[elAhmo]

Placing landmines is probably among the shittiest and most vile things someone can do.

Knowing that ten, twenty, maybe 50 years after a conflict ends a completely innocent and unrelated person, maybe even not born at the time you did it, might die or get permanently disabled is a sick move.

Place where I grew up is still full of landmines (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and some of the people who placed those mines are government officials today, loved by EU because of their natural resources.

[comrade1234]

When it's a choice between existence and annihilation it's not so difficult a choice.

For example, Finland has a program that will mine the entire border with Russia in just hours if Russia invades.

[amelius]

My gut feeling says that landmines can be more acceptable when placed in designated areas, for example a strip along the border with proper fencing. And maybe electronics to disable them when they are no longer necessary so they can be safely removed. This is a fundamentally different type of weapon than something that is hidden and anyone can inadvertently step/drive into.

[elAhmo]

Placing mines on your own border for defense purposes is one thing. Doing an aggression in an independent country, placing mines there is completely different.

[Aldipower]

And if it is correctly mapped and the map is well managed, then it is not quite as catastrophic as warlords simply burying mines somewhere indiscriminately.

[hylaride]

I get what you're saying, but war is evil and sometimes you have to use methods to win that you would otherwise judge from the privileged position of peace.

I can't in good conscience say that the Ukrainians are evil for laying mines well after the invasion started, even though we all know that when the fighting eventually stops it's going to be a disaster to deal with.

Now the Balkans was a different story, where mines were intentionally laid in areas to target civilians. So in the end, like any device designed to kill, it's how and why it is employed that makes the act "evil" or not.

[elAhmo]

Fair enough, I wasn't super aware of scenarios people mining their own country for defense purposes and I agree that an argument can be made there, as it will not be civilians invading a different country.

As you are aware, in the Balkans this was exclusively done in areas to harm civilians, deep into other countries. I have a plum garden that was near the enemy lines in the 90s, and it was mined. We had to arrange demining squad to go through it, and I still have childhood memories of their tools (mine detectors) being left overnight at our place. Not a memory any person should have.

[yason]

Agreed.

Also I think that if you live next to a warmongering country you certainly care more about making a military invasion the shittiest and the most vile thing for the aggressor that you can think of and landmines are cheap and effective there.

I think it's a sufficient trade off that landmines self-disable themselves in, say, 5 years or so. If the war continues you'll keep planting more and when it ends you'll just wait a few years and go collect them.

[expedition32]

You don't just collect landmines though. The Germans in WW2 had maps which they handed over to the allies but it still killed hundreds of people clearing the landmines. Eventually they decided to use German POWs.

[wesselbindt]

It is absolutely evil. Placing mines instantly puts you in the bad guy category as far as I'm concerned, no matter whom you claim you're "targetting". The Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty was an absolute disgrace. Indefensible.

[jcranmer]

Arms control treaties are effective only if they are banning weapons that aren't useful. The problem is that landmines are incredibly useful weapons. What that means is that every country that has signed up to the Ottawa treaty either expects never to get into a major war again, is planning on relying on its allies who haven't signed the treaty to deploy landmines for them, or is planning on ignoring the treaty and using landmines anyways if it gets into another major war again.

In that vein, the Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty is commendable because they've stopped lying to everybody about what they're going to do come wartime.

[ponector]

The real disgrace is the russian invasion. Can't blame Baltics states for trying to defend themselves.

And don't forget, russians are completely fine with usage of all kind of mines as well as targeting civil critical infrastructure.

[matkoniecz]

> The Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty was an absolute disgrace. Indefensible.

It is entirely defensible on account of wanting to reduce risk of being invaded by Russia.

PS: Poland also exited the treaty. I entirely support use of mines on territory of mu country for purposes such as reducing risk of Russian invading Poland again. Though deployment should not be premature.

But I hope that production and stockpiling of enough mines is ongoing.

If you think that is indefensible - are you aware of how WW II went for Baltics, Poland, Belarus? In Poland about 16% of population was murdered, in Belarus about 20% of population was murdered. And Poland and Baltics got decades of occupation on top of that. Belarus still has not managed to get from Russia's boot as of 2026.

[cromulent]

Placing anti-personnel mines is also not very effective in a pitched conflict.

The enemy will lose a few soldiers, but will then clear a marked path. The long term effects far outweigh any short-term advantage.

[some_random]

Have some empathy, do you think landmines are placed for fun?

[Chyzwar]

In conflict between equals, landmines are the only practical way to restrict the mobility of the enemy. That's why 20% of Ukraine is contaminated by mines. If you were official and your choices would be losing and more people dying or placing more landmines that can be cleared over 20 years, what would you do?

[wahnfrieden]

They can’t and haven’t