Landmines and the Geneva convention (from the MOS thread) - Page 3




 
--
 
April 19th, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
I love how only the bad guys are going to have these weapons, and everyone else is going to have to deal with them.. Its only creating a lot more problems than it will solve. When the US lays mines they always go back later and pick them up. The minefield in the DMZ along the Korean border is the only thing keeping the NKs from invading the south.
April 19th, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
Since we are also discussing the Geneva Convention, what does the convention say about the use of: booby traps, Chemical Weapons, and hollowpoint rounds? I know that BIO warfare is outlawed, not sure about chemical though. I have also heard that hollowpoints are outlawed as well because they are seen as "unhumane", whatever that means.
April 19th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaegerWolf08
I love how only the bad guys are going to have these weapons, and everyone else is going to have to deal with them.. Its only creating a lot more problems than it will solve. When the US lays mines they always go back later and pick them up. The minefield in the DMZ along the Korean border is the only thing keeping the NKs from invading the south.
Was just some overall facts
Now something that should be banned is cluster bombs, they cause to much after blasts when people think they contain food (look exactly like the food containers droped from the air).
--
April 19th, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
CLuster bombs are an effective anti-personnell and anti-equipment munition. They are entirely too effective to be taken off of the battlefield. Collateral damage is an inherent part of war, it should be avioded at all costs but, cannot be avoided completely. If its not nukes, its land mines, if its not land mines, its cluster bombs. Where do we draw the line?
April 20th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaegerWolf08
Where do we draw the line?
When we're doing CQB with sporks.

April 20th, 2004  
Jtf2
 
First off there is no good guy it depens from where you look at it...2nd if the "bad guys" i asume your talking about country that arent in the NATO uhmm they use em because they are the "bad guys" the "good guys" dont use em because they have moral jugement and if you have a half a brain you will know that mines will kill more civilians then the actualy enemy.
April 20th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Who they kill depends on where they are used, chief. We use them along the DMZ, around Gitmo, and for various other BASE SECURITY purposes in well defined and posted minefields. If someone is dumb enough to walk past (in fact, climb over fences and concertina wire obstacles and THEN walk past) a sign saying there is a minefield ahead and gets blown to hell, then it probably improved the gene pool anyway.

And "bad guys" are those people who use these weapons in such a way as to pose a significant threat to the civilian population of an area.
April 21st, 2004  
Ben
 
redneck, as i said our armies only use mines when they are command operated, so walking throgh a mine field is not particularly dangerous, (unless you have the remote of course)
April 21st, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Anti-tank mines are still allowed, and used.
And they can also be dangerous to humans on foot.

Doesn't USA use anti-personell mines too?
April 22nd, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Yes we do, for base security (like at Guantanamo Bay) and along the DMZ in Korea.

Not understanding what your point is there, Ben.