Mines and the Military: Myths & Facts
Updated by the U.S. Campaign to Ban Landmines
April, 2004

Related Articles

1. Doesn't the United States need antipersonnel mines in Korea? If we don't have the weapon in Korea, couldn't our servicemen be at risk in the event of an attack? Don't antipersonnel landmines channel oncoming troops and tanks so that they can be slowed, gaining important time for other military responses? Wouldn't signing the treaty require the US to give up that military option?

Response: In a letter to President Bush in 2001, eight retired military leaders, including several former commanders of US forces in Korea, dismissed the utility of antipersonnel mines in the DMZ and military control zone.

Click here to read the letter.

They cited existing tactics and technology that are already being used in lieu of APL, which are "task complicators" to the US response plan to a North Korean invasion. Lt. General James Hollingsworth, former commander of U.S. forces in Korea, said: “There is a military motility to APL's, but in the case of US forces in Korea, it is minimal, and in some ways even offset by the difficulty our own APL's pose to our brand of mobile warfare. The loss of this utility is a small and acceptable price to pay for moving the world toward a complete ban on APL's. Not only civilians, but also US armed forces, will benefit from a ban on landmines. US forces in Korea are no exception.”

The one million landmines already laid in the DMZ are the property of the Republic of South Korea, and could stay, even if the U.S. joined the treaty. If South Korea joined the treaty, which we strongly support, it would have ten years under the terms of the treaty to remove those mines.

Moreover, it has come to light that nearly half of the U.S. mines designated to protect South Korea are actually stockpiled in the United States, calling into question whether these weapons are even thought to be critical by military leaders themselves.

Click here to read Human Rights Watch news release about this issue.

The U.S. must ask itself, as its military leaders did after the high toll American mines took on American troops in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf, whether it is willing to accept high casualty rates among U.S. personnel from our own weapons. Smart and dumb mines, which, under current policy, are available for use, have shown that, whether long standing or self-deactivating, both types of weapons impact dismounted infantry similarly.

Click here for U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality, Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation

2. What is so important about the U.S. signing now, before it has found suitable replacements for the weapon?

Response: Over the past several years, Russian, Indian, and Pakistani forces have laid hundreds of thousands of landmines, with devastating consequences for innocent civilians. The U.S. has been in a poor position to criticize, being a treaty holdout itself. By boycotting the treaty, the U.S. gives political cover to others outside the treaty, including China, Cuba, Syria, and Iran. Moreover, when the greatest military power in the world insists that it must retain the option to use the weapon, it is hard to persuade much weaker militaries that they can do without the weapon. Continued development of antipersonnel mine technologies by the U.S. encourages other nations, especially Russia and China, to develop competing technologies and counter mine weapons. The Defense Intelligence Agency has reported that at some point, the level of mine to counter mine technology will result in a zero sum benefit to U.S. forces.

The United States and its allies waged a major war against Yugoslavia in Kosovo in the late years of the Clinton presidency, and, of course, have been conducting major military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as we understand, US forces have not planted any new antipersonnel landmines of any type and haven't done so since the 1991 Gulf War. Clearly, there are tactical and material alternatives already in operation.

3. We need to use self-destructing antipersonnel mines to protect our anti-tank mines, but the treaty bans our “mixed mines” systems. The Europeans made sure that their own anti-tank mines, which have dangerous anti-handling devices on them, were permitted under the treaty. Why should the US sign a treaty that was rigged against us?

Response: This characterization of the Mine Ban Treaty is inaccurate. The Mine Ban Treaty permits anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices, but only if they explode from an intentional act (such as an enemy soldier's attempt to tamper or remove them). If they explode from an unintentional act (such as a child stepping on them), they are considered antipersonnel mines and therefore banned. During the negotiations leading up to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, the United States government tried to exempt its own mixed mine systems, which are protected with self-destructing antipersonnel landmines, from the treaty. But if this exemption were permitted, there would be no rationale for banning any kind of self-destructing antipersonnel mine.

This would punch a giant hole into the legal norm that seeks to ban the use of the weapon by rich countries and poor countries alike. Third world countries that do not use self-destructing “smart mines” would be discouraged from abiding by the treaty's ban on mines if they felt that first world nations could keep and use their own high-tech systems. The Mine Ban Treaty bans all antipersonnel mines - including those in American mixed mine systems. This comprehensive approach is absolutely essential to stigmatizing the weapon and its users everywhere.

4. What good is a treaty if the U.S., Russia, China, India, and Pakistan aren't on it? Doesn't it make more sense for the U.S. to try to negotiate with the hard-liners on the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), as President Bush appears to support, and bring them along?

Response: Approximately three quarters of the world's nations have already joined the Mine Ban Treaty, including most of Europe and Africa, all of the Western Hemisphere, except the U.S. and Cuba, and all of NATO, except for the U.S. and two new member states. Since the treaty came into force as international law in 1999, mine use, production, trade, and stockpiling have dramatically decreased. Even casualty rates have decreased. Countries interested in banning antipersonnel mines tried to limit them at the CCW conference in 1996. But hard-line countries like Russia and China, using the treaty's consensus rules, frustrated any effective limits, and drove the consensus to the lowest common denominator. It is very important to bring China, India, Russia and others onto the treaty that is already having such a positive impact. The best way to do so quickly would be for the U.S. to join, and to use its extensive diplomatic influence to push the others to join as well.

5. The U.S. has announced its plans to retain “smart” self-destructing or self-deactivating mines, which are not a humanitarian problem, are they? But the Mine Ban Treaty bans them anyway. I don't have a problem banning “dumb” mines that lay on the ground forever, but what's the problem with “smart” mines?

Response: No antipersonnel mine is “smart” enough to differentiate between the boot of a soldier and the footfall of a child. They tend to be scattered by air and are thus difficult to mark and map, pose tremendous challenges and costs for demining teams, will sometimes fail to self-destruct, and threaten the lives and limbs of innocent civilians and US troops who step on the weapons soon after they've been planted. Perhaps most importantly of all, the treaty must ban antipersonnel mines that rich nations favor - smart mines - if a global norm against all antipersonnel mines is to take hold. Third world nations will be reluctant to stop using the weapon if a rich man's club keeps their own.

Click here for more information on the dangers of “smart mines.”

6. The U.S. does more than any government in the world in terms of global demining. That's worth a lot more than a piece of paper, isn’t it?

Response: The U.S. is indeed a world leader in global demining, and we appreciate it. Moreover, there is extensive demining going on in a country like Cambodia, where demining efforts account for a significant reduction in civilian casualties. But even while mines are coming out of the ground in Cambodia and elsewhere, thousands of mines have been deployed in other countries. No amount of demining in one country will help the victims in another if the weapon is still in use. Furthermore, there are more than 200 million antipersonnel landmines in stockpiles around the world. Without a legal ban on their use, they could be deployed quickly and civilian casualties would skyrocket. No amount of demining will keep pace with the problem if landmines continue to be produced, exported, and used. The treaty's ban on use, production, export, and stockpiling and international stigmatization of those who violate it, is essential. And the treaty provides a framework and a timetable for demining and victim assistance, as well. The treaty has saved countless lives in years since entering force. Stockpiles are being destroyed, exports have gone from a flood to a trickle, and most of all, casualties are steadily declining. Demining alone did not achieve these successes; the treaty did, and without U.S. support, its effectiveness is less powerful than it could be.

Related Articles

Click here for U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality, Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation

“Bush Landmine Policy Outdated and Dangerous,” says Defense News Op-Ed

Retired US Military Leaders Urge President Bush to Ban Landmines

500 Veterans Send Letter to President

The Need to Ban “Smart” or Self-Destructing AP Mines

“Land Mine Mindset,” Washington Times

“Signing The Mine Ban Treaty Is Morally And Militarily Right,” Army Times