UN land mine commercial, what would you do?
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7351263/

I recommend that you watch the video, it's an interesting take on an aspect of what I feel is one of the fundamental reasons for apathy throughout the world; the lack of understanding due to limited exposure.

Moreover, if it were up to you, would you show this ad? Why or why not?

Personally if it were my call I'd air it, the message is important enough that I think it deserves attention, and the parallel that they illustrate is rather striking, I couldn't watch it without thinking of my own children and how I would feel if we lived in one of the countless areas where concerns like this are real everyday facts of life.

One of the missions Princess Diana was on was to rid the world of mines.

I think that Americans are a bit to soft when it comes to things like this. We like our violence when it's "fake" like WWE wrestling. Make it real and we're all up in arms about not seeing it.

I'd show it. If you don't like it, press the off button or change the channel.

It is funny to see this I was just reading "Not mines, but flowers."
A book I bought here in Japan (because it has Japanese and English and isn't very long, so good study book.)

It is kind of styled after a childrens book and is very pretty. But the message is about mines and how they are a problem in many places of the world.

Many mines are shaped like children toys!!
That is truely disgusting.

Some like toy bears, others like those eggs that break apart and have a toy inside.

Mines are a nasty weapon.

This video is striking... but what happens in this video is really happening in places around the world. Children can't play because going into a feild could mean death, every hour 3 people are killed or severely injured by landmines.

What I will say is... this doesn't really belong right in the middle of "I love raymond". But I would like the mine problem to get more exposure.

Landmines are cruel, and are a throwback of old technology.

When Izzy died, the media was busy following OJ in his white Bronco. I felt ashamed to call myself Canadian.

Cpl. Isfield of 1CER was in Bosnia clearing landmines from a farmer's field so that the man could plant a crop again and provide for his family. Unfortunately, the man was Serbian in a town of Croatians. The other side decided to plant some mines to kill/evict him. It happened on both sides over there, and like a true Canadian, I am making not judgements on one side or another.

The problem I have is that the ingenious cock-sucker who planted that particular minfield used a "Daisy Chain" setup where setting one mine off caused all the other mines to go off as well. Izzy got dead, and 4 guys were pretty badly hurt. He was on the front lines, doing what Princess Diana wanted him to do.

Imagine the same commercial, except when that poor girl set the one mine off, the whole fucking field went up with her. Excuse me, but I have to go throw up now.

BTW, when a local sets off a mine, their family DOES NOT RUN OVER TO CONSOLE THE CHILD. There is always more than one mine deployed. Always. That is why it is called a mineFIELD. Instead, the child lies there, dying alone, while the community screams and cries. It takes HOURS, sometimes DAYS, to recover a body from a minefield. All the father would do by running out there to hold his child is add one more to the statistic. The locals know that. It looked good for the drama though.

I won't sleep tonight, thank you very much. But the word needs to spread that the United States of America refused to sign that international treaty, because it "May limit our military strategy".

Izzy, sleep well my friend. You are a hero in my eyes.

This is a really important point to make. Glorified violence on television never really shows the impact injury and death have on people. "Bad guys" have nobody to cry for them, because they are really evil at heart and deserve what they got. Action scenes have lots of stuntmen being thrown around by explosions but you never hear the screaming and crying that should come afterwards. Violence solves a lot of problems on TV...

I would like this to be shown on television, just because it forces people to deal with "true" violence and it's ramifications- hopefully promoting empathy or concern.

America is the largest deployer of landmines and has refused to sign the international treaties banning their use.

Korea is their excuse, which I can understand, but they could at least agree to NOT sell them or plant them elsewhere.

reminds me of what happened with the UCC spot this winter. Because of the contraversy, they ended up getting a lot more media time than they would have otherwise. hopefully, people are going to see this spot online, whatever...it's a really important message to get out.

USA leads the world in funding mine clearance.

I think Korea is one of the reasons we haven't signed the treaty.
Really, to compare the mines being used in Korea to the ones being used in cambodia isn't really fair.

True, but the US still sells to nations that plant them irresponsibly like in Cambodia.
So do the UK.

I don't see how this commercial is too graphic.. And I'm conservative too!! GTA is waaaay more graphic and violent than this. Same with Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Indiana Jones.... If you want to make the TV vs movies argument, ok. How about NYPD Blue, Fear Factor, LAw & Order... Hell, even the nightly news is waaaaaayyy more violent and graphic than this little PSA. Rap videos, are more graphic. Sports is waaaaaayayyy more violent and graphic. Nascar, NBA Basketbrawl and on and on and on..... And you're telling me no one is willing to pick up this little PSA? Man, Americans ARE weak ass fo' sho fo' sho'. Word. I lost what little remaining respect I had for the media, the so-called fourth estate. Bullshit, all bullshit.

I think the AD is brilliant. Like the Canadian one against Domestic Violence. Buck up people, buck up.

It definitely needs to be played during Everybody Loves Raymond and whatever inane crap they're playing on TV these days.

My two cents. Thank you.

Wahh. Mines are deployed to kill people, and they do a very good job of it. The purpose is to deny an area to use, and if you get blown up then they are doing their job. Of course, the main argument against their use is that they are quite capable of blowing up after they have no strategic use.

Obviously the way to prevent this is not to quit using mines, but to make better ones! My personal favorite is a concept where you have "smart" mines with radios, GPS, and a number of small explosive charges that allow them to "hop" themselves around. This minefield could be deployed from an airplane and assigned a particular area to deny; they would all radio to their mates and form a distributed network, determine their positions using GPS, and calculate how they should move to best cover the assigned area. Mines outside the area would hop in, and those inside would minimize clumping. Clearing a narrow path through the field would be impossible as the mines would redistribute themselves to cover gaps or depleted fronts!

Lastly, they would be extremely useful in a tactical sense. You could mine an area in just 15 minutes, hold it for however long is required, and then switch it off for a few hours as you rush armor and troops across it. Recovery would be a snap too, as with the right passcode they could transmit the exact position of every mine for retrieval.

But nooo, everyone is against weapons research and development and wants us to go back to pure melee so the world will see that violence is wrong, then settle all our differences in a sane and logical manner while laughing over how we used to fight. Then we can all have cake and ice cream while playing in the backyard and barbecuing tofu.

Why is it the people who are "horrified" by violence and so sure the world has no idea what is going on have little to zero personal experience? Could they perhaps be projecting their ignorance onto others, and seeking to educate them as a roundabout way of comforting themselves?

I would show the Ad if I were in charge of a network, but would balance it out by showing a man and woman making love on the next commercial- full frontal nudity included.

Of course, the prudes would be more outraged by the naked humping people than the mine schrapnel wounds, but therin lies the perfect example of the U.S. "censorship" hypocracy.


Hilariously true, and sad.

Phage, you're right. Area denial munitions like that are the key.
But.
Those systems aren't ready and are not cheap.
How secure are they? Can the enemy also block the signal when your tanks are rushing across and re-arm them? Can they turn them off or locate them when they decide to advance?
Can they see them with other equipment and then destroy them?


The Korean situation is that the US govt will not sign the anti-mine treaty due to the millions of mines lining the border to North Korea. They feel that the cost of bad publicity is worth the fact that North Korea will not rush hundreds of tanks across an hour.

Those mines, even though they are in mapped areas are trouble when you want to de-mine them.
Mines swim.
Farmers sometimes say that the only thing the earth is guaranteed to grow is rocks.
The ground is constantly moving stuff around. Places in the Balkans that were mapped out for mines have had their kill zone expanded due to natural movements in the soil.
The mines are no longer in sequences. They are dumb and they kill anyone or thing that applies enough pressure to trigger them.

Some good alternatives are what you spoke of or this thing:
Metal Storm
Aread denial system video: (Real player. Go to site if you want other format)
http://www.metalstorm.com/04_videos/ms_area_denial.rm

Some type of timer so that after 5 years the mines would become dearmed would be good as well.

Not ready eh? Well, take a look at this: http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/SHM/index.html
In the spring of 2003 they report: "Planned Completion of Phase II - Enhanced subsystem performance and 50-plus prototype minefield operational testing and demonstration. System technology transition to the U.S. Army."
As for your concerns about their effectiveness the U.S. military has probably the most experience in creating and maintaining secure networks in times of conflict. Penetrating/signal blocking/turning them off by remote are all going to be exceedingly difficult to impossible for even the most technologically advanced countries much less those who use goats for transportation. Even if their presumably variable and disguised transmissions are detected and jammed they can still become a traditional mine field until communication is regained. Even if they can be detected, clearing mine fields without communications disruption could get pretty nasty as they could detect an area being disarmed and say, tell one of the other mines nearby to jump to that location and detonate 20 feet above the location of the last mine disarmed.

Metal storm is an interesting concept but in my view is not an alternative to a mine field. There are too many obvious points of failure:
1) Mine fields are designed as a defense that does not require personnel manning a station to be effective. The metal storm system has a human element, which flies directly in the face of this core concept.
2) Remote detection of intruders can be a problem; a mine might have little trouble detecting being run over or tampered with, while I predict huge problems with metal storm monitoring a large area with little to no preparation.
3) Mine fields are a distributed design by default; disabling one mine still leaves the rest of the field to deal with. Metal storm offers a few vulnerable points in the form of the launchers which if destroyed will KO the entire field.
4) There are too many points of total failure in the design; if they disable the remote detection, the whole field is cleared. If they destroy the launcher, the field is cleared. If they remove the personnel manning the console, the field is cleared.

This is not to say that the technology does not have a use, just that it is not in my view a substitute to the good old-fashioned mine field concept.

I cant get it to play.....it keeps trying to tell me I have to use IE, which I wont do.

That's all true Phage, but when you compare an existing, cheap and proven system (dumb mines) then the guys who balance the budget look at the excuses I gave and use them to stop the rollout of the new stuff.

I'd welcome them as it would allow the US and others to use mines with a clear conscience and prevent desparate or deluded national or military leaders from attacking others with minimal own casualties or manpower requirements.

I think they're a good idea.
What technology will they use to attain this program objective?
[b]Have a Non-GPS based geolocation with 1 meter location accuracy.[/n]
http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/SHM/projacco.html

The metal storm thing is one of those technologies that's a good idea, but where they've said after prototyping it "Ok, now where can we use this technology?" Whereas a mine built from scratch is simply a mine and nothing else and is thus designed better for the job.

My opinion:

Stop using mines, right now. Stop making, selling, storing, deploying them.

Then whatever brilliant idea you have for jumping munitions, radio-controlled wizardry will NEED to be researched because there would be a 'theoretical gap in strategy'.

Can anyone honestly say that ANYONE needs a landmine? Go watch that commercial again.

Hey, fuck South Korea, or North Korea, or whoever the US is pissed off at today. This message shows the reality of millions of innocent people around the world, and not the opening sequence to 007's Die Another Day. You need mines to protect the border?

I didn't know the US was that weak in its defence systems.

And of course these sacrifices are made because the little funds they get need to be directed toward other areas. The campaign should be to increase funding to the military so they can afford to work on it.

The U.S. is not weak in defense because we use weapons which are tactically desirable. Defense using mine fields saves the lives of U.S. soldiers who don't need to patrol those areas, not to mention the resources that can be diverted elsewhere. Weakening our military to spur innovation is not a good solution; explain to the parents of a dead G.I. that their son or daughter is dead because you decided they had to be on the front lines when they had other options.

I think this is typical of the unsound thought process that many who oppose mines have. You are advocating a purely emotional decision, as if showing a soldier tear out of nowhere and bayonet some little girl provides a sensible argument against bayonets.

You see, there is this guy I knew, IZZY, whose parents said the same thing at his funeral. Please read my first post. Landmines kill soldiers too.

There are no excuses for landmines. Only lazy military tactics. Nothing you can say will change my opinion on that fact.

Translation of your post:
"You see... soldiers too.": Appeal to Sympathy

"There are no excuses for landmines.": Statement of fact without addressing alternatives. (I gave plenty of reasons to keep mines, the main one being that they effectively deny areas.)
"Only lazy military tactics": Armies can get around using weapons by trying harder.
"Nothing you can say will change my opinion on that fact.": I, like Saruman, have given up reason for madness.

I support the US decision not to sign the landmine treaty.

I support our funding for removing landmines across the world.

I also support creating smarter area denial munitions that either a) can be deactivated remotely or b) deactivate after a set time period on their own.

And finally, anyone who claims that the Korea situation is due to "lazy military tactics" needs to do some research into the situation.

A landmine will cost about $50 due to the deals the DoD has with the miltary industrialists.

They buy them in the thousands.
The US is the only nation that can and does, accurately map the location of their mines.

The big problem is the indiscriminate laying of mines during civil war and guerrilla wars.
In countries where people will kill you and your family because of your ethnicity or religion, you can be sure they have no concerns about lying any number of mines where you work or play.

When used as a denial munition as in the Korean border, they do not interfere with people in their daily lives. You wouldn't find any farmers there any way.

If they were not there, we would hear daily about US casualties on that border due to confusion, road accidents, mistaken identity etc. You would also have a much higher chance of starting conflict with a nation that has acknowleged the posession of nuclear and chemical weapons and unlike Saddam, has the ability to deploy and use them. I can understand not giving up mines for that reason.

Well...that was...disturbing. Good! It should be. It is very effective in that it brings the problem home, in a situation that most of us can understand. I'd air it every hour on the hour.

In so far as the United States decesion not to sign the landmine treaty...is it possible to have a caveat in place, "...with the exception of those mines in place at the Korean border"? I know that ideally it should be all or none, but I do see the necessity of those mines remaining in place.

Call me naive....but I did not know that. Targeting soldiers is one thing, I suppose....but intentionally targeting children, any children, is beyond reprehensible. Sick and twisted.

I believe the concern is what if there is another "Korea" type situation in 5, 10, or 20 years and we decide that landmines are the most effective solution.

I think we can all agree that landmines in the hands of people who shouldn't have them are a bad thing. Not to seem unpatriotic, but they tend to get in the hands of people who shouldn't have them because the U.S. sells them, trades them, or loses them.

Now, I'm all for diplomacy, even at the tip of the knife, but we really need to be more careful, there are consequences for every political and military action the U.S. takes, and it doesn't seem like people are looking too far in the future any more.

Guess I agree with the original point.

And to put a bit on the scales in favour of banning them, a trained US or British engineer can make about £600 (that's about $1000) a day in mine clearing operations.

like nuclear weapons, they might be adeterrent, but the cleanup bill is huge and it's not usually the people that emplace them that have to foot the bill.

How about we just agree to only use land mines when it makes strategic sense? Like we already do.

Actually, I think the original statement was pretty much an outright lie. A mine is unlikely to look terribly interesting at all; probably like a camoflaged can or a roundish rock.

Oops, I didn't mean that the Korea situation was due to lazy tactics. I meant that lazy tactics was the only reason someone could justify to me the deployment of mines.

Hey, wait a second!! I just realized that there is a better way to deny the enemy the use of an area...

Nuke the fucking place.

Think about it. There aren't farmers there, they won't be planting crops anyway. The radioactivity and barren wasteland will surely show the bad guys that we are serious.

No friendly G.I's have to die.

How is that for an alternative? The technology can be deployed with stunning accuracy, it is relatively cheap (considering they are bought and paid for, hence the accounting term 'sunk cost') and has a surprisingly long-lasting effect.

But international treaties have been signed that show societies around the world cry out and say "We will not stand for this action." That is what the landmine ban is trying to do.

I am a soldier. I care about people in uniform. If for one second I thought that NOT DEPLOYING A MINE would cost a friendly life, I would do it. I know that there are alternative tactics available that produce the same result (deny the enemy ground/impede their movement) without costing an innocent indigenous person their life or limb.

Canada, and the other countries that have signed the ban, have made the ethical choice that causing pain and suffering to the people we are trying to help is worse than denying the enemy ground, or impeding their movement.

The fact that the United States is in the minority group that does not also hold these ethics is why there are lines on a map. Hey, I am okay with that. I will try in my own way (by posting here, for one) to convince those minority countries otherwise.

This is why I stay away from Tilted Politics. Those threads get jacked very quickly, and lines are drawn and (in my opinion) feelings can get hurt.

To everyone who has posted here, please remember that I think you are great, by posting here and sharing your thoughts, feelings and ethical views.

Ummm, I think that what you are talking about are IED's, or Improvised Explosive Devices. They are terror weapons, and are not really landmines.

Anything with a self-controlled detonating device is not necessarily a landmine.

For the purposes of the ban the UN is proposing the USA sign up to is the traditional landmine (anti-personnel/anti-tank)

They are buried in the ground with only the trigger visible ( looks kinda like this : \|/ ) or there are mines that are completely submerged under the ground and set off with a pressure plate.

I don't think that banning a child's toy filled with explosives will do any good. I think that comparing them may just muddy the intellectual waters.

It's not just landmines that are trouble.
It's easy to mess up when your ration pack is similar to an unexploded cluster munition.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bomborfood.jpg


It's mainly the Soviet that are guilty of the disguised toy/bombs and yes they are mainly psywar weapons intended to terrorise. They are not the culprits.

It's the millions of mines like the Soviet and Chinese PMD that can be made for about $2 that cause the trouble.

Not enough, In My Humble Opinion.

This is not the same thing; mine fields can be cleaned, in fact are intended to be cleaned after they are not longer needed. Blaming the concept of mines for accidental deaths is like blaming the concept of barbed wire when you are cut by an old and forgotten fence.

Besides, radiation will not kill an advancing force quickly enough.

As a soldier why are you so quick to assume that the finest military minds in the world with access to an enormous budget, many of which volunteered because of ethical beliefs, are all heartless bastards who enjoy death and destruction even when having other options at their disposal?

I have a challenge for everyone in this thread: Provide examples of alternatives to land mines that perform the same strategic function without danger to innocents.

The problem is with these countries' inability to clear them when they're done with them, or map them appropriately in the first place so we can easily disarm them later. Bottom line, as far as i'm concerned, is if you can't clear them up after yourself, you can't use them. Why should proven irresponsible countries fuck it up for those of us NOT CAUSING these issues?

sharks with frikkin laserbeams on their heads.

That'll stop the bastards.

...and I don't see a delete button for mine.

Abatees
Craters
Concrete Berms
barbed wire
Claymores (Or any remote, human detonated munition)
how about a manned trench-line?
And a moat filled with sharks (laser beams properly attached to their heads, of course)


Oh, I see, you are trying to bait me into providing you a quick reference list where you quickly refute each one individually, and provide a hypothetical scenario where landmines could be better, if used by properly by the US. But the fact remains that if the world collectively decided to not use them, we would all be better off.
I don't want to walk down this road, and am quickly appreciating the war-of-words that I shake my head at on Tilted Politics.

Here we go...

And the United States of America do not posess the finest military minds in the world, In My Humble Opinion.

Again, just an ethical difference.

I love you like a brother. :icare:

Why can't we just ban all bullets, do you know how many children are killed each year by bullets?

It really doesn't matter dying from a bullet, a mine, or being run down by a tank.

The problem with mines is in the small countries that put them randomly everywhere, I will pay to remove these.

I will not however "fuck south korea" and allow north korea to destroy them.
These lazy tactics save lifes of Americans, and frankly that is important.
I don't want to put a million americans in South Korea to replace a mine feild that was removed due to a problem in cambodia.

Do you these the people that placed those mines will listen to this treatie?


As far as my 'toy mine' comment, I am speaking of the Cambodia etc problem, not the (IMO well used mines in Korea).

Interesting factoid: The DMZ, supposedly the most heavily mined area in the world, has turned into an impromtu nature preserve. Kind of weird contrast.

The problem I have is, assuming N Korea and S. Korea reunify, how are they going to demine the area? Is it possible? It was my understanding that landmines are terribly tricky, unreliable and something about "swimming".

Here's an interesting scenario: Why don't we (the US) mine the border with Mexico? Given that we're concerned with "terrorist elements" crossing the border, and are unwilling to adequately fund border patrol or unwilling to actually enforce immigration laws, wouldn't it be way cheaper to just mine the border? I bet that would be a really effective deterrent (preventative) and humanitarian. No one will be dropped off in the middle of the desert by their "fellow countrymen" to die, or starve or dehydrate to death trying to cross illegally into our country. No one will suffocate in a van driven by their "concerned countrymen" nor will anyone be "accidentally" shot by an "enthusiastic" Minuteman. Mines in this case, would SAVE LIVES!!

I think many people object to mines not for their war application, but rather it's clean-up or lack there of. I think that's the real issue. NOT robot machines or budgets or partisan bickering or whatever. It's the clean up (I think).

I third the head-mounted laser border security shark defense. Otherwise, ill-tempered sea-bass will do. Even genetically modified, if it can be approved by the HOuse.