[wesselbindt]

One core principle behind determining whether the use of a weapon is a war crime is seeing if it can be used discriminately, i.e., if it can be targeted. So for example, the use of guns (though awful) is not a war crime, because using it requires you to point it at something and pull the trigger. You are in control of whether you shoot an enemy who is actively engaging, an enemy who is retreating, a field medic, a journalist reporting on the scene, a civilian who was not able to flee the area. With for example mustard gas, you cannot make this choice, and that's one of the two major reasons why the use of mustard gas is a war crime.

Even if you build in a self destruction mechanism to landmines(1), this indiscriminate nature remains.

On top of that, you mention something about peppering cities with land mines not being ok (and it wouldn't be), but I'm not convinced that anyone's doing that. And still civilians make up 90% of the victims.

Of course, there's another thing playing into that 90% figure, which is that, by and large, mines are not very effective against military tartgets because they have ample means to dispose of them. Given the fact that our target here is Russia, and not some poorly funded guerilla outfit, I think this should be taken into consideration.

Pairing their war crimey nature and their low efficacy (2), I personally cannot get behind withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty.

There is much more to say about this, and much more has been said about this. I would recommend giving

https://www.humanity-inclusion.org.uk/en/landmines-can-no-lo...

a skim. They give alternative, more effective, less inhumane, solutions to the problems that mines try (and largely fail) to solve.

(1) Which is ultimately a bit of a hypothetical exercise, because the nations that left the treaty, well, left the treaty. They didn't propose an amendment allowing for temporary mines, they left the treaty. And on top of that the failure rate for such smart mines is like 20%. You get 1/5th of a war crime I guess.

(2) Earlier I said something to the effect of "I'm sure they're effective". At the time I hadn't read up on the actual effectiveness of mines, because to me, the effectiveness of a method plays no role in whether it should be allowed in combat. I've since read up on that part too, and I'm reasonably convinced they're not very effective in our current context.

[jandrewrogers]

Modern mines have programmable target discriminators that use multiple sensor modalities in addition to a programmable self-destruct. A cow or a goat herder usually won't set these off.

Many types of sophisticated mines cannot be trivially cleared with line charges or engineering vehicles. Soviet style mines can be cleared this way but aren't the only kind that exist.

This tech isn't sophisticated but it costs money and requires maintenance. Many militaries don't use them because they want weapons that can sit in a warehouse for 50 years with zero maintenance.

The military purpose of mines is not to kill anyone. It is to deny use of space in order to shape the battlefield and trap the adversary in areas where they are exposed to other weapons. Mines are highly effective at this purpose and will be for the foreseeable future against almost all adversaries. This is not controversial.

The "expert" in the linked article has no background in mine warfare, only EOD. This became obvious when I was reading the article because it presented an unexpectedly naive understanding of mine warfare. That perspective might make sense if your only experience is clearing old Soviet mines and IEDs but it doesn't generalize.

[wesselbindt]

I wonder how those sensors detect a retreating enemy. And again, a failure rate between 6% and 20% is not acceptable. A bit of mustard gas is still mustard gas. And the baltics left the "all mines" treaty, not the "smart mines" treaty.

[matkoniecz]

> but I'm not convinced that anyone's doing that.

You are underestimating what kind of evil things people had done and will do. This was in fact done.

> Even if you build in a self destruction mechanism to landmines(1), this indiscriminate nature remains.

Would you claim that dropping bombs from planes is also war crime? Because if mines are placed in exclusion zones or deployed directly in front on enemy charge then mines can be as discriminate as alternatives.

> Of course, there's another thing playing into that 90% figure, which is that, by and large, mines are not very effective against military tartgets because they have ample means to dispose of them. Given the fact that our target here is Russia, and not some poorly funded guerilla outfit, I think this should be taken into consideration.

In Ukraine mines were in fact effective, both against Russia and Ukraine.

> because they have ample means to dispose of them

Main benefit of using mines is slowing down enemy and forcing them to deploy means to dispose them

It drastically lowers speed of advance, even if mines harm noone in the end.

> And on top of that the failure rate for such smart mines is like 20%.

I heard about much better failure rates. Do you have a reliable source for that 20%? I would be happy to educate myself (and maybe change my opinion)

> I would recommend giving > https://www.humanity-inclusion.org.uk/en/landmines-can-no-lo... > a skim

I did, and their claim of "Minefields can now be breached in minutes, using armoured engineering vehicles and explosive line charges." is highly misleading.

For example Russia lost piles of tanks and other combat vehicles around Vuhledar, large part of them to remotely deployed mines.

For other side, Ukrainian summer offensive failed in large part due to massive mine fields (there were also other factors like insufficient supply of armoured engineering vehicles and explosive line charges and Russian helicopters sniping ones that were trying to breach minefields).

If you restrict claim to ATP mines - they are still useful and they are nightmare to advancing military. Yes, after war they will be also horrible for civilians if not cleaned up.

Manipulation/mistake in quoted source is that any military thing can now be breached in minutes or faster, at least in some cases with proper tools deployed in proper position. The trick is that it is not reliable, you may lack this tools, you may miss window for deploying them, they may be opposed or stopped.

Yes, sometimes mines can be defeated quickly, mines are not win button, mines will not solve all problems. It does not change that mines are extremely useful and side not using them (or giving up ATP mines) is at huge handicap.

> I'm reasonably convinced they're not very effective in our current context.

I am not, at all, and as far as I know this is widely shared opinion among people who are actual experts in military matters. (I am not one)