We the Squeamish

--Edward

Underlying the debate about a UN public service announcement (PSA) most U.S. networks have opted not to air (for a bevy of reasons, but the more honest ones are admitting because it's too graphic) is an embarrassing assertion about our national character: we can't handle the truth.

The PSA is designed to raise awareness about the dangers of landmines, and it is graphic. You can see it here.

Now, what happens in the PSA is not actually OUR truth, but it is parallel to the truth for folks living in Cambodia or Afghanistan or Angola or Bosnia. The PSA is designed to get us to empathize with the plight of people living in those countries because the US is the only NATO nation that didn't sign the Ottawa Treaty outlawing landmines.

We had our reasons, apparently, including the "need" to keep using them in Korea and some very slick spin on why Ottawa is good for other nations, but not good enough for the US. My favorite part:

We share an important common cause with the parties to the Ottawa Convention -- addressing the humanitarian crisis caused by dangerous landmines left in the ground, and helping the victims and their societies recover from conflict. We are convinced that much more could be done to protect civilians around the world not only from persistent anti-personnel mines, but also from persistent anti-vehicle mines and non-detectable mines. The United States looks forward to building on its own and others' past contributions to mine action, and working with all nations to reach our common goal of a world where mines no longer pose a threat to civilians.

We're just not willing to give them up.

But that's all been debated to death. This post is about the PSA and what it says about us that we're too squeamish to watch it. Here's a good description:

It begins with a scene familiar in suburban America — school girls in soccer uniforms climb out of their family SUVs and rush out onto the field, pony tails bobbing behind them, as parents shout encouragement.

But just as the game gets under way, a blast pierces the excitement. Panic and chaos erupt; there are injuries. A mother screams in anguish as her husband emerges from the field carrying the lifeless body of their daughter. The screen goes dark and a tagline comes up: "If there were land mines here, would you stand for them anywhere?"

Now, again, this is not the "truth" in that American soccer fields are not laced with landmines, but it strikes me as a good parallel. Children in countries with landmines also just want to go out and have fun playing.

So why are we too squeamish to watch this?

The essence of rejecting this image as appropriate, in one sense, boils down to insisting our children are more precious than Cambodian, Bosnian, Afghan or Angolan children are. If the commercial showed two Afghan children playing soccer and one got blown up, I wonder if it would receive the same reaction here. Being able to rationalize that it doesn't happen here would be enough for Americans to view it, I suspect.

And make no mistake, the UN is quite sophisticated in its approach to this issue. The stoplandmines.org website is very well done. And in one sense I resent their efforts to manipulate our love/fear for our children to drive this point home. On the other hand, though, their point is right on target. We're only ambivalent about landmines because we don't have to deal with them. If we did, I suspect we'd be as nationally organized against them as we are drunk drivers (MADD now has chapters around the world, for example) or lead-based paint or abestos.

In an ironic turn that most likely applies to most major networks, MSBNC.com, whose network will not air the PSA, is happily linking to it and discussing the fact that it's being widely viewed across the Internet. Something about it making it to folks' TV sets seems to cross the line though. This parent nails why:

"If my kids saw that, I would be furious," wrote Susan Kittleson, another high-level professional with two children. "We don’t watch the evening news as I think they are careless about the images that they expose families to during prime time. ... There are ways to communicate a message that are equally as powerful as terror and less terrifying for a young child to see."

I get this. Even though I don't have children, I want to protect my nieces and nephews from all of the world's horrors. It's a normal reaction. I'm not necessarily proud of it when I think about the reality faced by Cambodian parents whose children were blown to bits or the fact that my country is more dedicated to maintaining its military advantages than leading the way in this campaign to rid the earth of these barbarian devices altogether, but I get it.

The US is making some efforts, I should point out:

The President has committed that after 2010, the U.S. will not have landmines of any kind that do not self-destruct or self-deactivate after a predetermined period -- usually within hours but in no case longer than 90 days after deployment. The U.S. policy thus covers an entire class of deadly landmines -- anti-vehicle mines -- not covered by the Ottawa Convention. We have proposed that other countries join the U.S. at the Conference on Disarmament in banning the sale or export of all persistent mines.

Additionally, states can act now to join efforts taking place in the context of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to address the most dangerous aspects of anti-vehicle mines.

It is now the policy of the United States to eliminate from our inventory all non-detectable mines. These mines pose an extraordinary risk to deminers since they cannot be located using standard metal detectors. There is no such provision in the Ottawa Convention. We encourage all countries to join us in addressing the issue of landmine detectability and to make firm commitments to remove such mines from their inventories.

Finally, and most importantly, we have pledged to increase our funding for the U.S. Department of State's portion of the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action program by 50 percent. Congress has now voted to support the President's request. The current total of the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action budget is approximately $100 million. We strongly encourage other countries to make increases of similar magnitude to their humanitarian mine action budgets.

Just so long as we don't have to have why this is important disrupt our idyllic illusions, we'll be just fine.

Comments

[cleek]

[imagine me shouting something sarcastic about the Culture Of Life]

[Wilfred]

The nation is squeamish when it wants to be. Look at Newsweek's cover and everything about the Pope, dead on a platter and the folks snapping away with their cameras. Then we have "The Passion" with so much more violence on screen than it ever could have been in real life.

But landmines-- gross!

[Anderson]

I think if people's kids saw this PSA, they'd tell their parents that landmines are terrible and that we shouldn't be letting Afghan or Cambodian kids get blown up. Children can often cut through a great deal of rationalizing b.s. in a discomfiting manner.

(As I learned to my discomfort (discomfit?) the other day when my 9-year-old asked me what abortion was. I told him. He was appalled; doubtless his having a 6-mo.-old little brother helped. "Why is that legal?" he asked. Boy, did I punt on that one.)

[Chuchundra]

I don't know how effective that PSA would really be. It seems almost Python-esque to me.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward: The President has committed that after 2010, the U.S. will not have landmines of any kind that do not self-destruct or self-deactivate after a predetermined period -- usually within hours but in no case longer than 90 days after deployment

But as far as I remember, that does not include the bomblets used in cluster bombs, because the US fought very hard - and won - not to have that kind of landmine counted as a landmine.

more on cluster bombs

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Landmines that self destruct are an excellent tool against the kind of asymmetric, non-uniform wearing kind of warfare that we are likely to see in the near future. They also won't be blowing up soccer moms. Furthermore this is the kind of treaty that the international community doesn't bother to enforce already with much more dangerous and difficult to make nuclear weapons. If we sign on to this treaty, the first time one of our soldiers gets blown up by a land mine, the chorus of "they can't be expected to fight fair against your military might" which goes on now with respect to uniforms and pretending to be injured will be extended to mines. I don't see any upside whatsoever for the US to sign on.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Perhaps Bush should take out ads in Europe showing a nuclear blast incinerating Paris while suggesting that European unwillingness to enforce non-proliferation treaties makes the scene more likely would be considered good taste?

[Charles Bird]

I'll the support the viewing of the PSA as soon as the stations show beheadings of Americans and people jumping out of buildings on 9/11. Show it all. Better yet, why not have an outfit start up the Blood and Gore Channel, right next to the Golf Channel and BH&G.

[John Thullen]

Heck, I'm convinced!

Yippee for landmines! I want some in my yard.

[rilkefan]

Can I have the time-slot after CB's to show Iraqi kids mutilated by our bombs? And some footage about the repression in Tibet? And live film of every tenth execution in Texas? And a documentary or two about rural poverty in America? And maybe a videotape of a basic macroeconomics course?

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

SH: you have a lot of explaining to do. Landmines effective against asymmetrical forces? How?

Landmines exist to deter large forces from moving across a particular parcel of land, denying that route to civilians, opposition military and the military forces that placed the mines. They're traditionally used in perimeter defense of fixed positions and along likely avenues of attack of opposing forces.

Now, since joe terrorist / insurgent is a civilian when he wants to be and since (in theory at least) the US is not placing mines in order to deter the movement of civilian traffic [plenty of Iraqis work in the Green Zone, for example], how is it that mines are effective against insurgents? Are we planning on leaving a bunch behind in Fallouja?

I'm thrilled to know that our mine technology has advanced to the point that the mines can detect whether the victim is an insurgent or a soccer mom. Do you have a cite to Defense Tech or FAS for that? Or an explanation as to why the Russian mines in Afghanistan seem to so disproportionately target civilians, but US mines won't?

As to the success of the Mine Ban Treaty, a more responsible commenter might have cited to Human Rights Watch (not known for cheery optimism) which finds that the Treaty has essentially resulted in eliminating the legal production of landmines. link

We don't need a CGI version of a nuke over Paris. Existing footage of Hiroshima is fine by me. (oh, but that one was dropped by 'muricans, not terrorists. silly me.)

(According to the Unitarian Jihad, I am now Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse. Please address me appropriately.

[McDuff]

It's the Europeans at fault for ignoring NNP?

[McDuff]

If we sign on to this treaty, the first time one of our soldiers gets blown up by a land mine, the chorus of "they can't be expected to fight fair against your military might" which goes on now with respect to uniforms and pretending to be injured will be extended to mines. I don't see any upside whatsoever for the US to sign on.

If the only concern in our society were what was most militarily effective, we'd have just razed Iraq to the ground and we'd probably have finished slaughtering every human being in the middle east by now. It would have been a tough project, but we have the technology to do it. Sometimes our own humanity requires that we look beyond mere effectiveness at killing, even in wartime.

[Charles Bird]

If the only concern in our society were what was most militarily effective, we'd have just razed Iraq to the ground and we'd probably have finished slaughtering every human being in the middle east by now.

False logic. Rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions preclude such an action since 24 million civilians would be killed in Iraq alone. Landmines in the DMZ are militarily effective AND they do not violate the rules of war. North Korea is virtually the only reason why we refuse to sign the treaty.

[Dianne]

SH: "Landmines that self destruct are an excellent tool against the kind of asymmetric, non-uniform wearing kind of warfare that we are likely to see in the near future."

Could you elaborate on this comment a little? What can landmines do that is particularly useful in asymmetric warfare?

[trim]

I have to admit, I often wonder why we don't see more video on TV of people jumping out of the WTC and the beheadings that have taken place.

Didn't I read somewhere on this blog quite a while ago that it made sense we didn't see those type of images on TV.

I wonder which poster's here said that? I can't seem to remember...

[Phil]

. . . the chorus of "they can't be expected to fight fair against your military might" which goes on now with respect to uniforms and pretending to be injured will be extended to mines.

I'd like to see this elaborated on as well. Can I see a cite from or a link to any commentator, pundit, or blogger of any reasonable repute whatsoever who has claimed that it's necessary for terrorists and insurgents to feign injury and eschew uniforms because they can't compete with us militarily? I have to confess that I have never, ever heard such a thing, ever. And I read a LOT of blogs.

[Dianne]

CB: "I'll the support the viewing of the PSA as soon as the stations show beheadings of Americans and people jumping out of buildings on 9/11"

I didn't see the WTC collapse on TV, I saw it down the street. I don't think TV could really capture the full effect. The smell--a sort of burning plastic mixed with barbque smell-- was the thing that stuck with me particularly and TV doesn't include smell. Nor, I suspect, did most of the country see the pictures of the missing--people who worked on the upper floors of the WTC who were never seen again after 9/11-- that were posted everywhere in NYC after the attacks. Nonetheless, I wonder how anyone could look even sanitized video of the WTC attacks and think "gee, that was such a good idea I think we ought to go do it to some other people". Because that's what supporting a war, especially a war which relies heavily on air superiority, means: supporting the bombing of more cities, the killing of more people. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but after the attacks I didn't want revenge, I wanted such a thing to never happen again--to anyone, anywhere. I didn't admire the attacks on the WTC and I don't want my country engaging in similar acts.

[cleek]

I'll the support the viewing of the PSA as soon as the stations show beheadings of Americans and people jumping out of buildings on 9/11

W. T. F. ?

[Anarch]

an embarrassing assertion about our national character: we can't handle the truth.

As someone who grew up overseas... well, duh. Our national ability to bury our heads in the sand and live in denial would be a thing of utmost comedy if it weren't for its gravity.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

CB fails to mention a few pertinent points. Like:

1. there is no such thing as a perfect munition. Some percentage will fail. It is therefore guaranteed that a certain number of timer mines will remain in the ground after the soldiers have departed, ready to blow up the next farmer who comes along. (It's worth noting that this is a BIG problem with cluster bombs, except too often it's kids who pick them up, whereupon the damn thing decides to work.)

2. The US's refusal to join the treaty provides tremendous leverage to foreign governments caught cheating and keeps the market in existence.

3. No other weapon has such a destabilizing impact long after combat is over. Read some of the Afghanistan blogs about the effects of Russian mining.

4. Ruthless governments have learned an effective countermeasure to mines -- human wave assaults. (see, eg, iran-iraq war.)

5. NK has 2 cards precluding it from being invaded, nukes and artillery pointed at Seoul. If NK invades the south, it will be a very short and very bloody war. Seoul would likely fall, and US airpower would thereafter destroy the NK army. (see, eg, GulfWar I and II.) US-deployed mine fields would not, from what i've read, fundamentally change the battlefield. (i don't remember where i read this, but there were some military-authored articles around the time Clinton was considering whether to sign the treaty disputing the need for mines in korea.)

the tradeoff is worth making.

[liberal japonicus]

Anarch, to be fair, that gift of national amnesia can be a blessing. I admit it is coupled with a relentless whitewashing of history, but while we may have a hard time forgiving, we have the forgetting part down pat. At any rate, I don't think it is any national character to be able to handle the truth, though counterexamples are welcomed.

[Charles Bird]

Because that's what supporting a war, especially a war which relies heavily on air superiority, means

Well, no it doesn't.

[Edward]

The smell--a sort of burning plastic mixed with barbque smell-- was the thing that stuck with me particularly and TV doesn't include smell.

Exactamundo.

I can still catch whiffs of it. Passing a construction site, or down in the subway...it hits you like a full-fisted deja vu to the face. Bam!

Nor, I suspect, did most of the country see the pictures of the missing--people who worked on the upper floors of the WTC who were never seen again after 9/11-- that were posted everywhere in NYC after the attacks.

This too will never leave me. Very next day I tried to do some gallery business, picking up some framed artwork...the framer was closed of course, but I had no TV, my apartment stunk of the smoke, my neighborhood was toxic, and I wanted any excuse to get out of here...so I travelled to the framers. On that same block I saw my first of many lost souls. He had made a sandwich board of photos of some woman and he was walking around, tears in his shell-shocked eyes, essentially begging each stranger he saw to tell him something, anything, about this woman.

There would be many others like him in the days to come, but he was the first, so he sticks in my memory.

Charles wants them to show video of people jumping from the WTC in order to remind us to be angry. I don't think wars are best fought when angry though. They're best fought when you have superiority and know how to apply it.

Of course, for myself, I'd settle for bin Laden's head on a post at this point.

[Charles Bird]

It is therefore guaranteed that a certain number of timer mines will remain in the ground after the soldiers have departed, ready to blow up the next farmer who comes along

Somehow, I don't think you'll find farmers in the DMZ. The U.S. has a policy on landmines and it addresses the very same humanitarian issues raised by various groups. If North Korea sought peace, this wouldn't be an issue. Seoul is 30 miles from the DMZ and North Korea has a million-man army, albeit half starved.

[cleek]

Charles wants them to show video of people jumping from the WTC in order to remind us to be angry.

i'm angry - at people like Charles who seem to be saying that we're justified (or at least blameless) in killing people Over There with land mines, cluster bombs, whatever, because someone from Over There killed someone here.

so tell me, Charles, how many land mines have we placed in any of the countries where the 9/11 guys came from ?

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

CB: I don't know if farming can yet be done at Verdun. Unless the US commits to complete demining, just the threat of mines will deny the productive use of that land long after peace is finally signed.

[Dianne]

Edward: "for myself, I'd settle for bin Laden's head on a post at this point."

Personally, my revenge fantasy is to drop bin Laden into one of the predominantly Islamic neighborhoods of NYC and let his co-religionists decide whether or not they are grateful to him for "defending" Islam...But I don't see the point of blowing up Iraqis in revenge for an attack they didn't participate in.

[Edward]

But I don't see the point of blowing up Iraqis in revenge for an attack they didn't participate in.

Nor do I. The fact that the Bush administration did not do more to drive home the point that Hussien had NOTHING to do with 9/11 is a very sore point with me. He let Americans' anger over 9/11 lead them to support the invasion. That's cowardly in my book.

[Anarch]

CB: I don't know if farming can yet be done at Verdun.

Or Cambodia.

[Anarch]

Anarch, to be fair, that gift of national amnesia can be a blessing. I admit it is coupled with a relentless whitewashing of history, but while we may have a hard time forgiving, we have the forgetting part down pat.

What I've called our "National ADD" is both blessing and curse, that I'll grant you. [I have a friend who insists that that's what made America great: losing one's memory makes it awfully hard to bear grudges.] What bothers me, though, isn't just relentless whitewashing of historical events, though that's dreadful, it's an active (well, actively passive) attempt not to comprehend -- in some cases, not even acknowledge -- those events in the first place.

At any rate, I don't think it is any national character to be able to handle the truth, though counterexamples are welcomed.

The Brits have become reasonably good at it, though they were awful in their heyday. I think it's generally true of countries on the ascendant -- or, cynically, at their zenith -- but that doesn't mean that it's not worth fighting against.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Can I see a cite from or a link to any commentator, pundit, or blogger of any reasonable repute whatsoever who has claimed that it's necessary for terrorists and insurgents to feign injury and eschew uniforms because they can't compete with us militarily?"

I think perhaps you haven't been reading at this blog very long. See also comments at crooked timber.

[Jesurgislac]

McDuff: It's the Europeans at fault for ignoring NNP?

Of course it is. Anything rather than blame Bush, y'know.

[Phil]

As someone who grew up overseas... well, duh. Our national ability to bury our heads in the sand and live in denial would be a thing of utmost comedy if it weren't for its gravity.

To be fair, there's no shortage of this overseas, either. You'd be hard pressed, for example, to throw a rock in Germany and not hit someone willing to say, "We were all good Germans! Hitler fooled us!" And I say that as someone who has lived extensively in, and loves, Germany.

Sebastian: I think perhaps you haven't been reading at this blog very long. See also comments at crooked timber.

I've been reading this blog since day one. Do you have a link, or don't you?

[Dutchmarbel]

We strongly encourage other countries to make increases of similar magnitude to their humanitarian mine action budgets.

I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. "similar magnitude" for most wealthy western countries would mean decrease their funding of course. The Dutch pay three times as much per capita.

From that same site (key developments):
"In calendar year 2002, over 11,700 new landmine/UXO casualties were identified, including at least 2,649 children (23 percent) and 192 women (2 percent). Less than 15 percent of reported casualties were identified as military personnel. This figure represents the reported casualties and does not take into account the many casualties that are believed to go unreported, as innocent civilians are killed or injured in remote areas away from any form of assistance."

[Dutchmarbel]

The site of the US group against landmines has a review of the new landmine policy.

The concept of smart (i.e., self-destructing) mines certainly has humanitarian allure. In theory, a mine that blows itself up in a relatively short period of time is preferable to a mine that lasts for decades, and should pose less danger to civilians. A smart mine MAY be a safer mine, but it is NOT a safe mine -- there will still be unacceptable risks for civilians, there will still be new mine victims, and the clearance task (while less dangerous) will be just as time-consuming and costly, perhaps even more so. One can argue that in some ways smart mines could pose even greater dangers to civilians because of the large numbers used in a random fashion.

[Edward]

I know I'll be sorry I asked and didn't just look it up myself, but what exactly is the US's rationale for the "need" for landmines?

The VVAF has a page on what it calls better alternatives here and seems to acknowledge that we're moving toward a no-landmine future direction already, if perhaps slowly:

The US military is no longer dependent on mixed mine systems to "turn, block and disrupt" attacking enemy tank formations. The development of highly sophisticated, light, precise, smart and lethal tank killers have made mixed mine systems obsolete. [...] The US military is in the midst of a major and revolutionary transformation of its combat structure that emphasizes the adoption of light, precise and lethal weapons. Mixed AP/AT mines systems are unwieldy and imprecise and do not have a place in today's newly transformed highly mobile military.

etc.

I guess my question really is does the US just hate signing treaties of any sort...the idea that other countries might hold us accountable to anything, even if we agree with that goal, offends us somehow? We can't be that arrogant, can we?

[Dutchmarbel]

I know I'll be sorry I asked and didn't just look it up myself, but what exactly is the US's rationale for the "need" for landmines?

From the breefing of the US "ban the mine"-group:

Apart from the funding increase and the antivehicle mine announcement, the rest of the new policy is bad news. It is bad news for the US and for the broader movement to eliminate antipersonnel mines. The reversal is especially regrettable because the US has been in many respects in de facto compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty for many years. The US has not, to our knowledge, used antipersonnel mines since the Gulf War in 1991. It has prohibited export of all antipersonnel mines since 1992. It has not produced antipersonnel mines since 1997. It has destroyed some 3.3 million stockpiled "dumb" antipersonnel mines. The US military does not maintain minefields anywhere in the world, having cleared its minefields in Cuba in 1999. And, of course, it is a world leader in providing funds for the mine clearance and survivor assistance. However, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have lacked the political will to join the Mine Ban Treaty.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I've been reading this blog since day one. Do you have a link, or don't you?"

I'm not interested in plowing through the archives today. If you want to take the lack of link as "Sebastian is blatantly lying" you can go F!@#$ yourself.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

I agree with Phil. Either provide a cite or withdraw your offensive comment. This is a request you frequently make of others.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I don't think so, the justification has been made by at different points in the Amnesty International debates and in many other contexts (the Israeli/Palestinian debates being the chief one). Your lack of memory does not equate to a need for me to plow through archives for hours. The comment is not offensive, it is a simple statement of a commonly used trope.

[Edward]

Gotta side with Sebastian here folks.

I often rely on "as I've written" to avoid plowing through the archives. Essentially the point is being made here now and the issue should move forward, no?

Also, I'm not seeing the "offensive" comment. Although Phil has certainly been a long time commenter here, but that can't be it, can it?

[Phil]

Hmm . . . well, OK, I guess gloves are officially off vis a vis the posting rules, now. Or should I email the kitten to see if one of the blog hosts telling me to go eff myself is a violation?

I'll spell it out for you, Seb: I have never, ever, ever seen a commenter at this blog -- and most certainly not any commenter who comments frequently enough or with little enough crazy attached -- make the arguments that you appear to be attributing to some large class of people. Your statement -- . . . the chorus of "they can't be expected to fight fair against your military might" which goes on now with respect to uniforms and pretending to be injured . . . seems designed to imply that there's some nontrivial group of people that regularly make this argument.

What I suspect is that you saw one or two nutbags, once, make this argument somewhere and want to extend it out to some significant group that you oppose -- the left? antiwar people? who knows? -- in order to bolster your point. If this were really a chorus that were sung with any sort of regularity anywhere on the Internet or in real life that I frequent, I think I'd remember it. In fact, not only would I remember it, I'd mock it unmercifully, because it's a stupid argument.

So, again, from where does this chorus originate? Something more specific than "Crooked Timber," thank you very much.

P.S. You may want to look into some anger management. I recall a time in the not-too-distant past where you went nuclear on liberal japonicus for several paragraphs over things he never even said, simply because you couldn't remember two different people's names. Given that, I'd be a little more diplomatic if I were you. Which I'm not.

On preview -- Edward, Sebastian isn't referring to something he himself has written; he's referring to some argument that I quite literally have never encountered and referring to it as if it's as common as air, then going on to use that argument as a point against what you're talking about here. I want to see this argument attributed to an actual person, as I confess that I don't entirely trust Sebastian's recall on some of these matters.

[Edward]

quietly backing out...

sorry I butted in.

e

[Dantheman]

The offensive part is putting words in people's mouths. The original comment was "If we sign on to this treaty, the first time one of our soldiers gets blown up by a land mine, the chorus of "they can't be expected to fight fair against your military might" which goes on now with respect to uniforms and pretending to be injured will be extended to mines."

Phil asked for an example of anyone saying anything remotely like that, which I do not recall, either. I do recall people saying that not being in uniforms is a typical feature of being a guerrilla force, but which does not make fighting a guerrilla war invalid. I do recall people condemning the fake-injury tactic, but saying it did not justify indiscriminately killing people actually surrendering. Those are very different than the comment Sebastian made, and I again call on him to find someone reputable saying what he said or withdraw it.

[hilzoy]

OK. I am going to try a minor intervention here. It will rely on mind-reading, so let me just say, in advance, that I will completely accept the reply, 'actually, that wasn't what I/we meant at all', or even 'stfu, hilzoy'.

There is an argument that is like the one Sebastian describes, and which has been made often enough that we should all remember it. Namely: the argument that the Geneva Conventions should be applied to the Taliban fighters, even though they are not wearing uniforms, since they are (or were, before we overthrew the Taliban) the army of a state. If it is ever OK, to say 'look the argument up yourself' (and I do not want to get into this), it would, I think, be OK in this case. So: supposing that this were the argument Sebastian had in mind, I think it would make sense for him to be surprised that none of us claim to remember it.

On the other hand, what Sebastian said was: "the chorus of "they can't be expected to fight fair against your military might" which goes on now with respect to uniforms and pretending to be injured will be extended to mines." This sounds as though it were referring to a quite different argument: one that said, basically: just as if I were to enter a race against Carl Lewis, it would be sporting of him to allow me a head start, so when we fight against the Taliban or al Qaeda or something, we should allow them some sort of compensatory advantage, like not wearing uniforms or being able to use land mines. This, I take it, is the argument none of us can recall having made, or even having seen.

If (and again, I am not confident of this, just proposing it in case it helps) this is the misunderstanding we're having, then it's worth saying the following: I don't recall anyone having argued that we ought to give the Taliban or al Qaeda special rights so that they will have a decent shot at defeating us. The argument about the Geneva Conventions was, rather, about two questions: (a) should we try to follow what looks like the spirit of the Conventions, where this does not give our opponents any sort of advantage, but rather just governs what we do to them when we have already caught them, and (b) should we take the Geneva Conventions to cover everyone, either as soldiers or as civilians, rather than creating a class of 'enemy combatants' that fall between the cracks. There is no obvious way to extend this to the treaty against land mines, or none that I can see: no parallel line of reasoning that would allow al Qaeda or the Taliban or anyone to legitimately use land mines. Moreover, I don't think anyone who opposes land mines would be inclined to make such an argument: we oppose land mines i principle, not just e.g. when used by states.

Also: "They also won't be blowing up soccer moms." Maybe not, if 'soccer moms' are citizens of developed countries. But they do blow up lots of moms and their children in other parts of the world. And that, I would have thought , is the point of the ad. I agree that there is a serious question about whether it should be shown, but I don't think there is a serious question about whether, if we are prepared to accept the prospect of mothers and children being blown up by landmines in distant countries, we should not at least ask ourselves whether we would be prepared to have our own mothers and children blown up by land mines here at home.

[Dianne]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why anyone needs landmines. Landmines have been said to be useful in two situations: against guerillas who don't wear uniforms and in the DMZ between North and South Korea. What can landmines do effectively against a guerilla campaign? What might happen if there were no mines in the DMZ? Would N Korea be more likely to try to invade S Korea if they were gone? I'm not trying to be snarky here I really simply don't understand the argument. Can someone explain in words of one syllable comprehensible to those of us who are simply being slow?

[Dantheman]

Thanks hilzoy. That's pretty close to what I am saying.

[Slartibartfast]

I'd like to just point out that my employer isn't the maker of said cluster munitions, but is the maker of precision guidance kits for the dispenser (which is known as WCMD). WCMD dispenses a variety of submunitions, the newest of which have programmable self-destruct. What was used in Desert Storm was a somewhat less intelligent (as noted upthread, CEM) munition, which apparently left behind about ten thousand (or more, obviously the exact figure is unknowable) duds. The ongoing need for WCMD to counter conventional armored threats has got little to do with the AP/AA mines discussed upthread, and little or nothing to do with antiterrorism.

Believe it or not, the military is cognizant of these problems, and has devoted no small amount of effort to fixing them as much as they can be fixed. Hence, smart submunitions that self-destruct, smaller, much more precise bombs, better targeting systems to achieve a more positive ID on the target, etc. But don't expect perfection to ever be achieved; armed conflict is always going to get noncombatants killed. I can't see that that problem is ever going to go away.

[Charles Bird]

Charles wants them to show video of people jumping from the WTC in order to remind us to be angry.

Wrong, Edward. The point is that if you want to show gory pictures of disfigured people in order to advance your political agenda, let's not be selective about it, showing just the gore you want us to see. Show it all. Lay it all out there and let the people decide. Bring on the Blood & Gore Channel. Let's have Amputee Hour, America's Goriest Home Videos, Beheading Highlights, Splat (people landing from very high places), Landmine Lulus, Suicide Bomb Makeover, etc. BTW, aren't videos of landmine victims also meant to evoke emotions such as anger? That's the whole point showing video images, is it not? To elicit an emotive response? Not saying that I'm angry, but why is your anger legitimate but the anger of your opponents not?

i'm angry - at people like Charles who seem to be saying that we're justified (or at least blameless) in killing people Over There with land mines, cluster bombs, whatever, because someone from Over There killed someone here.

Talk about a twisting of the words, cleek. We and the South Koreans are justified in defending ourselves. Landmines in the DMZ are part of that defense strategy, considering the numbers of North Korean troops on the other side and the proximity to Seoul. A hard line of defense is necessary for tactical and strategic reasons. There's nothing wrong with using cluster bombs in a war as long as the rules of engagement are followed.

The issue is not "because someone from Over There killed someone here", which implies bloodthirsty revenge. The issue is defense, both of our interests and our allies, and to prevent future attacks from happening against our citizens.

so tell me, Charles, how many land mines have we placed in any of the countries where the 9/11 guys came from ?

An irrelevant question. Different enemies and different factors require different tactics.

[Edward]

Wrong, Edward. The point is that if you want to show gory pictures of disfigured people in order to advance your political agenda, let's not be selective about it, showing just the gore you want us to see.

How does showing beheadings and people falling from the WTC advance your agenda though, Charles?

[Edward]

BTW, aren't videos of landmine victims also meant to evoke emotions such as anger?

Not anger, but horror The goal being to convince folks this sort of thing should be banned.

Not sure how it's parallel at all to beheadings or falling people.

[Phil]

Yes, hilzoy, that's exactly right. The former argument I'd have had no objection to and have seen often enough that it would have gone uncommented on. The latter argument is something that an utter looney would say. Sebastian appears to be either mistaking the latter for the former, making up the latter and attributing it to holders of the former, or believing that the latter is as commonly held as the former. I'd like to know which is true, but for my troubles I got told to go screw myself, so there you have it.

[liberal japonicus]

US arguments for landmines seem to revolve around a replay of the scenario of Korea, with mass human wave attacks. Thus, mines can serve to reduce the number of US (and South Korean, but primarily US) armed forces who would need to deal with such an attack. AFAIK, there are no other places in the world where the US needs to lay mines, unless one counts Gitmo. However, Korea is basically the US fighting the last war. North Korea has certainly evolved a number of counter strategies for dealing with minefields (such as this (the formatting is a bit screwy on that))

Now, the US could make a statement saying that they will no longer make/purchase/lay mines, but will leave the mines in the Korean DMZ zone in place. However, mines are subject to aging, so the armed forces have resisted taking that preliminary step.

It seems to me that a statement that the US will remove mines and present a rather long time frame would be the sort of thing that would cause a lot of confusion for the North Koreans, so I'm not sure why it isn't taken up. I would like to know the behind the scenes discussion about this and the actual feeling on the part of the South Koreans. This suggests (in line with the Sunshine policy) that South Koreans would be happy to go along and it is US intransigence.

Also, one should note a letter by retired high ranking military officers arguing that the US does not need antipersonnel mines. This Q&A has a number of important points that I will clip here.

APL, which are "task complicators" to the US response plan to a North Korean invasion. Lt. General James Hollingsworth, former commander of U.S. forces in Korea, said: “There is a military motility to APL's, but in the case of US forces in Korea, it is minimal, and in some ways even offset by the difficulty our own APL's pose to our brand of mobile warfare. The loss of this utility is a small and acceptable price to pay for moving the world toward a complete ban on APL's. Not only civilians, but also US armed forces, will benefit from a ban on landmines. US forces in Korea are no exception.”

and

it has come to light that nearly half of the U.S. mines designated to protect South Korea are actually stockpiled in the United States, calling into question whether these weapons are even thought to be critical by military leaders themselves.

Slarti argues for smart mines, but the banminesusa site has these arguments against them.

I'd also note that Chas is taking the same line the Clinton took, as noted in this Washington Times editorial by James Hollingsworth. Mirabile dictu, eh?

Even more ironically, a push to develop mine sniffing technology would probably have spillover effects in dealing with the potential of explosives used by terrorists, in that ways of detecting trace amounts of explosives would provide more options for protection.

[Edward]

North Korea has certainly evolved a number of counter strategies for dealing with minefields (such as this (the formatting is a bit screwy on that))

It may have been just fantasy, obviously, but didn't they use large hovercrafts in one of the James Bond movies, as well...isn't that a counter technology to the DMZ mines? Surely more expensive/targetable than tunnels, but at a certain point, won't the mines be pointless?

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti argues for smart mines

Simply noting their existence, and that they're potentially less dangerous than their dumber cousins.

but the banminesusa site has these arguments against them.

Fairly lame ones, as the gaping holes in the arguments leap out at those who are new to the discussion (read: me).

Here's one:

given the failure rate for self-destruction, many dangerous mines will remain on the ground.

Do I need to point it out? How do they know what the failure rate is? Oh, here's how:

Russian mines that are supposed to self-destruct are now causing civilian casualties in Chechnya.

If we were designing weapons to Russian standards, we in the industry would be working to a much less rigid set of requirements. It ought to go without saying that Russian requirements and our requirements aren't the same, but apparently that needs to be pointed out.

I could go on, but I don't really have a dog in this fight. I think if banmineusa.org wants to succeed, it needs to adopt a little higher quality of argument. My main point was that cluster munitions != mines. I could have pointed out that the unexploded ordnance problem isn't restricted to mines, but I thought that would have been obvious to all.

[liberal japonicus]

As for failure rate, I certainly hope that we can get a better rate than the Russians (hint, don't rely any battery technology that is used in any electronic device that I have bought, cause experience suggests that you are just asking for trouble), but, as the empirical kind of guy you are, Slarti, I hope you aren't going to say that it will be zero. I'm also struggling to understand why the presence of other unexploded ordinance means we need not worry about ordinance that is specifically designed to explode when it comes in contact/proximity of a human.

The banminesusa site also notes about smart mines that one of the reasons that is pushing their development is the fact that they can be laid from planes or canisters. Unfortunately, this ratcheting up of technology leads to the possibility of more mines being used. Again, I'm sure that you understand that any change in technology leads to other conditions also occurring. Simply mentioning smart mines as an option (as you are careful not to defend them) without really intensively considering what would happen with their use would be a big mistake. Are we going to be confronted with another sort of war with human wave attacks? I really don't think so, and apparently, neither do the Chinese (also, in a spasm of synchronicity, note Edward's newest post)

[Dianne]

liberal japonicus

Thanks. I think I now understand at least the argument for the use of landmines in Korea, although what use they are against guerillas still puzzles me. I don't agree with the arguments, however. If the N Korea government were willing to invade S Korea with a starving army, facing vastly superior equipment, and the emnity of essentially the entire world (I doubt the Chinese would support them this time), I doubt that a little thing like landmines would stop it--especially since landmines are a solved problem for a sufficiently ruthless government--use human waves. I suppose that the landmines make the US and S Korea feel safer, but I really doubt that they do much else.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I was talking about the Geneva Conventions and the fact that liberals--including MANY on this very board--do not seem to require that they be followed by our enemies. (I distinguish this from 'want them to be followed'. I freely admit that in some platonic sense many people may 'want' our enemies to follow the Geneva Conventions. What is lacking is consequences for not following them. In a nice world we wouldn't need incentives to get people to follow the rules. In the real world we do.) I don't see any reason to sign treaties on things like land mines when the international community is completely uninterested in enforcing far more important treaties (see nuclear proliferation and genocide).

I do think it is ridiculous that the conversations we have had on the topic (which if printed out would be hundreds of pages) have apparently vanished down an unusually convenient memory hole.

Furthermore I am absolutely certain I have seen on this very board the argument that Israeli military might and the Palestinians inability to match it leads to the Palestinians using dubious methods. This argument is almost always used in a context of minimizing the Palestinian terrorism. See for example: "In other words, in most of the Middle East, the gross lack of balance of power which Isreal's military might and beligerent use of same and the US role in that imbalance is a motivating factor toward utilizing any means for self-preservation." by Barry Ross here. I'm not inclined to spend any time looking further.

The link between land mines and the Geneva Conventions is in the way the rules get used. If our enemies break the rules, no penalty accrues because the international community lacks both the will and the means to attempt enforcement. If we break the rules we are castigated up and down the halls of Europe. I don't see any upside to inviting more of that while not gaining anything.

[Slartibartfast]

I hope you aren't going to say that it will be zero.

Of course not.

I'm also struggling to understand why the presence of other unexploded ordinance means we need not worry about ordinance that is specifically designed to explode when it comes in contact/proximity of a human.

That's a false statement. Think it over for a while: what makes a dumb bomb different from a CEM, in terms of selectivity for humans?

Unfortunately, this ratcheting up of technology leads to the possibility of more mines being used.

There's always the possibility of more mines being used; this connection that banminesusa has made is a pure and simple fabrication. It's a slippery-slope argument.

without really intensively considering what would happen with their use

Are you suggesting this hasn't been examined? Remember, this is the US DoD we're talking about. DoD doesn't do anything at all without first studying it to death, unless the President tells them to. Munitions incorporating self-destruct have been in the works for well over a decade.

And once more, cluster munitions do not equate to mines. This connection was made upthread by Jesurgislac, if you'll recall.

[Edward]

Sebastian,

What is lacking is consequences for not following them.

What would you suggest? Two sets of rules?

It's not only what it does to THEM that keeps us following the GC, it's also what it does to us when we allow our baser instincts to emerge.

You want a fair playing field, I get that. But taken to its logical conclusion, that would have to include the US using only the weapons that the enemy also has at its disposal. There's nothing particularly "fair" about our ability to bomb a nation from hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away.

Which is a side bar, and not a moral equivalency.

I return to my first comment...we follow the GC because it keeps US in check too.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"You want a fair playing field, I get that."

No that isn't what I want.

The Geneva Convention rules are meant to protect civilians as incentivized by protecting soldiers in specific ways if they follow the rules. By taking away the incentives, you endanger more civilians while simultaneously endangering more US soldiers.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

That may be what you think the point of the Geneva Conventions are, but I doubt many others do. I think most people feel that protecting both civilians and soldiers are good in and of themselves, or as Edward said, "it's also what it does to us when we allow our baser instincts to emerge."

Whatever the consequences for not following them should be (and I agree there should be some), the proper response is not to say if the other side is not following them, then we do not have to either. The GC is not the equivalent to the Marquis de Queensbury rules.

I think the proper consequences should be in the realm of withdrawing support for parties which do not follow the GC. You (as I recall from earlier discussions on Central America) take the position that national interest trumps matters of human rights and democracy, and therefore improper actions by e.g., the Contras would not cost your support if the underlying cause were sufficiently important. I would not take that position.

[Andrew Frederiksen]

The link between land mines and the Geneva Conventions is in the way the rules get used. If our enemies break the rules, no penalty accrues because the international community lacks both the will and the means to attempt enforcement.

I'm not sure I see who, exactly, you're talking about here. Violation of the Geneva conventions is a war crime -- if the other side's comitting war crimes, they can be tried for same. That is the penalty that accrues.

This does not, however, remove the obligation of demonstrating that those held as war criminals in fact are such, and does not confer upon the United States the right to hoover up combatants and non-combatants alike, hold them in legal limbo, and ship them off to third countries to have high voltages applied to their genitals. I don't see any inherent contradiction in this.

[kenB]

I am absolutely certain I have seen on this very board the argument that Israeli military might and the Palestinians inability to match it leads to the Palestinians using dubious methods.

This is one of those "explain" vs. "explain away" issues. I think everyone would agree that it's entirely understandable for an outmatched military to resort to guerilla tactics. Whether it's "justified" and should therefore be excused is an entirely different question.

Regarding consequences, one might point out that under your preferred policy, the people who would be paying the price are often not the people who have any control over the selection of tactics. Who exactly are you trying to disincentivize, and how do you see that working in the context of an Afghanistan or Iraq?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Violation of the Geneva conventions is a war crime -- if the other side's comitting war crimes, they can be tried for same."

That doesn't happen unless you win.

[Edward]

That doesn't happen unless you win.

If you don't win, don't you have bigger problems to worry about than who followed the conventions?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"If you don't win, don't you have bigger problems to worry about than who followed the conventions?"

If we don't win because you have hamstrung us with treaties that do nothing to help us and can only be used to hurt us, yes we have more serious problems.

[Dantheman]

"If we don't win because you have hamstrung us with treaties that do nothing to help us and can only be used to hurt us, yes we have more serious problems."

I am biting back a comment on means and ends in the interest of comity.

However, I suspect that in many wars it is the violation of the GC which makes winning less likely, as such tactics will reduce popular support for the side violating them. Again, that's why the Central America examples from the 1980's are illuminating.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

SH: First, I note that you have posted no defense of your very strange claim up-thread that mines are useful in asymmetrical warfare. Have you abandoned that claim or should we still wait for a defense?

Second, the US claimed, at one point, that it needed mines only in Korea, but on that basis refused to sign the treaty. If the current administration has expanded its doctrine for the use of mines, especially in asym. warfare, please provide a link.

Now, it is possible that the only political/military strategy of the US at any time anywhere is the defense of its troops. On that basis, I can understand the refusal to sign the Mine Ban treaty. Mines provide fixed point force protection capabilities not provided by other weapon systems, and provide supplemental capabilities against opposing forces.

But if that is our strategy, then we're going about Iraq all wrong. There should be no foot patrols, no joint patrols with iraqi forces etc.

Sometimes, tradeoffs are worth making. Troops are denied a particular capability (eg., poison gas) to serve a larger political goal.

With over 140 countries signing the Mine Ban Treaty, it is appropriate to ask whether denying the military the use of the weapons systems addressed in the treaty is worth the political benefit accrued by our becoming a signatory.

There will always be cheaters; Saddam used poison gas. But we prepare our troops for the issues presented by OpFor not following the rules of war. The issue of OpFor cheating, however, has NOTHING, but NOTHING to do with our own internal analysis.

Poison gas is a powerful analogy to mines. The US has signed international treaties forbidding its use, despite the US's knowledge that some countries, like Iraq, would cheat. It seems to me you're arguing that the US's decision to forego the use of poison gas was in error.

Since I don't believe you hold that position, I'd appreciate a clarification of your thinking.

[Charles Bird]

How does showing beheadings and people falling from the WTC advance your agenda though, Charles?

My agenda is what I said it was, to wit: If violent and gory images are to be shown, then we shouldn't be limited just to the ones with the Edward seal of approval. Why restrict images just to one political point of view? If one view is allowed, why should images of beheaded Americans and murder victims of 9/11 be denied? Just to be fair, none of the images should be held back. Put them all out. The problem is, in the end it does not provide a net benefit to society. Just look at how al Jazeera uses violent images. Do you really want to go there? Are they truly informing, or does distortive propaganda creep into the broadcast.

The problem with your whole line of thinking, Edward, is that video images are intended to provoke emotive responses, and important lines get blurred. For whatever reason, reading and listening appeal more to the intellectual parts of our brains. Images do not. So, at what point does showing a badly injured child stop being informative and start being exploitative? At what point does a PSA stop being a public service and start being entertainment? At what point does showing these commercials stop enlightening and start inflaming and desensitizing and coarsening?

Here's a thought. In the interests of not unduly inflaming, of not exploiting and using these people for political ends, of erring on the side of respecting peoples' dignity, why not choose to be on the side restraint? Why not choose to show images that won't give my 9-year old daughter bad dreams? If the issue is righteous enough, tossing in violence and gore to get the point across shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

[Slartibartfast]

Charles, I think the answer here is that both the old networks and Fox have been perfectly free to show any footage from the WTC collapse they wish to. All this talk about some enforced balance of gore is confusing; who would do the enforcing, and who's going to clean up the wreckage of the First Amendment when it's all over and done with?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

With over 140 countries signing the Mine Ban Treaty, it is appropriate to ask whether denying the military the use of the weapons systems addressed in the treaty is worth the political benefit accrued by our becoming a signatory.

There will always be cheaters; Saddam used poison gas. But we prepare our troops for the issues presented by OpFor not following the rules of war. The issue of OpFor cheating, however, has NOTHING, but NOTHING to do with our own internal analysis.

Poison gas is a powerful analogy to mines. The US has signed international treaties forbidding its use, despite the US's knowledge that some countries, like Iraq, would cheat. It seems to me you're arguing that the US's decision to forego the use of poison gas was in error.

I don't see any likely political benefit of any particular magnitude accruing.

How you deal with cheating is very relevant to war crimes rules because they involve a mutual rejection of a tactic that can give you an advantage. Which is to say they can cause you to lose if your opponent is free to use them.

Posion gas is not a particularly good analogy because it isn't a particularly good weapon. Functionally it has always been a terror weapon more than a utility weapon. Mines have perfectly useful purposes in protecting fixed areas.

Just because a particular strategy isn't appropriate in Iraq doesn't mean that it is inappropriate everywhere. Mines have useful functions in protecting fixed points.

I am generally opposed to binding the US to more treaties that the international community is not interested in actually enforcing. I don't like cheesy false moral gestures. I don't see the point in making more paper treaties when the world doesn't bother to enforce non-proliferation treaties and anti-genocide treaties. I think the spread of unenforced treaties lets nations pretend they are taking action while in reality they let things fester. I don't see any reason to extend that practice further.

[Edward]

Nice long deflection, Charles, but I'm happy to explain what effect I want showing the PSA to have. I'm asking you what effect you want showing beheadings to have.

[liberal japonicus]

Morning all,
slart
I said
I'm also struggling to understand why the presence of other unexploded ordinance means we need not worry about ordinance that is specifically designed to explode when it comes in contact/proximity of a human.
and you replied
That's a false statement. Think it over for a while: what makes a dumb bomb different from a CEM, in terms of selectivity for humans?
I hate to say it, but the 'I'm struggling to understand' is always true. However, if faced with a choice of something you had to deal with, would you choose something was supposed to blow up but didn't (and would have had to be delivered in such a way as to enable it blow up) or something that wasn't supposed to blow up immediately, but blow up later when a person comes in contact with it, but for some unknown reason, didn't? Which has more of a potential for harm? The more complicated the technology (remember, these are designed to blow up later, so they would have been made so as not to blow up on impact or after a short period of time, unlike other ordinance), the more problems. Furthermore, returning to the theme of the post, would Americans be willing to accept that level of risk for our own children? Bear in mind that US war strategy remains massive overwhelming firepower. It is changing, but smart mines delivered by ordinance and air is going to smack of the same philosophy. If these things have been in the pipeline for 10+ years, they will have been designed with the old paradigms in place. Not a pleasant thought.

I would also suggest that the true implications have not 1)the weapons are not on line, so it is not possible to foresee even the limited variety of possibilities
2)The military industrial complex (cough *star wars* cough *brilliant pebbles* cough) is looking at ways of maintaining current production. I would imagine that smart mines would be delivered by standard 155 mmm armament (I used to work as a QC person in a plant that made them, I think there were 200-300 bomblets in one shell) and so the desire to preserve manufacturing would 'force' a logic on the delivery of smart mines. As one of my favorite phrases goes, when all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
3)The US armed forces (at least the requisition tail of it) are still fighting the last war. Certainly Iraq has forced some changes, but I would suggest that those lessons have not been fully digested. Are we ever going to be in a situation analogous to the Fulda Gap with Soviet troops streaming in? I don't think so. As Dianne points out, while the possibility of starving NK troops streaming down to take Seoul is a possibility, it is highly unlikely for a host of reasons. I know, plan for all contingencies, but if cost is a problem (and I hope we can agree that it is), then we need to get rid of those systems that are designed to fight old wars.

[smlook]

"I'm asking you what effect you want showing beheadings to have."

I can't answer for Charles, but the effect I would like is to constantly remind Americans and the world what type of people these Islamic fanatics/extremist and terrorist we fight truly are... thugs and murderers... not freedom fighters.

[crionna]

Mines have perfectly useful purposes in protecting fixed areas.

Or vice-versa. If they could be dropped quickly enough and in large enough quantities (i.e. from a plane as LJ talks about above) couldn't you encircle an enemy with them?

Or, (and here's a terrible thought) couldn't you even spread mines among them? I mean, the timer would give the enemy a chance to surrender and walk out before being blown to bits by ticking bombs.

[Jesurgislac]

smlook: what type of people these Islamic fanatics/extremist and terrorist we fight truly are...

...but since, in using landmines and cluster bombs, the US is actually fighting against children - and other civilians - who get blown to pieces for the crime of going out to play, shouldn't that too be shown? If the idea is to make Americans aware who, truly, the US military is fighting against, then show all the casualties of the wars the US fights - not just the ones who happen to fall into the category of "fanatics/extremist and terrorist".

Right?

[eglin_guy]

You guys miss the basics of military warfare... never give up your weapon.

Land mines kill people. In war you kill people. Whether we use the weapons is at our discretion.

End of story.

This thread reminds me of fighting my brother when I was younger... he said, "No hitting in the face."

His first punch hit me directly in the nose...

[smlook]

Jes,

Sure, show it all. Truth is truth.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

SH sez:"Poison gas is not a particularly good analogy because it isn't a particularly good weapon."

Nonsense. It is a very good terror weapon. It is very effective against troops not properly equipped. It dramatically reduces the effectiveness of troops wearing gas gear. See, eg, WWI.

I note that SH has been reduced to his old standby, an apparently visceral distate of treaties. There is notably no discussion as to whether the enforcement mechanisms within the Mine Ban Treaty are effective and no discussion of the political ramifications of the US's refusal to sign the treaty.

ah well. i guess we all have our blind spots.

[The Tick]

However, if faced with a choice of something you had to deal with, would you choose something was supposed to blow up but didn't (and would have had to be delivered in such a way as to enable it blow up) or something that wasn't supposed to blow up immediately, but blow up later when a person comes in contact with it, but for some unknown reason, didn't?

I can't answer that, but I can say that what you're referring to is mines, and I'm going to reinterate my point that cluster munitions and mines are not synonyms.

cough *star wars* cough

My old stomping grounds. Ah, those weren't the days.

I think there were 200-300 bomblets in one shell

Then they probably weren't smart mines. A WCMD carries less than a hundred of them, and it's nearly 8 feet long by 16 inches in diameter. A 155 shell is just over 6" in diameter and maybe three times that in length. The largest number of AP munitions I've seen in one of those is 36. Mines, 8.

The US armed forces (at least the requisition tail of it) are still fighting the last war.

You know not of what you speak. I suppose you're probably aware that USAF and USN budgets for new systems have gotten cut, and deeply, but what you may not know is that nearly all of those cuts were plowed back into the Army specifically for AT weapons, tactics, training, personnel, etc. Aside from that, there's imperatives service-wide to achieve things like positive target ID and a whole lot of things that I don't know much about. The problem is not that these aren't issues so much as that they don't get funded until something bad happens.

Are we ever going to be in a situation analogous to the Fulda Gap with Soviet troops streaming in? I don't think so.

Nor do any of the armed services. Which explains why programs like Crusader have gotten the axe.

[Slartibartfast]

Ack. "The Tick" is me.

[Slartibartfast]

Uh, "reiterate". I do know how to spell, but sometimes my fingers forget how to type.

[Charles Bird]

All this talk about some enforced balance of gore is confusing

I'm not talking about enforcement, but precedent, slarti.

I'm asking you what effect you want showing beheadings to have.

Same difference as exploiting victims of landmines for political gain, Edward. Images intended to evoke an emotional response.

[Anarch]

Same difference as exploiting victims of landmines for political gain, Edward. Images intended to evoke an emotional response.

That'd be one Karnak award, piping hot, to Charles Bird for mind-reading. And you said only liberals ever did that!

[Edward]

like.pulling.teeth.

WHAT emotional response, Charles?

The PSA is intended to evoke empathy via horror.

WHAT emotional response would seeing people fall from the WTC be hoping to evoke?

The next question, of course, is Toward what end?

[Andrew Frederiksen]

Ack. "The Tick" is me.

All I have to say is...

...Spoon!

[Anarch]

The PSA is intended to evoke empathy via horror.

I stand corrected. It's still a flawed argument, though, for the reasons elucidated by Edward.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I note that SH has been reduced to his old standby, an apparently visceral distate of treaties. There is notably no discussion as to whether the enforcement mechanisms within the Mine Ban Treaty are effective and no discussion of the political ramifications of the US's refusal to sign the treaty."

I have outlined specific reasons to dislike such treaties--they pretend to address a problem but the lack of will to enforce them makes them useless bits of paper which offer false reassurance to those foolish enough to believe in them. That isn't a visceral dislike, that is rational reason to avoid using them unless your aim is to lull people into a false sense of security that something is being done. (It is the same type of objection that I have to the current regime of airport searches.)

But if you don't want to address it, I can't force you.

[liberal japonicus]

The Tick wrote:
I think there were 200-300 bomblets in one shell

Then they probably weren't smart mines.

Believe it or not, I realize that. But I don't believe that they are going to create a whole new delivery system from the ground up when they can adopt an old delivery system and keep those manufacturing lines going.

While I am greatly pleased that budgets are being cut, I don't think that the armed forces has been able to take on board completely the lessons that we need to learn. If I remember correctly, Rumsfeld was stymied when pre 9/11, he attempted to get rid of some of these systems. I think it will take a lot longer than 2 years to digest some of these lessons, and the logistical tail is usually the last place to change. Up until Iraq II, the key concept was, if I'm not mistaken, shock and awe, which is simply an outgrowth of victory through massed firepower.

The problem is not that these aren't issues so much as that they don't get funded until something bad happens.

I agree with you on this point and we have not had a conflict where the necessity of smart mines came up. However, I find it hard, with the exception of Korea, to think of a place where we would be so cavalier about spreading smart mines and not be worried about the future consequences. It seems that the push to smart mines is based on a desire to retain industrial capacity rather than a forward looking politico/military strategy. To underline this, here is a link listing the US manufactuers involved with anti-personnel mines. Some other links of interest include this

[Slartibartfast]

If I remember correctly, Rumsfeld was stymied when pre 9/11, he attempted to get rid of some of these systems.

Sometimes the Pentagon acts just like Congress: program offices protect their projects vigorously. And when both Congress AND the Pentagon are being protective about things like Crusader, that makes it very, very tough to kill them. Right at this moment we have some minor skirmishes between Congressional Democrats over the new Marine One. The one thing I dislike most intensely about the way defense contracts are awarded is what happens in Congress when employment opportunities are at stake. I've seen things like: one company gets a contract award for political reasons, after being instructed to repropose based on another company's concept. Almost immediately after the award they asked for (and got) several tens of millions of dollars extra. So, they were instructed what to propose, and they proposed a cost basis that didn't survive for more than a month post-award. Sound fishy? It did to me.

To underline this, here is a link listing the US manufactuers involved with anti-personnel mines.

It's never been a secret who my employer is, so I'll point out they're listed by HRW as a maker of land mines.

But I don't believe that they are going to create a whole new delivery system from the ground up when they can adopt an old delivery system and keep those manufacturing lines going.

There's something to that, but it's probably not what you think it is. For the manufacturer to make changes in an existing item is fairly easy. To make changes to an interface is also fairly easy. It's the other side of that interface that's a challenge, and expensive. To be more specific, say you have a new weapon concept that requires data from the aircraft carrying it that's not currently available on the aircraft databus. Let's keep this example simple, so we're going to imagine that the current bus architecture can support this new data item. Well, adding a new data item to the aircraft bus, for USAF aircraft, is something that can take several months to over a year to do, and cost millions of dollars to code, test, and then test some more. Example: when Hellfire was being upgraded, the Army wanted it to have some new capabilities that I'm not going to get specific on. It turned out that there was really no way for them to add a particular capability without amending the weapon to aircraft interface, so they elected to either do away with that capability, or significantly relax the requirement on that capability. That's one half of the problem; the other half is that weapons and interfaces aren't developed in tandem, for the most part, so the weapons designer cannot simply tell the aircraft manufacturer to change the interface.

I've probably missed something, too. I've learned much in my nearly quarter-decade stint in the world of defense systems, but I don't know anywhere near all of it. There's also something to your comments on the logistics aspect, but I think that the guys in logistics on the service end are in general much smarter and much more adaptable than they normally get credit for. Actually, nearly everyone I've had any contact with in the service is way above average smart, including the pilots. So it's not necessarily logistics that's the issue, it's getting everyone to agree on how things will be done. The program I just came actually sprang from a desire to keep maintenance and calibration in the field at a minimum. It had specific aims in that area, in addition to performance requirements, and we've pretty much accomplished what we set out to do. Everyone that has anything to do with weapons or sensors has got their own agenda and way of looking at the process, and getting everything to mesh and agree is nontrivial. I don't think there's any analogue for this in non-defense work.

[liberal japonicus]

thanks for the comments slart. I should say that I didn't intend to get a dig at you through your employer, just was passing on the information. I should also note that though it sounds like I am bashing the defense industry, I'm really not. My dad was a civilian oceanographer who retired just in time, my brother used to work at a factory making navy hovercraft skirts, and I worked at an ammo plant at a particularly economically precarious time. Therefore, I certainly agree with your thought that the defense industry has a number of people with high intelligence ;^) But I do see a lot of that intelligence directed at solving short term goals. In fact, high intelligence may be related to the constantly shifting goals and demands that are placed on defense manufacturers.

Your example of the data bus if interesting, but I would offer as a counter example the fact that 155 mm shells seem to be a focus for delivery, and efforts seem to be concentrated around this. As I said, I have a hard time understanding a tactical need for the weapon, but it seems that research short of deploying (I believe that the Ottowa treaty prohibits the use and deployment, not research) could continue. The notion that we never give up a weapon seems to suggest that moral superiority is not a weapon. I realize that in the wake of Abu Grahib, the notion of moral superiority is pretty laughable, and I'm not saying that we are going to scratch back by agreeing to the Ottowa treaty, but I would like to see us thinking along those lines.

[Slartibartfast]

I should also note that though it sounds like I am bashing the defense industry, I'm really not.

Either way, fine with me. I'm not being adversarial with you so much as showing the view from over here. I didn't take you as being critical so much.

But I do see a lot of that intelligence directed at solving short term goals.

The remarks I made about intelligence were not to toot my horn or my company's, but to shine a light on our servicemen. These people are frequently smarter and always more professional than their industry counterparts.

You do see a focus on short-term goals precisely because that's all that's visible to the public. There's quite a lot of time and effort being spent in long-term planning. My wife's uncle was once a member of this organization, and (according to him) their scope of planning was at least two or three decades in the future.

Your example of the data bus if interesting, but I would offer as a counter example the fact that 155 mm shells seem to be a focus for delivery, and efforts seem to be concentrated around this.

I think you shouldn't get the fact that APMs can be delivered using 155 rounds with the conclusion that that will be the primary mode of delivery. And you also have to consider that with the 155-dispensed munition, the arming mechanism for the self-destruct is going to be inertial by definition, where WCMD-dispensed munitions may be armed and programmed via the weapon power system.

The notion that we never give up a weapon seems to suggest that moral superiority is not a weapon.

Well, it's not a weapon. This is not to say that we're not phasing out any weapons, though. Recall that our chem/bio arsenal is supposed to have been destroyed by now. And recall the transition to fewer cluster munitions with more specific modes of attack, as I've noted.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with you so much as clarifying something that's pretty close to home for me.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

"I have outlined specific reasons to dislike such treaties--they pretend to address a problem but the lack of will to enforce them makes them useless bits of paper which offer false reassurance to those foolish enough to believe in them."

And I have addressed this point by pointing out that a large part of the problem is that you (and more influential people holding similar views) have undermined such efforts by stating in the 1980's in Central America that there are higher priorities than them. To take the position that the reason not to trust such treaties is that others may violate the same types of treaties that you yourself countenanced violating is a highly suspect argument.

"But if you don't want to address it, I can't force you."

And neither can I.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

You allege you address this here?

I think the proper consequences should be in the realm of withdrawing support for parties which do not follow the GC. You (as I recall from earlier discussions on Central America) take the position that national interest trumps matters of human rights and democracy, and therefore improper actions by e.g., the Contras would not cost your support if the underlying cause were sufficiently important.

What are you talking about? The Contras for instance had uniforms, attacked mostly military installations, skirmished with the regular Army, and had a well definied chain of command. How is that undermining the Geneva Conventions? In other arenas, spies were not offered Geneva Convention protections as is specified in the Geneva Conventions. That doesn't undermine the treaties either. Your high priority question is so vague as to be useless to this conversation. Of course I am willing to admit that different things have different priorities and that no one concern takes precedence in every possible situation. Only a fool would say otherwise.

I do not have a visceral dislike for treaties. I have a visceral dislike for rarely enforced bits of papers which purport to be treaties but in actuality are just moral sops to let people in the West pretend that they are doing something when they aren't. I have specifically called out the anti-genocide convention and the NPT. The NPT is both extremely important, and almost entirely non-enforced. The anti-genocide convention is a continuing joke. I don't see the point in engaging in more treaties sans enforcement, on far less important topics, when we still have use for the items in question, and when the international community clearly doesn't care enough about even the important issues to bother with enforcement questions.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

"The Contras for instance had uniforms, attacked mostly military installations, skirmished with the regular Army, and had a well definied chain of command. How is that undermining the Geneva Conventions?"

Almost entirely backwards. The question wasn't whether you countenanced violations against the contras, it was whether you countenanced violations BY the contras.

"Of course I am willing to admit that different things have different priorities and that no one concern takes precedence in every possible situation. Only a fool would say otherwise."

The problem is that you seem to want everyone else to be fools under your definition (or more charitably, to have the same set of priorities with respect to whether it is worth enforcing the treaty in any particular case as you do).

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: The Contras for instance had uniforms, attacked mostly military installations, skirmished with the regular Army, and had a well definied chain of command.

And if you believe this, I have a lovely bridge in Baghdad I'd like to sell you...

Throughout the 1980s the Reagan and then the Bush administration lied about contra attacks on civilians in Nicaragua. But you can begin reading about more accurate accounts of what these terrorists did to civilians in Nicaragua here.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Which part are you disagreeing with? You don't think they wore uniforms? You don't think it skirmished with the regular army? You don't think it had a well defined chain of command? Do you disagree with 'mostly' military installations?

You link is almost entirely rhetoric instead of analysis. But even assuming that everything it says is the unvarnished truth (which I certainly do not except purely for the sake of argument) it doesn't speak to the uniforms, the chain of command, or the frequency of military battles vs. killing civilians, etc. I am also very skeptical of the 'indiscriminately killing civilians' language since we know that the HRW has interesting views on 'indiscriminate'. In any case, I fail to see how the existance of the contras is particularly related to undermining the Geneva Conventions. You also seem to have some problem with differences in magnitude since you seem to be unable to differentiate between the contras and genocide in the Sudan or the problem of nuclear proliferation.

As for Danetheman's concern that we should not support violators, I don't think we can withdraw support from the contras at this point. There are modern concerns, the genocide protocol and the deeply flawed even on its own terms but still not enforced NPT. I see that you are studiously ignoring them. Which is pretty much how the treaties are used in the real world anyway so I guess I shouldn't blame you.

[Dantheman]

"As for Danetheman's concern that we should not support violators, I don't think we can withdraw support from the contras at this point. There are modern concerns, the genocide protocol and the deeply flawed even on its own terms but still not enforced NPT. I see that you are studiously ignoring them. Which is pretty much how the treaties are used in the real world anyway so I guess I shouldn't blame you."

Closer, but still not getting it (and being remarkably condescending in the process). What I am saying is that by supporting the Reagan Administration's failure to cut ties to the contras due to the violations, you yourself are saying that the GC should be ignored when they come into conflict with an issue which you place higher value in. Given that, why should anyone take you seriously when you complain that another country takes that stand on NPT?