Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Says It Won't Make More Anti-Personnel Landmines
wuwm ^ | 6-27-2014 | Bill Chappell

Posted on 06/27/2014 7:45:25 AM PDT by Citizen Zed

"The old argument is that the U.S. needs land mines to stave off the North Koreans," The Chicago Sun-Times writes about the U.S. reluctance to join the pact. "But in a world of fast deployment forces, that's not a convincing reason, and military experts have claimed that mines constrict defense more than help."

(Excerpt) Read more at m.wuwm.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS:
What say you?
1 posted on 06/27/2014 7:45:25 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Keep the command detonated ones. Get rid of the rest.


2 posted on 06/27/2014 7:47:40 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

They are wrong.

The primary reason for mines is to shape the battlefield, to deny the enemy avenues of approach and access points.

Heck, we publish areas that are mined in order to accomplish this.

To say they restrict our own movements is insane.


3 posted on 06/27/2014 7:47:46 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

I say that land mines may well have outworn their usefulness in traditional military expeditionary applications for the United States military.

One can see that in their transition from the Viet Nam era counter battery/mortar radar systems. Heretofore, they were always unidirectional (i.e., facing an opposition zone of say 90 degrees). Today’s Army has transitioned to 360 degree coverage - meaning there isn’t a defined and identifiable enemy. It is a defensive measure.

All this said and the implications thereof, I am wholly, irrefutably in favor mining the sh!t out of the US/MEXICO border to the max.


4 posted on 06/27/2014 7:49:57 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

I didn’t realize we were still making them. Aren’t anti- Personnel land mines banned under the rules of the Geneva Convention?


5 posted on 06/27/2014 7:51:45 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

But in a world of fast deployment forces,

You mean the ones dispatched to save the Benghazi Embassy?


6 posted on 06/27/2014 7:53:01 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (I am an American Not a Republican or a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Everyone’s an expert if you pay them enough money.

The landmines have a use. Very narrow but still a use.


7 posted on 06/27/2014 7:57:11 AM PDT by Bogey78O (We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Same thinking got guns removed from fighters before Vietnam. Same thinking said the Army didn’t need new tanks after WW2. It goes on & on...


8 posted on 06/27/2014 7:57:59 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

There is a calculus to the battlefield. Land mines play a part in that calculus. If you subtract land mines from the arsenal, then you will have to increase the number of Soldiers to balance the equation. Which do we want? Which can we afford?


9 posted on 06/27/2014 8:01:48 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

I think we need many millions of them laid in a wide band between us and Mexico.


10 posted on 06/27/2014 8:05:37 AM PDT by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Well if Obama continues on there won’t be enough troops to lay them anyway.


11 posted on 06/27/2014 8:10:06 AM PDT by Patriot365
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

I believe it was Russian General Zhukov who ordered troops to run across German mine fields. His belief was the casualty rate would be no higher than if they were running across a battlefield with no mines.


12 posted on 06/27/2014 8:27:35 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need more than seven rounds, Much more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

Claymore mines-

set as a perimeter defense of a forward base, have been
used as a “defensive counter measure” since
invented-

We also have invented a new “Aerial spraying”
Rocket- to release mines -

This is “a Treaty” to weaken the U.S. military
capability- nothing more- ALL of our foes-
Are NOT signatories!


13 posted on 06/27/2014 8:28:40 AM PDT by mj1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Read the fine print

anti- “personnel”

White people aren’t persons
Old people aren’t persons
Preppers surely aren’t persons
Tea party isn’t persons

etc.


14 posted on 06/27/2014 8:58:07 AM PDT by Scrambler Bob (You can count my felonies by looking at my FR replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Darn, now we can expect another shortage at Wal*Mart!


15 posted on 06/27/2014 9:28:19 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ("There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson