Anti-personnel Mines Banned 1997

Author: mustardness ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 37
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    ..."Total numberof land-mines 110 million in 64 countries"....
    ...10 million in Cambodia..........

    .."Landmines come in two varieties: anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines. Both have caused great suffering in the past decades. Anti-personnel landmines are prohibited under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (or Mine Ban Convention), adopted in 1997.

    More than 150 countries {-- 80%--} have joined this treaty. Its positive impact includes a marked reduction of casualties, an increased number of mine-free States, destroyed stockpiles and improved assistance to victims."..


    Bosnia and Herzegovina --152 per square mile----3,000,000
    Cambodia........................--143------------------------10,000,000 million

    ....................................................................................................






  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,194
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    ok 
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    ok 
    Banning of landmines is far beyond your brains ability to form the two letters "ok"

    Please take a hike from all threads Ive created. You have absolutely no relevant significant intellectual integrity to offer  this forum that I can see. Please share when you do, or just go back to the backwoods, desert island you came from. Thanks.

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,194
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @mustardness
    This is irrelevant, im sorry
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    This is irrelevant, im sorry
    Were all sorry you exist. Please take a hike! Hit the road!

    Please take a hike from all threads Ive created. You have absolutely no relevant significant intellectual integrity to offer  this forum that I can see. Please share when you do, or just go back to the backwoods, desert island you came from. Thanks.
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    no u
    Yes, Please take a hike!

    Hit the road!

  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Goodbye from this thread. Take a hike!

    You have no moral or intellectual integrity to offer any here at DArt. Hit the road!

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,194
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @mustardness
    no  thank you
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Goodbye from this thread. Take a hike!

    You have no moral or intellectual integrity to offer any here at DArt. Hit the road!

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,194
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @mustardness
    no u
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Goodbye from this thread. Take a hike!

    You have no moral or intellectual integrity to offer any here at DArt. Hit the road!

213 days later

173 days later

  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 453
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    There are no rules in war if you want to win.

  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 35
    Forum posts: 1,187
    3
    6
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @sadolite
    If what you said was true then nukes will be deployed as early a 1950 even after the war has ended.
  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 453
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    --> @Intelligence_06
     Nukes were deployed right after they were tested and proven to work. We won WW2.  Which war are you talking about? Vietnam Korea? Ya we lost those wars. Rules of engagement lost those wars.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 35
    Forum posts: 1,187
    3
    6
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @sadolite
    In simpler words: If the world goes like you say, then it would be a million's luck that we are even alive right now. If people ignored international laws as long as they can win, then we'd have nukes spreading from North Korea to Alaska to South Africa. No one would survive on the worse case scenario and on the average case most of the population would be in poverty as their properties are turned into fine dust if they don't emit harmful radiation.
  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 453
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    --> @Intelligence_06
    Your assumption that the only way to win a war is using nukes is highly flawed and naive. Imposing rules of engagement loses wars. Telling soldiers they cant attack until some bureaucratic ass wipe not even in the war gives the go ahead. Almost all wars can be won without using nukes. If you want to decisively win a war with minimum casualties on both sides you must do theses things: First  you take out all infrastructure immediately and without warning of any kind >>> Damns, bridges, factories, roads, hospitals anything that can aid their war effort and their military forces. This will end in victory in 95%of all cases.  Second if that doesn't work, start  killing  the civilian population next by say 1000 a day then ramp it up after a week or so to 5 or 10 thousand a day . This will demoralize the civilian population and cause it to lose support for the war. The dumbest thing to do is to attack their military head on at first and give ultimatums, that will just get you killed. You kill all supply chains and aid to their military first, then  demoralize the civilian population, then you attack their military forces.  Nukes are nothing more than a deterrent to use nukes. they in no way stop wars from happening  nor do they ever decide a victor as can plainly be demonstrated as none have ever been used since WW2. The only reason they worked then was because we were the only country to have them. Now they are everywhere but mutually assured destruction prevents their use. They in no way prevent wars. I would like to add that wars between countries who both have nukes are still fought. They are called Proxy wars. A proxy war is where a country like Russia supports a country like Iran or Iraq with weapons and aid to fight us without actually having a presence thus being able to claim they are not in the war. Sweden did this during WW2 they weren't in the war but provided aid to both sides in the form of military weapons. Sweden was basically a traitor to the whole wold during WW2.

     
  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,946
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @sadolite
    Your assumption that the only way to win a war is using nukes is highly flawed and naive. Imposing rules of engagement loses wars.
    Like the rule against using nukes?
  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 453
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    --> @Discipulus_Didicit
    Ya that would be a loser for sure, taking anything off the table is signaling and telling the enemy of your weakness.
  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,072
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @sadolite
    ..."Ya that would be a loser for sure, taking anything off the table is signaling and telling the enemy of your weakness"...

    In this day and age, there are many weakness and every one knows what man of them  are.

    Covid19 is just one way  oblique  of doing what nations only think about doing to another nation{s}. 

    Nukes take out all nations ergo global M.A.D.-ness.  Electro-mangetic dirty bomb is a little more specific.
     
    Genetics, chemical germ etc may get out of hand.  So were back to the good old tried and true --but mostly banned--- land mines.

    Nobody wins in war.  Everyone looses in way or another.  Except of course the rich. But they do loose also, in ways we have not yet thought of ex the pollution of the planet affects there future offspring for generations to come.
  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,946
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @sadolite
    So... everyone nuking each other is a good outcome?

    Okay sane person. Have fun being sane.
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 35
    Forum posts: 1,187
    3
    6
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @sadolite
    our assumption that the only way to win a war is using nukes is highly flawed and naive.
    Unfortunately I am not the only one naive. If the law is ceased then nukes will be fired.

  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 453
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    --> @Discipulus_Didicit
    So... everyone nuking each other is a good outcome?


    Is that what I said?

  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,946
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @sadolite
    Is that what I said?

    You said rules against using nukes would be, in your words "a loser for sure" so... yes.