• PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The problem is a little more deeper than that - the very nature of mines is that they are indiscriminate. Whether you’re one force, another force, a civilian, or an animal - it does it’s job and goes boom without any further intervention by a human.

    The remainder of your point is absolutely valid, but mines are a shit idea from the outset. Area denial is indeed a tactic, but alliances and boundaries change, and what was once a defensive line may be a suburban district in a hundred years time, until a future innocent party detonates one underfoot and is killed or severely maimed.

    I thought mines were prohibited under the Geneva Suggestions, but perhaps there’s a loophole somewhere.

    • Tar_Alcaran
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well, if you don’t want a bridge to be used, you can either mine it, or tear it down. The latter is a lot more work, and you can’t exactly only tear down your half of it.

      The Geneva convention is fine with landmines. The Ottawa treaty band anti-personel mines, but it does not ban anti-vehicle or anti-armor mines. The logic being that if you don’t set it off by stepping it, it’s not that big a risk.

      Now, I’m not a mine expert, but these ones look WAY too big to be anything but antitank mines.