h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I really wish some of you would come to understand that this is not the end of the world. There's no reason to think that we all won't be able to have children, grow old and retire. I'd be surprised if more than one or two members of h2g2 are killed. Almost everyone involved survives wars. Even most soldiers survive.

I'm trying to arrange my enlistment, but that doesn't mean I think I'm throwing my life away. I'm still planning my retirement. Heck, I don't believe in sacrifice. I believe in accomplishing the mission safely.

Of course, I'm not doing this war as an infantryman, like the last one. This time, I'm going as a bomb disposal technician.

Two Bit, as an expert in the field, have you any comment on why the US refused to sign up for the UN convention banning the use of land mines or why the US has never offered to dispose of the mines and bombs it left in Cambodia. You know the ones I'm talking about, those that are maiming innocent women and children to this day.

The short answer to the landmine question is because there are idiots in the U.S. congress and a strong lobby by weapons manufacturers. But the long answer is that the US is always suspicious of UN conventions and probably disagreed with the specifics of the convention. I certainly think that every country should do as much as possible to eliminate landmines. The US has not been completely negative on the issue. Here's some background.

I don't know if I can post websites here, but search for the
United States Humanitarian Demining Program. There's a huge amount of information on US government based anti landmine programs. Just to list one aspect, "From 1993 through fiscal year 1996, the United States [government] spent approximately $137 million supporting humanitarian demining activities worldwide. For fiscal year (FY) 1997, the Congress appropriated a total of $41.7 million for these activities."

Certain countries have received huge amounts of help from the US in demining programs. Since 1993, the United States has provided $12.8 million to fund a variety of mine action initiatives in Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala (I think its more now, that statistic is old). They've also done a lot in the former Yugoslavia and in Africa. I don't know why they've ignored Cambodia, but at least in part it must relate to the current state of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

There are also a large number of american NGOs that deal with landmines, such as The Marshall Legacy Institute. Many of these NGOs receive grants from the US government. One NGO specifically enlists the aid of US corporations in funding anti-landmine programs.

As of June 27th of this year, approximately 120 senators and representatives co-sponsored the Landmine Elimination and Victim Assistance Act of 2001 (HR 948 in the House and S 497 in the Senate).
If you really care about this, and especially if you're a voting American, go to banminesusa.org where there is a huge amount of information on how you can make your voice heard.

And I know your statement was against US policy and not americans, but it might interest you to know that the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work on banning landmines was Jody Williams- an American.

Quick followup now that I have a real answer to your questions.

Between 1993 and 1999 Cambodia received $19.9 million in assistance for demining programs.

As to your other point, I tried to find a good explanation for why Clinton did a complete 180 degree turn on landmines from "I am launching an international effort to ban anti-personnel landmines" to "I could not sign in good conscience the treaty banning land mines." It basically boiled down to

The treaty does not provide the United States "an adequate transition period" in which to develop an alternative technology to anti-personnel mines it now uses as a key part of its defense line on the Korean Peninsula. ...The treaty prohibits the type of anti-tank mines U.S. "troops rely on from the outskirts of Seoul to the desert border of Iraq and Kuwait," ...under the treaty "other nations' antitank systems are explicitly permitted." [I don't agree that this is sufficient reason not to sign, but it was the official US excuse]

Under Clinton, the US continued its own antimine program. I don't know if Bush even cares.

Thanks AT. Excellent reporting, though I suspect you may have upset some of Saint Diana's British fan club by not mentioning her widely-published role in promoting the banning of land mines.

Make that 'widely-publicised'

Because they're a useful weapon of war.

I don't like mines. They're my least favorite type of ordnance to disarm because they can be so tricky. They can be devilishly difficult. I prefer to leave mine clearing to the engineers. They're the experts in both placing and clearing them.

I am opposed to getting rid of them. They're an excellent tool for area denial. They're very useful for mechanical ambushes. The list goes on. I think they're to valuable to not use.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster. - General William Sherman

Disarming mines in Afghanistan shouldn't be too tricky. The Taliban uses equipment (mines etc) that was made in (and supplied by) the USA.

That was in the good-old-days (circa 1996) when the Taliban were known as freedom-fighters.

It doesn't matter who makes them. What makes mines so difficult is that they're easy to to boobytrap. Most aren't, but you have to treat them as if they were.

There are stories from WW2 about minefields with maps. If everyone who mined an area to deny access to an enemy recorded the position of each mine and came back after the conflict and removed them all, it would still stink but we'd all heave a pragmatic sigh of relief.

It doesn't happen, and kids lose limbs, parents, lives...

But mines look like one of the easy targets for making the world a slightly less obnoxious place.

Only if you're not the soldier depending on that mine to keep you safe in a wartime situation.

The obnoxiousness depends on whos view you're looking from.

NM

It seems like it would be a good idea to map mine fields.

There are other difficulties now with dispenser launched scatterable mines and so forth. We have some self destruct features in our scatterable munitions. Everytime they add a safety feature, it increases the dud rate due to the complexity and the of the device going off when you least expect it.

You know landmines are horrable, but really, all weapons are horrable. They were meant for one thing... taking lives, wether it be human or animal. Even innocent people are harmed by them. But if you really think that the world can live in peace with no weapons then I would like to see all your documentation, resurch, and have a working model of a human colony, which had weapons but now does not use them...

New Zealand goes close.

We are in the process of scrapping the combat side of our airforce. The search and rescue part is being retained. The navy is used to patrol our expansive fishing economic zone (one of the world's largest) and the army is only deployed on UN peace-keeping duties - currently serving in East Timor. The police do not carry firearms.

...and how is the national suicide rate ?

alec.

It's quite high for young males. As elsewhere, without wars to fight they tend to be surplus to requirements in modern-day society.

If anyone else gets depressed they move to Australia. This has the splendid side affect of raising the IQ levels of both countries

I think we (Aust) have the highest youth suicide rates in the world. Must be all you kiwis who come over and can't take our bullying

Magrat (resisting the urge to make fun of the accent)

Magrat, would you like some chups, and a glass of mulk. The best, the very best

LOL

....and of course NZSIS are all now wearing white woollen suits.

and uggboots