How many of you have studied the effects of a landmine to a human being ?
It's actually a very brutal , but efficient way to kill or maim a person. At worst , it just blows your leg(s) away and punctures your eyes at the same time (maybe takes out an arm or two) . At best , it does all that and the unfortunate enough of a person to have stepped on the mine will also die of his wounds. The most efficient thing with the landmine is , that either way you look at it the person stepping on it will stay out of the battle for a long time.
A wounded soldier ties the enemy's resources more than a dead one does. Did you know that ? I hope you did , because that's the truth. That's why landmines are pretty efficient out there when deployed. They immobilise their targets.
They're pretty cheap to produce too and work with simple pressure fuses that detonate when someone steps on them or movement generated by feet is picked up by a sensor in the more advanced models. But I'm talking about the most simple , and archaic landmine here. The type that explodes when a certain amount of pressure hits the fuse. Yeah , they're pretty cheap to mass-produce and store. They're small in size (hard to pick up without an electronic minesweeper too) , and therefore a team of sappers can easily plant a few hundred mines a day if they really take their job seriously that day. Dig a hole , stick the mine in and disguise the hole. You don't need to be a rocket-scientist to be able to do that either.
These sorts of good perks that landmines have are constantly , and currently being neglected by the Finnish government. The new "political agenda" calls for a ban of landmines because they are supposedly "hard to clear after a crisis - situation" among other things. Now , one of the arguments for the ban of the mines makes an inquiry on the post-conflict situation of the country (and Finland , in our example). The inquiry asks specifically about how certain is the fact that the minefields would've been marked in maps pre-conflict ?
Well , Finland is a western nation isn't it ? I'm sure that we wouldn't neglect such an important safety measure since we wouldn't want our own civilians stepping on such mines on our soil fifty years from the conflict. Believe it or not , we would take such scenarios into account when and if landmines would have to be placed inside our borders. However , let me remind you that the mines would've been placed on our borders to defend us from invasion. And yet , I'm sure that if minefields would have to be placed inside the borders , they would be properly marked for future reference. Small countries such as ours needs cheap and effective weapons for national defence , no matter what way we look at it.
Landmines are truly a great trick in case of a conflict for us. Why ? Because it's a defensive weapon , and we'd be the defenders , as always.
Now , the "politically correct" powers-that-be wish to lay off the mines for a dozen reasons. One of them is , that landmines are such "inhumane" weapons. Personally , whenever I hear that argument , I start to chuckle.
Please , since when has war ever been "humane" ? All of the "tools of war" have been created for one purpose. And that is to kill , maim , wound , or decapacitate. No matter what way look at it , a person ends up dead no matter what the weapon is like. That's their job. They're tools. Means to an end , and the proverbial "end" is not pretty , I'm afraid. Death is never pretty.
You could start scolding the armed forces over the secure placement of minefields if this was Uganda or Uzbekistan. But , fortunately this is Finland , and out here we do consider the future as well. We would document those minefields before they would be layed out. Now , that's humane thinking for you people.
Even our president , Ms. Halonen has "accepted" that our mines are inhumane and outdated. I'm sure she has reached the conclusion along with the powers-that-be , after hearing of other countries banning their landmines. Luckily , countries such as Sweden have the luxery to replace their so-called "out-dated and inhumane" mines with better systems (their defence-budget is still bigger than ours for the moment) . But then again , they've never been in a similar situation as we have. And believe me , it's good to be prepared for the worst. Now , one of the so-called "replacement systems" for the mine is a so-called "self-disarming mine" that truly disarms itself after a certain period of time. Thus , making the fuse harmless.
However , such systems are far from being cheap. The replacement of the current system would cost alot , especially when these funds could be used to acquire other needed equipment for all of the branches of the defence forces. Now , we've suddenly decided to start replacing the cheap and effective older landmines with this new system just so other countries wouldn't start calling us barbarians ?
Oh please , I don't think so.
The landmines we currently use would be a true security-risk if we wouldn't be taking their disposal into account already. Now , let me say it again. If we wouldn't be taking it into account. However , we are. We would be marking them for future disposal after the conflict. That's the way any humane western nation would act. And we wouldn't be any different.
Right now , the Finnish government has just jumped on the "landmine-ban" bandwagon due to the sole purpose of being politically correct to the other nations. So , can I draw up the conclusion that a small nation , with a conscript & reservist - based defence force along with a small defence budget has just given up one of it's most effective defensive weapons ?
Looks like it happened , yes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment