landmines making a big comeback

[Se7en]

UNITED NATIONS - The George W. Bush administration may soon resume production of antipersonnel land mines in a move that is at odds with both the international community and previous U.S. policy on the weapons, says a leading human rights organization.

In December of this year, the Pentagon will decide whether or not to begin producing a new type of antipersonnel land mine called a ”Spider”. The first of these mines would then be scheduled to roll out in early 2007.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the funds for Spider's production are already earmarked, as the Pentagon has requested 1.3 billion dollars for the mine system, as well as for another mine called the Intelligent Munitions System, which is expected to be fully running by 2008.

A new report by the HRW issued Wednesday notes these weapons that kill and maim an estimated 500 people, mostly civilians, each week. The group called on the Bush administration to halt all research and development on all types of these widely-banned weapons.

”With very few exceptions, nearly every nation has endorsed the goal of a global ban on all antipersonnel mines at some point in the future,” the HRW report says. ”Such acts (by the U.S.) would clearly be against the trend of the emerging international consensus against any possession or use of antipersonnel mines.”

link.

useful in the defense of the u.s. against the terrorists or useful in maintaining u.s. military hegemony? thoughts?

 

[U2democrat]

With all our technology...landmines is the best they can come up with? Please. They better rethink this.

 

[DrTeeth]

Yes people, why spend 18.5 million dollars on PE in schools when you can waste 1.3 billion on weapons that are responsible for blowing the legs off little kids!

 

[financeguy]

George W. Bush

Well it's good to have a 'Christian' president, isn't it?

 

[Se7en]

George W. Bush

Well it's good to have a 'Christian' president, isn't it?

jesus was totally down with "just war." haven't you heard?

 

[yolland]

You can't lay all the blame for this one at conservative Christianity's door. There are PLENTY of hawks among the Democrats who support the continued use of landmines. Remember, it was Clinton who refused to sign the Landmines Treaty in 1997! I don't suppose he would have accepted the idea that he couldn't still call himself a Christian after that, either.

Even in the best-case scenario, landmines are dreadfully morally problematic because it's so difficult to control whom they target, and because they seldom get decommissioned when they should be.

 

[Se7en]

Even in the best-case scenario, landmines are dreadfully morally problematic because it's so difficult to control whom they target, and because they seldom get decommissioned when they should be.

 

[verte76]

This is terrible. I really hate reading stuff like this. Landmines are a major problem in so many areas, including Bosnia and Afghanistan. I would hope these lethal things would be abandoned, but I guess that's too good to be true.

 

[unosdostres14]

"NO ONE CAN HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
But America has more than every other country combined.

The world has come to a concensus that land mines shouldn't be used anymore, but America continues producing them.


Our government need to stop acting as if they are some righteous moral police of the world. If other countries can't have certain weapons, then we shouldn't have them either.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

"NO ONE CAN HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
But America has more than every other country combined.

The world has come to a concensus that land mines shouldn't be used anymore, but America continues producing them.


Our government need to stop acting as if they are some righteous moral police of the world. If other countries can't have certain weapons, then we shouldn't have them either.

. Thank. You. Exactly what I've always thought.

Uber-stupid, this idea . I really hope the Bush administration rethinks this one.

Angela

 

[Angela Harlem]

The one thing I truly adored about Lady Di. This is fucking awful.

 

[Se7en]

i figured i would just post this in here as well:

A recent U.S.-India nuclear agreement was so hastily concluded the Bush administration is only now beginning to figure out how to implement it in the face of tough questions from the U.S. Congress and nonproliferation experts.

The agreement, announced July 18 after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met President Bush at the White House, upends decades-old nonproliferation rules and will require changes in U.S. law and international policy.

U.S. officials are optimistic the Republican-controlled Congress will approve steps to fulfill Bush's promise to sell civilian nuclear technology to India.

Such sales are now prohibited under U.S. law because India refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and is producing nuclear weapons banned by the pact and other agreements.

With the new deal, the United States in effect accepts India as a nuclear-weapon state.

link.

 

[yolland]

Well, India's had the bomb for decades, and they're unquestionably shaping up to be a major power in Asian politics. No reason to keep sticking our heads in the sand about it, really.

On the other hand, from a long-term security standpoint, it often seems like our dealings with both India and Pakistan are based on terrifyingly shortsighted thinking. OK, so India's ruling party right now is relatively moderate on foreign policy, but what if the Hindu nationalists return to power? Are Lal Advani and his ilk really the sort we want to sell "civilian" nuke technology to, with a nudge and a wink (or at least an averted gaze)? Do we really have even the SLIGHTEST idea what might happen in Pakistan if Musharraf is assassinated--let alone a levelheaded plan for what to do about it?

Bill Clinton may well turn out to have been darkly, terribly prescient when he described Kashmir as "the most dangerous place on the planet." It's not right now, and would probably have to fester for decades yet before being ready to give Palestine a run for its money. But all the ingredients for a catastrophe of horrific proportions are there (well, there's already been one: more than a million dead and up to 10 million displaced in 1947's Partition).

This is a very, very dangerous game we're getting ourselves into, and I am not at all sure that we adequately understand either the rules or the objective.


***Could we maybe turn this post and the one above it into a new thread? This topic isn't really relevant to landmines.***

 

[Se7en]

***Could we maybe turn this post and the one above it into a new thread? This topic isn't really relevant to landmines.***

just pretend it's about weapons proliferation and not strictly landmines.