RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

It's been 10 years since the Ottowa Convention came in, with 135 nations signing up to it.

With our own Military force rather stretched, should we continue to back this, or remove ourselves from the agreement and utilise them as we did before?

It should be pointed out tho' that we do map any mines laid, very well, unlike some countries who utilised airborne drops of AP mines, etc to cover areas.

I personally think we should have it in our back up arsenal. If things are tight on the ground in a battle, the deployment of Ap (sorry, anti personnel) mines can save many lives. If we're defending a civilian area, it allows us to 'big up' our defence of that area, allowing more safety for the civilians we're protecting.

This discussion came forth on a military website, just thought i'd canvas you guys and see what you thought of the situation.

Alls fair in love and war.

Have the various factions we are fighting at the moment signed up to this convention?

Kwackerz wrote:
It should be pointed out tho' that we do map any mines laid, very well, unlike some countries who utilised airborne drops of AP mines, etc to cover areas.

Is this not the major problem though?

Hard to see how we can withdraw from such a convention yet expect those nations who don't map these things properly to also abide by the convention. No doubt some aren't signed up and some will flout it anyway but it would seem we'd loose any moral high ground for political pressure on these countries if we did opt out.

Given the carnage on the civilian population in some parts of the world following the use of these things in conflicts, I'd hope we'd do our best to get rid of them (or, being realistic, to minimise those groups that will use them)

but it would seem we'd loose any moral high ground for political pressure on these countries if we did opt out.

Moral highground doesnt save lives though I agree with what you say, but I think in our current climate, politics and highground get run roughshod over anyway. The politicians get little support from the Country they (allegedly) serve and the current batch of enemy forces tend not to listen to pressures put on them by any other nation anyways.

If we were in a 'custer's last stand' situation (Sangin valley, anyone?) These mines could have been utilised to push out the safety buffer for those Soldiers, possibly, allowing less casualties thru a minimised frontal area for attack, or at least for accurate incoming fire.

Im currently looking for the list of who's who in the agreement. Someone on the forum that was discussing this did point to an Aussie thread on the same subject. I'll try and get a link to it. It seemed a reasoned argument.

*edit*

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2431

TBO I don't give a shit about other countries armed forces, we should do whats best for ours.


By mines do you also include the shaped charges that are utilised above ground that are anti personal/vehicle/armoured vehicle types?

Oh and I don't mean HEAT etc.

Nope, not shaped charges, nor Anti tank/vehicle, this is purely the Anti-personnel mines

There is a huge problem dealing with them, that's unarguable. There does seem a valid reason to use them however.

Use 'em, I'm getting sick of hearing about our troops being blown up just because we signed some PC convention.

Its ok to shoot someone but not ok to blow em up with a mine !!
I for one, don't get it !

........ and if you alter it to shoot out a projectile that's 'bad form' also ???

It's all bullshit in my eyes. There can no longer be any such thing as a 'gentleman's war'. If the other side is losing they will just try harder and do anything to win.

Best thing is to learn to live together in peace and harmony.......


OK - so I'm pissed and even then don't believe this.