also tend to be less power-consumptive and so last longer.

What is the 'high-tech' equivalent to a one-kilometer minefield with the same staying power?

The reality is that we haven't been able to get rid of the after war effects.

Just what has been the scale of the 'after-war effects' caused by land mines compliant with the terms of CCCW?

NTM

RMD

There's still certain uses I think they old but I would certainly like to see them used less. In protection of armed forces location I think it's fair if clearly marked, the only people who have business at a base are those who are supposed to be there and as a result will use the right way in.

Cluster bombs also have certain uses but again they have to be limited drastically. I think the only place where there use is suitable is destroying runways and if there were say a column of enemy vehicles traveling through an isolated location. Using them in a built area where civilians live I'd consider a war crime.

Manic Moran

RMD wrote: »

Using them in a built area where civilians live I'd consider a war crime.

What if they're the weapon which can achieve the desired result with the minimum of damage?

Example.

In a city fight, a mortar battery has been set up in the street corner in front of a seven-floor apartment block. It is presumed that there are, oh, five families per floor in that block, cowering in fear as the fight rages outside.

An airplane overhead is carrying thousand-pound laser-guided bombs in the inner hardpoints, and cluster bombs on the outer hardpoints.

It can drop the 1,000lb bomb with its unitary warhead and kill the mortar crews.

While it's at it, it will also likely kill the power and water runs under the intersection leaving three city blocks without utilities, and quite possibly knock down the apartment block next to it. Not to mention the effects the blast that size would have resulting in shattered windows/flying glass some distance from the impact and the sheer concussion effect which could deafen people for life.

Or, it can drop a cluster bomb.

It will cover a wider area, detonate against walls, roofs and the roads. But the blasts are substantially lower, it is highly unlikely to be structurally damaging to any buildings they explode against, the road will not end up with a 20 foot crater in it, the subterranean utilities will likely not be affected, and between the impact and the self-destruct timers on modern munitions, 99% of the submunitions will detonate.

If you were in the apartment block, which would you prefer the aircraft drop?

NTM

Trooperboyo

I think they should be used in certain circumstances as long as it doesn't get like this:

It is estimated that 150,000 landmines of all categories are currently in Lebanon. The exact location of most of these weapons remains unknown. In addition, a large number of UXO continues to pose a serious threat to local populations, particularly in the south.
Following the end of the war, landmines became one of the most serious problems facing civilians as they began to reclaim their homes and undertake the post-war reconstruction process. The problem was particularly acute in the capital of Beirut. In an attempt to effectively address the situation, engineering units of the Lebanese Army subsequently conducted reconnaissance and assessment missions to gather detailed information about the mine fields and suspected areas in order to commence mine clearance operations.
Recognizing the serious humanitarian nature of the problem and with a determination to further strengthen their mine action capacity, the Lebanese authorities have asked the United Nations for support.

In May 2000, the IDF withdrew from South Lebanon. Since then, it has handed over maps and sketches to UNIFIL, which has transferred the maps to the government of Lebanon. The maps contain an overview and information about 108 border mine fields, 15 inland mine fields and 288 booby traps. The coverage and the accuracy of these maps are still controversial.
Scope of the Problem
While information on the landmine and UXO problem in South Lebanon still remains incomplete, it is anticipated that an estimated 150,000 landmines are spread across the country.
Impact of the Problem
Mines and UXO have so far caused a relatively low number of injuries. This is likely to change with the anticipated return of displaced populations, who are unaware of the threat and of the location of dangerous areas. The problem will complicate the return of displaced persons and may hinder long-term reconstruction and socio-economic development of the region. In the 14 months following the withdrawal, there have been 139 civilian mine casualties (15 fatalities2). The Lebanese Army has a landmine database to record mine areas in Lebanon and completion reports—though details are still not known to the public.

Donny5

Trooperboyo wrote: »

I think they should be used in certain circumstances as long as it doesn't get like this:

Well, before Ottawa, there was the (still in effect) Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which put pretty strict limits on mines. One of the conditions was that mines laid outside fenced, observed areas had to be self-deactivating or self-destructing.

RMD

Manic Moran wrote: »

What if they're the weapon which can achieve the desired result with the minimum of damage?

Example.

In a city fight, a mortar battery has been set up in the street corner in front of a seven-floor apartment block. It is presumed that there are, oh, five families per floor in that block, cowering in fear as the fight rages outside.

An airplane overhead is carrying thousand-pound laser-guided bombs in the inner hardpoints, and cluster bombs on the outer hardpoints.

It can drop the 1,000lb bomb with its unitary warhead and kill the mortar crews.

While it's at it, it will also likely kill the power and water runs under the intersection leaving three city blocks without utilities, and quite possibly knock down the apartment block next to it. Not to mention the effects the blast that size would have resulting in shattered windows/flying glass some distance from the impact and the sheer concussion effect which could deafen people for life.

Or, it can drop a cluster bomb.

It will cover a wider area, detonate against walls, roofs and the roads. But the blasts are substantially lower, it is highly unlikely to be structurally damaging to any buildings they explode against, the road will not end up with a 20 foot crater in it, the subterranean utilities will likely not be affected, and between the impact and the self-destruct timers on modern munitions, 99% of the submunitions will detonate.

If you were in the apartment block, which would you prefer the aircraft drop?

NTM

Manic would it not be possible to just use smaller munitions, a scaled down version of a conventional bomb, enough to take out a mortar crew but minimize damage of the surrounding area, place bombs with a smaller payload in the space of the clusters? Or just send in an Apache if available and use the 30mm?

If it can take out a mortar crew at ground level, what's to stop it taking out civilians also in the streets? Cluster bombs can cover large areas, so what's to stop it harming civilians away from the site. I know you are extremely knowledgeable in pretty much everything military, so correct me where I'm wrong or ignorant.

Morpheus

would a 30mm not chew through an apartment wall?

also it may be that the jet flies high and fast enough to be protected from RPGs and MANPADS but the apache would be a high risk asset.

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just what has been the scale of the 'after-war effects' caused by land mines compliant with the terms of CCCW?

NTM

They are littered across SE Asia and places like Afghanistan. It's all very well to say that there is a term to be compliant with but the reality is different.

In any case, with modern warfare being so mobile and air-mobile much of the time it's difficult to see where the future application of minefields will be. Perhaps in low tech civil wars.

Re cluster bombs - these can have up to 2,000 sub munitions in the weapon dropped. if 99% detonate then there can be sufficient left over to kill and maim.

The answer is - and something the US Army seems to struggle with - is that you can't drop either large ordinance or cluster bombs in civilian urban areas. You have to go in and clear it hand to hand.

BostonB

Manic Moran wrote: »

What if they're the weapon which can achieve the desired result with the minimum of damage?

Example.

In a city fight, a mortar battery has been set up in the street corner in front of a seven-floor apartment block. It is presumed that there are, oh, five families per floor in that block, cowering in fear as the fight rages outside.

An airplane overhead is carrying thousand-pound laser-guided bombs in the inner hardpoints, and cluster bombs on the outer hardpoints.

It can drop the 1,000lb bomb with its unitary warhead and kill the mortar crews.

While it's at it, it will also likely kill the power and water runs under the intersection leaving three city blocks without utilities, and quite possibly knock down the apartment block next to it. Not to mention the effects the blast that size would have resulting in shattered windows/flying glass some distance from the impact and the sheer concussion effect which could deafen people for life.

Or, it can drop a cluster bomb.

It will cover a wider area, detonate against walls, roofs and the roads. But the blasts are substantially lower, it is highly unlikely to be structurally damaging to any buildings they explode against, the road will not end up with a 20 foot crater in it, the subterranean utilities will likely not be affected, and between the impact and the self-destruct timers on modern munitions, 99% of the submunitions will detonate.

If you were in the apartment block, which would you prefer the aircraft drop?

NTM

One of the books I read recently on Afghanistan, talked a bit about there. Whereas the UK would tend to drop a smaller bomb rather than a cluster in that scenario, the US would tend to drop bigger bombs up to 2000lb believing that defense of the their own takes priority. But they have taken a lot more losses than other countries so its more of an issue for them. That said in afganistan, the mud wall compounds are much more resistant to blast damage than a city like in Iraq.

BostonB

I didn't think they were using clusters in the Iraq or Afghanistan now. They may have used them in the Gulf War(s) originally, not not since. I could be wrong though.

Manic Moran

They are littered across SE Asia and places like Afghanistan. It's all very well to say that there is a term to be compliant with but the reality is different.

With respect, CCCW protocol II, the bit that refers to anti-personnel mines, was enacted in 1996. I very much doubt that many of the land mines emplaced in SE Asia or Afghanistan are compliant with the terms of that agreement, being as I believe most of the mines present in such locations date from, at the latest, the mid 1980s. Unless there were some wars that happened that I missed in the last decade or so.

In any case, with modern warfare being so mobile and air-mobile much of the time it's difficult to see where the future application of minefields will be. Perhaps in low tech civil wars.

The biggest single application, and the bit that's been causing the US and Korea in particular to refuse to sign Ottawa in its current form, is the Korean Penninsula. The potential fight there is anything but a low tech civil war.

Re cluster bombs - these can have up to 2,000 sub munitions in the weapon dropped. if 99% detonate then there can be sufficient left over to kill and maim.

There can be. So you have the question of do you want to take the risk of a kill/maim later on, or do you just want to get it over and done with and get the killing and maiming done immediately (And what will be the likely relative amounts of killing and maiming?).

The answer is - and something the US Army seems to struggle with - is that you can't drop either large ordinance or cluster bombs in civilian urban areas. You have to go in and clear it hand to hand.

No, you don't. You use whatever weapons are available to you and which best legally attain your objectives at lowest cost to yourself. If you're in an Iraq 2009 situation, then correct, you would not drop large unitary warheads or cluster munitions as it defeats the objective of keeping the populace on your side. If you're in a modern-day re-enactment of the Battle of Seoul, you're going to be a little looser on your ordnance restrictions as your objective is the destruction of enemy combat capability.

Manic would it not be possible to just use smaller munitions, a scaled down version of a conventional bomb, enough to take out a mortar crew but minimize damage of the surrounding area, place bombs with a smaller payload in the space of the clusters?

Yes. And since the US has a relatively large amount of money, it has created such munitions, an example being the Small Diameter Bomb carrying a Dense Inert Metal Explosive, for the purpose in the last five years or so.

However, there are two caveats to this.

The first is that you're a country that can afford to spend money on such extravagances. Most can't. SDBs are about $75,000 per round for the basic version (the newer models are closer to $100,000 each) which is effective only against soft, point targets. Or, a CBU-87 with 202 bomblets which costs about $23,000, and can be used against anything from an infantry platoon through self-propelled artillery battery. Which do you think the average, budget-conscious military is going to choose to buy?

The second is that you're in a combat situation for which such a loadout is well suited. If the Arab-Israeli Wars Part VI (Assad's Revenge) opens at a cinema near you, the Israeli Air Force aren't going to be loading their smallest bombs on their on-call aircraft which are best suited for point targets in cities. They're going to load their aircraft up with stuff which is going to be suited for dealing with the whole range of targets which they can be called upon to service. The US is currently fighting wars which the predominant target is well suited for the employment of such small munitions, and so can load up the aircraft in the reasonable expectation that they will be used. We must not forget that the laws of warfare are designed for all wars, for all nations, including those of national survival, not just the low-intensity counter-insurgency operations the US and its budget are currently involved with.

Or just send in an Apache if available and use the 30mm?

I highlight the important bit. As a general rule, you're going to deal with a target with whatever you happen to have handy. The answer to the question of "If under attack in Afghanistan, would you prefer to be supported by an Apache or an F-16?" is "Whichever one will get to me first." It's possible that no aircraft at all are in the vicinity, and you have to use indirect fire systems to do the job. Mortars or artillery. It may be incumbent upon them to choose the munition system available to them which causes the least collateral damage whilst destroying the target, but it is not necessarily incumbent upon them to not engage the enemy at all because other weapon systems have been invented (even if they're not available) which could cause even less. That may be a policy decision, but is generally not, and should not be, a legal restriction.

If it can take out a mortar crew at ground level, what's to stop it taking out civilians also in the streets?

Nothing. How often are civilians going to be out in the street in proximity to an operating mortar crew? If my personal objective is survival, I'm going to be as far removed from anything saying "Shoot me" as possible. Of course, not all will. It's all relative, which is why the Laws of Land Warfare in their current form have subjective, not objective criteria.

Cluster bombs can cover large areas, so what's to stop it harming civilians away from the site

You are correct, they can. However, they can also usually be programmed upon release for a separation altitude so there is some level of control over the size covered. Again, it's all a judgement call. I'm not saying that they have to use cluster munitions. I'm saying that there are times when it might be preferable to use cluster munitions. Just as there are times where it might be preferable not to and maybe just use that 1,000lb bomb you have on hardpoint 3.

NTM

RMD

Morphéus wrote: »

would a 30mm not chew through an apartment wall?

also it may be that the jet flies high and fast enough to be protected from RPGs and MANPADS but the apache would be a high risk asset.

Isn't the 30mm accurate though? AFAIK fragments from cluster bombs can penetrate the armor plating of tanks and the likes, so could they not easily fly through a building wall as well.

BostonB wrote: »

I didn't think they were using clusters in the Iraq or Afghanistan now. They may have used them in the Gulf War(s) originally, not not since. I could be wrong though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/01/iraq.foreignpolicy1
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=17793

Been used in both with a fair amount of unexploded munitions left over unfortunately.

BostonB

Nasty.

Manic Moran

AFAIK fragments from cluster bombs can penetrate the armor plating of tanks and the likes, so could they not easily fly through a building wall as well.

No. It's a directional shaped charge warhead. It's lined with fragments to cause casualties to soft targets in the general area, but the armour-piercing capability is purely directed straight down. The average Afghan or Iraqi mud hut will stop the fragments. (They also stop most bullets, they really are quite tough). They will, however, punch holes in roofs.

NTM

RMD

Manic Moran wrote: »

No. It's a directional shaped charge warhead. It's lined with fragments to cause casualties to soft targets in the general area, but the armour-piercing capability is purely directed straight down. The average Afghan or Iraqi mud hut will stop the fragments. (They also stop most bullets, they really are quite tough). They will, however, punch holes in roofs.

NTM

Ye that would make sense. Ye I've heard often the hardest targets to deal with are the thick mud-walled compounds due to incredible strength of the walls.

citizen_p

RMD wrote: »

Ye that would make sense. Ye I've heard often the hardest targets to deal with are the thick mud-walled compounds due to incredible strength of the walls.

seen that on a documentry about a british group on patrol in hellmand. call in a gunship and all in left was small holes a couple of inches wide in the mud walls of the compounds with the taliban inside.

PatsytheNazi

Seems most are in favour of banning them. Seen a programme of how they developed a device that looks like a firework that they set up pointing at the mine and from a safe distance they activate it. It produces an extremely intense flame that destroys the mine even without the explosion if I remember rightly.

RMD

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Seems most are in favour of banning them. Seen a programme of how they developed a device that looks like a firework that they set up pointing at the mine and from a safe distance they activate it. It produces an extremely intense flame that destroys the mine even without the explosion if I remember rightly.

Seen a few things along those lines developed, a tool which essentially destroys the explosive without detonating it. Check this one out, pretty amazing to be honest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-TRpWDhPQA

Manic Moran

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Seems most are in favour of banning them. Seen a programme of how they developed a device that looks like a firework that they set up pointing at the mine and from a safe distance they activate it. It produces an extremely intense flame that destroys the mine even without the explosion if I remember rightly.

Even more are probably in favor of not having a war to begin with. Ever notice how most of the Ottawa signatories are countries which have little foreseeable use for the things? You may as well have Ireland sign on to a ban on the killing of poisonous snakes. Makes everyone feel good, the Herpetology Society of Ireland will approve, and there are no notable downsides. Australians, on the other hand, may have a different point of view on the matter.

NTM

BrianD

Interesting that this topic has made it's way back into the news as coverage of the Libya conflict continues.

Libyan Government forces are accused of using Spanish made "cluster mortars".

Sky News are aghast but oddly this is not the stance they took years ago when Coalition forces were using them during the Iraq invasion.

Manic Moran

The comparison might depend on where they were used in Iraq.

That said, much though Sky News are aghast, that doesn't mean that Loyalist forces are using cluster munions illegally. Heaven forbid that someone might lob something dangerous in a civil war.

NTM

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

The comparison might depend on where they were used in Iraq.

That said, much though Sky News are aghast, that doesn't mean that Loyalist forces are using cluster munions illegally. Heaven forbid that someone might lob something dangerous in a civil war.

NTM

It's a classic example of news spin. Can we find something else to pin on who we perceive to be the bad guy.

During the Iraq War ('03) Sky News were putting their own spin on the coalition forces use of cluster bombs. I actually contacted them about it at the time and the eventually agreed that they weren't as safe as they were portraying.