Argument: Landmines provide a false sense of security

Landmines provide a false sense of security. They are often purchased and placed by nations that are fearful of their surrounding neighbours, rather than entering into diplomatic arena to improve relations. They are the symbol of exactly the wrong approach to international affairs. Small, underdeveloped countries should channel their efforts into improving their economies – they should not be encouraged (or frightened by scaremongering) by the USA into buying the USA’s military equipment.

Candidate 1: "Landmines are necessary to protect South Korea

The defence of South Korea from Communist aggression depends upon the thick belt of landmines that lines the demilitarized zone. Without it, North Korea’s million man army could easily cross into South Korea and take Seoul before defences could be organised. [1] South Korea is a key ally of the USA and to join in the ban on landmines would be to betray that ally. The failure of the Ottawa Convention to grant an exception for the Korean peninsula was the key reason for USA non-participation.

With regards to the tunnel network: North Korea would never be able to perform an invasion through a dozen half-finished tunnels just big enough for a man to pass though. Troops passing under the DMZ without any heavy equipment or armour would have to assemble in the open with no protection from RoK and US firepower and air support. The main force of any invasion would have to travel over ground.

[1] Marin, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ’, 2002"
Candidate 2: "The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines

The ban fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines. The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. [1] The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.

[1] Hillen, John and Spring, Baker, ‘Why A Global Ban On Land Mines Won’t Work’, Heritage.org, 17 January 1997, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1997/01/why-a-global-ban-on-land-mines"
Candidate 3: "Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes."
Candidate 4: "These mines, used in peacekeeping initiatives, protect US troops and present little danger to civilians. Stopping their use would endanger the lives of peacekeepers and make the USA less likely to enter into such operations – part of the reason the USA refused to sign the Ottawa treaty in 1997, and has declined to do so since."
Candidate 5: "Landmines are a useful military tool

In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance by breaking up an attack and forcing attackers to go certain routes, [1] delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. [2] By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance

[1] ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines. Friend of foe? A study of the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines, 1996, pp.14-15 http://www.scribd.com/doc/21699394/Anti-personnel-Landmines-Friend-or-foe-A-study-of-the-military-use-and-effectiveness-of-anti-personnel-mines#outer_page_16

[2] Marin, Albert and Litzelman, Michael, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ: Non-Self Destruct Landmines in the Republic of Korea’, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 6.1, April 2002, http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/6.1/notes/marin/marin.htm"
Candidate 6: "Landmines are an excellent way of defending a wide area for very little money. They permit the defence of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground.

They can be easily removed, but not quickly, which is what provides their military utility.

The fact that landmines can be easily removed (if someone actually goes about that process) highlights the real root of the suffering caused by landmines – it is the on-going military conflicts which prevent removal and cause more mines to be planted which are the true cause of civilian suffering. If those conflicts ended then the harm to civilians would dissipate anyway."
Candidate 7: "Landmines do great harm to people that trigger them – but so do all weapons of war. They are not uniquely unpleasant and the debate about them has distorted the public perception of landmines – in truth, they are little different to a hundred other types of weaponry that remain legal under the Ottawa ban.

In particular, landmines are an entirely defensive weapon. They can render large areas un-enterable until cleared but in this they are analogous to the long term harm of a chemical spill – the harm can largely be mitigated by simply avoiding the area until it can be cleared."
Candidate 8: "Landmines are easy to use illegally anyway

Landmines are merely a convenient way of providing what can be rigged in many ways – an explosion triggered when movement occurs in a particular area. Without landmines being legally available, troops will improvise landmines – they will wire up pressure plates and hand grenades and trip wires and high explosive charges, with much the same result. These will then be much more difficult to disarm as they will not have a standard design and they may also have much more explosive power. [1] This behaviour was widespread in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The only differences are that these weapons are less efficient, and more dangerous to the user that prepares them.

[1] Maresca, Louis, Maslen, Stuart, The Banning of Anti-Personnel Landmines, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, p.316, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R_CjjO8-4-wC"

Banning landmines disproportionately punishes small, underdeveloped countries unable to develop the higher-technology military capacity that has made mines less useful to richer nations. Because of this, banning landmines harms precisely the kind of nation most likely to need them for defensive purposes.
