I believe it would be necessary because land mines continue to harm civilians long after conflicts end, causing lasting humanitarian and economic damage. A global ban would strengthen international …Read MoreI believe it would be necessary because land mines continue to harm civilians long after conflicts end, causing lasting humanitarian and economic damage. A global ban would strengthen international norms and protect vulnerable populations.Read Less
No. A worldwide ban on the production and use of landmines is not strictly necessary, though strong international restrictions and controls are justified.
The main argument for a total ban is …Read MoreNo. A worldwide ban on the production and use of landmines is not strictly necessary, though strong international restrictions and controls are justified.
The main argument for a total ban is humanitarian. Anti-personnel landmines can remain active for decades after the end of a war, which countinously kill or main people long after military objectives. They sdisproportionately affect farmers, children, and post-war communities. From this perspective, landmines violate the principle of discrimination in warfare and create longterm social costs that far outweigh their short-term tacticle value. These concerns explain why many countries support the Ottawa Treaty and why humanitarian organizations advocate for a universal ban.
However, a blanket worldwide ban ignores legitimate security realities faced by certain states. For countries with long and borders, limited manpower, or existential defense concerns, landmines can function as deterrent and area-denial tool that reduces the need for constant troop deployment. In some cases, properly mapped, monitoried, and fenced defensive minefields-especially modern systems with self-deactivation features-may pose significantly lower long-term civilian risk than older, indiscriminate designs. Eliminiating landmines entirely without providing viable defensive alternatives could weaken national security for states operating under asymmetric or high-threat environments. Read Less
Maybe. While I do not think a total worldwide ban on landmines is absolutely necessary, I do think it could have saftey benefits. One criticl safety benefit is that this ban could potentially reduce …Read MoreMaybe. While I do not think a total worldwide ban on landmines is absolutely necessary, I do think it could have saftey benefits. One criticl safety benefit is that this ban could potentially reduce long-term civilian harm in post-conflict regions where landmines are not extracted after the fighting is over (like Vietnam or Cambodia). The only caviot is that if landmines are completely banned, militaries may turn to alternative defense weapons that could be equally, or more destructive than landmines–since these weapons do hold a specific purpose in warfare.
Due to this, I think the best option would be to partially ban landmine use and production but still allow a controlled number for military purposes in situations where they remain the most effective option. I would also suggest putting plicy in place to order the extraction of these landmines after the resolution of a conflict in order to better protect non-combatans and the envirnment. Read Less
I believe it would be necessary because land mines continue to harm civilians long after conflicts end, causing lasting humanitarian and economic damage. A global ban would strengthen international …Read MoreI believe it would be necessary because land mines continue to harm civilians long after conflicts end, causing lasting humanitarian and economic damage. A global ban would strengthen international norms and protect vulnerable populations. Read Less
No. A worldwide ban on the production and use of landmines is not strictly necessary, though strong international restrictions and controls are justified.
The main argument for a total ban is …Read MoreNo. A worldwide ban on the production and use of landmines is not strictly necessary, though strong international restrictions and controls are justified.
The main argument for a total ban is humanitarian. Anti-personnel landmines can remain active for decades after the end of a war, which countinously kill or main people long after military objectives. They sdisproportionately affect farmers, children, and post-war communities. From this perspective, landmines violate the principle of discrimination in warfare and create longterm social costs that far outweigh their short-term tacticle value. These concerns explain why many countries support the Ottawa Treaty and why humanitarian organizations advocate for a universal ban.
However, a blanket worldwide ban ignores legitimate security realities faced by certain states. For countries with long and borders, limited manpower, or existential defense concerns, landmines can function as deterrent and area-denial tool that reduces the need for constant troop deployment. In some cases, properly mapped, monitoried, and fenced defensive minefields-especially modern systems with self-deactivation features-may pose significantly lower long-term civilian risk than older, indiscriminate designs. Eliminiating landmines entirely without providing viable defensive alternatives could weaken national security for states operating under asymmetric or high-threat environments. Read Less
Maybe. While I do not think a total worldwide ban on landmines is absolutely necessary, I do think it could have saftey benefits. One criticl safety benefit is that this ban could potentially reduce …Read MoreMaybe. While I do not think a total worldwide ban on landmines is absolutely necessary, I do think it could have saftey benefits. One criticl safety benefit is that this ban could potentially reduce long-term civilian harm in post-conflict regions where landmines are not extracted after the fighting is over (like Vietnam or Cambodia). The only caviot is that if landmines are completely banned, militaries may turn to alternative defense weapons that could be equally, or more destructive than landmines–since these weapons do hold a specific purpose in warfare.
Due to this, I think the best option would be to partially ban landmine use and production but still allow a controlled number for military purposes in situations where they remain the most effective option. I would also suggest putting plicy in place to order the extraction of these landmines after the resolution of a conflict in order to better protect non-combatans and the envirnment. Read Less