• Tar_Alcaran
    link
    fedilink
    English
    333 months ago

    The problem doesn’t really come from small fields like this. It’s when you hand them out by the truckload and tell every unit to go wild. Russia has had numerous cases where they didn’t even tell their own friendly units where the mines were, so I’d say that’s a much bigger issue than this little where the whole world knows about it.

    • PhobosAnomaly
      link
      fedilink
      English
      113 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
        14
        edit-2
        3 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.