Europe...
Around 100 million euros is earmarked for the acquisitions.
Preparations for the purchase began after Finland's withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention took effect in January, Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finnish news agency STT. He said there are around half a dozen companies in the country able to make mines.
Finland reintroduced landmines due to the worsening security environment. Ahead of the decision, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called Russia a long-term threat to Finnish and European security.
...
€100 / mine does not seem very efficient, but I guess they don't want to domestically produce them. (and honestly given the circumstances, probably they should)
Oh yes, bring back landmines so we can have decades of civilians getting their feet blown off.
Surely you won't regret all those maimed children.
An idea I have had for land mines are making them with an expiery date.
I don't mean with electronics, I mean that there should be a slow chemicam process breaking down the explosives material over time.
Not a new idea. There has been work done on mines that deactivate themselves since the early '90s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mine
I could swear there are mines like this already in use (IIRC it was mines delivered via mine-laying vehicles), but I can't find any examples right now. Still, as mentioned in the above article, no system - mechanical, chemical, electronic - will ever be 100% reliable, so at best, it'll only reduce the long-term risk of mines to civilians, not eliminate it entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPD_series_of_mines
There's landmine donated by french gov to Ukraine.
HPD-2 The mine arms itself after an initial delay of ten minutes and self-neutralizes after 30 days.
I expected a longer duration than 30 days, this seems too short, no?
Depends on the kind of war you want to use them for. Ideally the front isn't stalled and you use mines to temporarily block some area/routes which you'll be using for your own offensives in a couple of weeks.
...and the other case...?
Not worth the risk of eventual harm to citizens.
And sane government should be taking that into account.
... it would be better if the mines were stable over the long term and could keep the restricted area secure for as long as possible. There are now even “self-healing minefields” in which adjacent mines can move into gaps left by cleared mines. From a humanitarian perspective, however, such long-term, non-self-neutralizing minefields are problematic, since the maps detailing where, when, and how many mines were laid are often lost in the chaos of war and continue to pose a danger to the civilian population for decades after the conflict ends.
I think two factors may be at play here, which is why Ukraine received self-neutralizing mines:
- According to the Ottawa Convention, mines are generally no longer supposed to be manufactured; perhaps France wanted to at least reach a compromise by developing and producing self-neutralizing mines itself.
- Ukraine does not want to mine its own territory in the long term, especially since it hopes to be able to recapture certain areas.
I just don't think it would be better. From a tactical perspective it is comforting to be able to write off that area as protected from a (in this case) tank advance, but strategically I don't agree there ever is a good argument for mines to remain indefinitely. Ever.
I doubt there's a safe way to make explosives degrade.
There definitely is, but there is no doubt a challenging engineering problem to make something that will release as high energy as possible over short time with intent to destroy also disarm and dissapate harmless energy over long time with intent to preserve ;)
A very noble effort to take on, though.
I'm an absolute layperson in chemistry, but I'm reminded of something from Ryan McBeth's earlier content. It was around the start of the war in Ukraine, and someone had asked him about self-destruct explosives on personnel or personnel carriers. His answer was dismissive on the grounds that manufacturing, handling, and more importantly combat application of explosives always carries a combination of unreliability, both to explode and not to explode. Basically, the failsafes needed to safely and reliably implement self-destruction on a large scale will eventually result in troops getting blown up by their own equipment.
My take from this, is that if you would manufacture degrading mines in huge numbers, the degradation mechanism might very well make some mines a random time bomb, simply because of the inherent properties of explosives. I can't argue for or against the plausibility of chemically engineering a safe and reliable temporary mine, but I would only take expert opinions into consideration.
The internet has a tendency to enable laypeople to act as if they're entitled to be given the same consideration as an expert in any given field. This is why I think taking a big step back from this question is the right thing to do for me and for those who I think are no more qualified to make statements on this than I am. But it's good to be hopeful.
wise investment.
Those are gonna do wonders in modern drone warfare...
They actually do. Mine fields help funnel armor and infantry into kill zones, where they can be more effectively fought by other means, including drones. If you've seen any videos of Russian combined arms attacks being torn up by Ukrainian defenders, that's mostly happening in such well-planned kill zones in between minefields.
Also, laying mines is actually a task that drones can be very useful for. You can for example covertly re-mine an area (like a chokepoint on a road) that the enemy just cleared and thinks is clear, mine areas behind the enemy's rear, quickly beef up defenses, etc.
I know where heading that direction, but we're not at the stage where drones alone can win a war. It's hard to occupy territory if you don't have any boots on the ground.
I can't really argue against it, as landmines have been quite effective in Ukraine.
But I do hope that Europe gives serious consideration to long-term demining considerations. In some cases, self-neutralizing mines might be acceptable. Or maybe it's viable to make mines that are resistant to combat demining but not (cost-effective) non-combat demining.
Every mine that gets placed is, long term, going to have to go away. It may be a very long term, but it'll still be a day that will come.
as long as they're placed by people and not air/artillery they should be able to map their positions reliably.
If theres one European country that I have trust in to actually being responsible with mines it's definitely Finland
In this case, it is quite obvious where those are going to be placed. It will not cause any issues, unless certain eastern neighbour starts invading again, which is the point of getting them.
I do have to note, I am extremely sad the situation has changed so, that we need them again. But the best way to avoid war with a much bigger, aggressive neighbour state, that cannot be trusted to follow any deals, is to have enough forces, so invading would be extremely costly. Mines are cheap and effective way to halt troops crossing the border. Such a shitty world, this is.
There are still some risks, even without an invasion. In Ukraine for example, Russia destroyed a major dam a while ago, which caused flooding that randomly distributed mines from known and mapped mine fields in all sorts of areas. A natural disaster like a flood could cause issues in Finland too.
I am very conflicted about this. It is very effective but also a terrible way to deter attacks. I mean look at all the Asian countries still cleaning these up and all the pictures of kids with missing limbs thanks to these.
If you create minefields in permanent DMZ type areas its not as bad as haphazard wartime fuckery placement.
The conflicts errupting are shameful stains on the human race, but here we are.
Just as well for a genocide-loving entity-supporter such as the Finnish government. Damn russia keeps shitting in our toilets so we gotta get some anti-personnel mines and bring NATO-nukes on our soil.
Fuck the bougies, no war but class war.
Keep your delusions to yourself.
Nice, I'm sure the Netherlands and Germany can also ramp up chemical weapons production. Which treaty do they have to quit for that?
I don't know, but it is another one of all those treaties that Russia and China never signed and don't care for.
Best reasoning ever™: our enemies are evil, that's why we need to become evil as well in order to defend our...checks notes...uh, important values of being the good guys.
What would you suggest then? Waiting until the next invasion?
I mean, that's a good idea anyway, because if you're not waiting for the invasion, you basically start a war.
But then, there's only giving up or using forbidden weapons? There's nothing in between, like e.g. fighting without forbidden weapons?
So what do you suggest Finland and the rest of Europe should do?
Buy (or better let the state produce without profit motive) weapons that are not anti-person landmines? There's a reason those are on the "bad guy" list.
I am not a weapon expert nor a fan of any weapon, but which weapons would hold back an invader as effective as landmines?
There’s a reason those are on the “bad guy” list.
So Russia and China, amongst others, are bad guys, right?
No, listen guys! We don't need weapons. We will win them over with kindness and smiles!
Because there's no room between "no weapons" and "the most cruel weapons on which we agreed that they are too cruel"
If you want to preserve your moral integrity in a war why do it only partially? Go all the way! Nonviolent resistance, baby!
You realize that this potential war basically is about said moral integrity? So, giving it up beforehand is a win for the enemy already. It's the same shit with this "war on terror" stuff some 20 years ago.
"They are attacking our free societies, in order to stop them we need to abolish as many freedoms as possible"
this potential war basically is about said moral indegrity
Please do elaborate. The way I see it it's about not being killed and protecting your independence. "Moral integrity" is just PR used to get support from other nations. Russians don't need it so they don't care about any rules. Finland/Ukraine needs it so they have to respect the rules most people in the west care about. No one puts limits on themselves in war because it's the right thing to do.
Horrendous waste of money
You are correct. Don't listen to all the Warchicken Edge Lords here.
