International Laws
theclam
Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Should the US be held accountable?</div> The United States doesn't sign on to many international laws and treaties. Should We? To the foreigners reading this, have your countries signed these treaties and do they have any negative effect on your country?
Here are some examples:
The Ottawa Convention, dealing with landmines.
<a href='http://www.landminesurvivors.org/library_signatories.php' target='_blank'>List of Signatories</a>
<a href='http://www.landminesurvivors.org/library_nonsignatories.php' target='_blank'>List of Non-Signatories</a><a href='http://usembassy.state.gov/mumbai/wwwhwashnews1419.html' target='_blank'>US State Department talking about the treaty</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty' target='_blank'>Information about the treaty</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Article 1
1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:
1. To use anti-personnel mines;
2. To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;
3. To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Kyoto Protocol, dealing with global warming.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol</a>
The International Criminal Court
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court</a>
Also, on a similiar note, we complain about the ineffectiveness of the United Nations. One of the reasons why it isn't effective, is because 5 of the Security Council members (US, Russia, China, England, France; the original nuclear powers) have veto powers. You can imagine that there are few important things that all 5 countries can agree on. So, if we removed those veto powers, then the UN would be much more effective, although we would have less power ourselves.
Here are some examples:
The Ottawa Convention, dealing with landmines.
<a href='http://www.landminesurvivors.org/library_signatories.php' target='_blank'>List of Signatories</a>
<a href='http://www.landminesurvivors.org/library_nonsignatories.php' target='_blank'>List of Non-Signatories</a><a href='http://usembassy.state.gov/mumbai/wwwhwashnews1419.html' target='_blank'>US State Department talking about the treaty</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty' target='_blank'>Information about the treaty</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Article 1
1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:
1. To use anti-personnel mines;
2. To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;
3. To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Kyoto Protocol, dealing with global warming.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol</a>
The International Criminal Court
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court</a>
Also, on a similiar note, we complain about the ineffectiveness of the United Nations. One of the reasons why it isn't effective, is because 5 of the Security Council members (US, Russia, China, England, France; the original nuclear powers) have veto powers. You can imagine that there are few important things that all 5 countries can agree on. So, if we removed those veto powers, then the UN would be much more effective, although we would have less power ourselves.
Comments
It may sound brutal and harsh but that's the reality of war. There's no chivalry no honor to it. You kill the other guy so you don't die. Also to my knowledge the only country still affected by US landmines is Vietnam
The other ones I don't really care but the ICC thing seems like giving way too much power to one organization
Doesn't America have the largest stockpile going? (rhetorical)
Kyoto is garbage anyway - why should US participate in such a shoddy, overhyped piece of crap?
As for trying an international criminal? The war and Iraq has clearly demonstrated that one mans terrorist is another mans "freedom fighter" - an international court will never work - why even bother trying?
Doesn't America have the largest stockpile going? (rhetorical) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be fair, we are disarming a lot. You want to go back in time and convince the Cold War era leaders to just calm down and back off, that'd be great, but that's why we have the missiles. At the time, it seemd like the right thing to do.
Ireland (Northen Ireland not included) is it's own country. It has nothing to do with the UK or GB.
Ireland (Northen Ireland not included) is it's own country. It has nothing to do with the UK or GB. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thaldarin != smart
That means any nation that has the power to enforce whatever it wants to do can do it. Any nation that can force another nation to do whatever it wants, then that nation is no longer sovereign.
International courts don't work because the very term international means "between two or more nations". Different nations have different laws.
In short, unless there's a country powerful enough to take over the entire world, don't count on a universal law code happening any time soon.
And that's why it's not going to happen. Any proposal to do away with the veto could, as ironic as it is, be vetoed. So unless you can get all five powers to agree on, uh, vetoing the veto so to speak, that's simply not going to happen.
Landmines are indescriminate. That's the issue. Vietnamese are killed and maimed every year by US mines from a war that ended 20 years ago. I think your opinion might be different if you lived in an area where going for a walk can be synonymous with being called "stumpy".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know .50cals are also illegal to use against human beings? That's why soldiers aim at the wall behind the individuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply untrue, but this urban legend has spread far and wide. If you would like me to go into further detail, then I will. Just because people say a thing is true, doesn't make it true.
Proof? Apart from going and reading both the Hague conventions and the Articles of the Geneva Convention, you could pick up an army training manual, which clearly states that the .50 calibre round is designated for anti-personnel and light anti-materiel purposes. The myth dates back to WWII when allied troops were told it was illegal so that they would conserve ammunition (their .50 cal weaponry was primarily tasked for company sized anti-air deployment).
The SEALs standard sniper rifle is the AS50. That's a .50cal sniper rifle. See any problems here? The only time it would be illegal to use a .50 sniper rifle would be in concert with the M23 STD - OTCM 36841 Incendiary round, which would put it in breach of both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, specifically Article 35, section 2.
Two guys from EOD (Explosive Ordanance Disposal, a section of the Royal Engineers who deal with mines and the like) once came and gave us a talk on their work out in Afghanistan. This was ten years ago, when work was starting on removing the mines the Russian occupation had left behind. Obviously recent developments have put that work back somewhat.
They were extremely funny, very blase about the dangers of their job and had some really intersting stories about the effects of landmines on the populations they worked with. They loved explosives and knew everything there was about the effects and uses of them, but you'd never meet two guys who were less keen on anti-personnel mines than them.
If you go into a battle with the goal of destroying the enemy regardless of costs, then there is something seriously wrong with your purpose for being there.
The only case the US government may have against the legislation is technological solutions to the land mine post-war problems. Say, mines that self-destruct (non-explosively) well enough and reliably enough that running a tractor over a field full of them is extremely unlikely to result in any injuries. A daunting task, mind you, but I don't feel that the proposed legislation covers it appropriately.
Dumb mines I would consider a human rights violation regardless, the same as bombing an apartment complex/marketplace/etc. intentionally.
Loads of landmines can also be found between the north and south Korean borders, and are probably there to stop a mass infantry assault across there. They do have a purpose, even if nobody likes to admit it.
But is it a good purpose?
When? That is extremely doubtful, you are aware that crazy dictatorships with nuclear weapons don't tend to go anywhere fast right?
Again, then and now, there is a hostile dictatorship in North Korea that those mines prevent from waltzing over and invading South Korea. Unless you mean remove the mines and unite all of Korea under one insane dictatorship, but so long as their aren't any mines who cares right?
(this forum needs a sarcasm smiley badly)
Landmines are indescriminate. That's the issue. Vietnamese are killed and maimed every year by US mines from a war that ended 20 years ago. I think your opinion might be different if you lived in an area where going for a walk can be synonymous with being called "stumpy".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know .50cals are also illegal to use against human beings? That's why soldiers aim at the wall behind the individuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply untrue, but this urban legend has spread far and wide. If you would like me to go into further detail, then I will. Just because people say a thing is true, doesn't make it true.
Proof? Apart from going and reading both the Hague conventions and the Articles of the Geneva Convention, you could pick up an army training manual, which clearly states that the .50 calibre round is designated for anti-personnel and light anti-materiel purposes. The myth dates back to WWII when allied troops were told it was illegal so that they would conserve ammunition (their .50 cal weaponry was primarily tasked for company sized anti-air deployment).
The SEALs standard sniper rifle is the AS50. That's a .50cal sniper rifle. See any problems here? The only time it would be illegal to use a .50 sniper rifle would be in concert with the M23 STD - OTCM 36841 Incendiary round, which would put it in breach of both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, specifically Article 35, section 2.
Two guys from EOD (Explosive Ordanance Disposal, a section of the Royal Engineers who deal with mines and the like) once came and gave us a talk on their work out in Afghanistan. This was ten years ago, when work was starting on removing the mines the Russian occupation had left behind. Obviously recent developments have put that work back somewhat.
They were extremely funny, very blase about the dangers of their job and had some really intersting stories about the effects of landmines on the populations they worked with. They loved explosives and knew everything there was about the effects and uses of them, but you'd never meet two guys who were less keen on anti-personnel mines than them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In case people aren't aware, I'm a Combat Engineer currently at Bagram AB, Afghanistan, clearing landmines in the base and the rest of the country. If you're going to talk about mines, get it straight:
The US does not use anti personnel land mines any more, with one exception: The Korean DMZ. US minefields are marked and clearly visible, because they aren't there to kill anyone, they're there as a deterrent or to force the enemy to move into the kill zone.
The US does not even place "dumb" anti tank mines anymore. The current AT mine, the M93 Hornet, has a setting on it during the setup process in which you must choose a self detonation time. We no longer use dumb mines, although we still learn about them.
Currently I go past roughly 5-6,000 mines on my way to the worksite, and that's only a mile and a half or so. This is the most heavily mined area on the planet, with Bosnia being a runner up. We've removed more mines in a few years than what anyone else has done anywhere else. When it's time to remove the mines in the Korean DMZ, we'll clean them up because we've kept a decent track of where they're located at, whereas here in Bagram anywhere that hasn't been cleared and visually inspected is a no-go walking zone until a meerkat or husky proofs the lane. You can knock the US on a lot of things, mines are not one of them.
I did my service acting as engineer for the antiarmor units. And hence mines were used in three ways.
Offensive active: You know they are comming, and wich way, so you lace the road/field/whatever with as much explosives you can get your hands on and use a few well hidden mines as triggers (This is offcourse if you don´t plan to hang around. Otherwise a manual detonation is preferred).
Offensive passive: Same scenario as before but this time you have the firepower to engage the enemy. All you need is a good firesolution. A few visible mines will force your enemy into the target area.
Defensive: Not all mines actually have to be mines. 80% dummies and 20% real will be just as good and cheaper. Just make sure the enemy knows it´s mined and it will slow him down just as much.
The real issue is when the mines are used just because you have them. And you put them up everywhere there is even a remotly chance the some enemy might travel. And then you just forgett about them.
I think a saw a report on the estimated number of armed, unaccounted for, mines in the world and it was in the millions.
TheAdj could probably get a more accurate number seeing as most probably are in Afghanistan
We are clearing mostly Russian and Italian mines. Italian mines are actually the best to use because they're almost all plastic, have 1 metal part (the firing pin), are stackable, and have more than one fuse well, even on most of the AP mines. The Russian ones are almost all metal and easy to detect. The Russians were like us, they clearly marked the mine lanes and fields, they were simply a deterrent. The problem is the Afghanis who took over mined areas removed them from the marked areas and placed them elsewhere, and over a 15 year period this created large areas of unmarked mined areas. Through in the ridiculous amount of UXO (unexloded ordnance) and you have one big mess. Over 7 million mines are in Afghanistan, and the amount of UXO is probably triple that. Bosnia also has a ton, as do several southeastern Asian nations (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka in particular) and the Korean DMZ.
I personally detest mines because they're indiscriminate, but there are other things just as bad. Any type of submunition dispensing unit generally has a 2-10% failure rate, meaning up to 10% of the submunitions don't detonate. The US has one that's ridiculously unreliable called the BLU97, these things are all over Afghanistan and they're incredibly dangerous. They're also very difficult to detonate, often you just dent the casing or blow it apart, sending exlosive material all over the area. The Russian air-droppable mines (PFM-1s, commonly called Butterfly mines or Dragon's Teeth) are the worst, however. They are electronic blasting cap detonated, and they were dropped in the millions in mountainous areas and riverbeds. Your shadow can actually set these mines off, they're so sensitive over time. I could go on and on about some of these explosives, but you should get the picture that the US has done a lot to make it's mines less indiscriminate, and that we put our own people out to clean up our own messes.