The Pentagon does not intend to abandon the use of anti-personnel mines

The United States is currently not ready to completely abandon the use of anti-personnel mines. This was stated by the representative of the Pentagon Mike Howard.

Commenting on the intentions of US President Joe Biden to reconsider the abolition of the use of antipersonnel mines, Howard explained that today the US armed forces cannot abandon their use, since they consider antipersonnel mines "a vital tool in hostilities."

(...) the military cannot with due responsibility refuse, (...) when faced with significant and potentially overwhelming enemy forces in the early stages of hostilities

- explained the representative of the Pentagon.

Recall that under the presidency of Barack Obama, a ban was introduced for the US armed forces to use anti-personnel mines everywhere, except for the territory of the Korean Peninsula. In January 2020, US President Donald Trump overturned Obama's decree and again allowed the US military to use anti-personnel mines anywhere in the world where US troops are stationed.

In turn, the Pentagon said that after the ban was lifted, they intend to use only anti-personnel mines equipped with a self-destruction or self-deactivation mechanism. As explained in the press service of the US Department of Defense, the US military undertakes to use anti-personnel mines that can self-destruct 30 days or less after installation, regardless of how they were installed. In addition, they should have an additional self-neutralization function.

The current president, Joe Biden, promised voters during the race that he would repeal Trump's decree and again ban the use of anti-personnel mines everywhere except the Korean Peninsula, but he either forgot his promise or changed his mind.

Comments

[Insurgent]

the Pentagon said that after the ban was lifted, they intend to use only anti-personnel mines equipped with a self-destructive or self-destructive mechanism. As explained in the press service of the US Department of Defense, the US military undertakes to use anti-personnel mines that can self-destruct 30 days or less after installation, regardless of how they were installed. In addition, they should have an additional self-neutralization function.

Somehow I don’t observe these wonderful functions, in M18 Claymore (photo to the article) ...

[Runway]

Do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs. We are talking about anti-personnel, installed in the cost center one-time (in any way), but not in the UMP.

[Insurgent]

Quote: WFP

Do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs. We are talking about anti-personnel, installed in the cost center one-time (in any way), but not in the UMP.

And what is "UMP"what is the term you used?

In your opinion, the American M18 Claymore, or our MON-50 (Directional fragmentation mine) are not antipersonnel mines?

Even OZM-72, which is classified as a "Fragment Barrage Mine", is anti-personnel.

Like POM-2 (Anti-Personnel Fragmentation Mine) exclusively one-time , and which, unlike them, has a self-destruct mode, which really does not always work, but that is a different song.


Where is the confusion of the gift with scrambled eggs?

[Mik13]

Quote: Insurgent

I somehow do not observe the request of these wonderful functions, in the M18 Claymore

They are not there. But if you install the product only in the format of remote detonation from the minefield control panel, then these wonderful functions are not required. In this format, it would not legally constitute an anti-personnel mine.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Mik13

But if you install the product only in the format of remote detonation from the minefield control panel, then these wonderful functions are not required. In this format, legally it will not constitute an anti-personnel mine.

"If" , if not ? Stupidly "stretching"? In jurisprudence, there can be no double interpretation - "Either one way or another"

[Mik13]

Quote: Insurgent

Where is the confusion of the gift with scrambled eggs?

The fact is that normal states (the Russian Federation, the USA and China) have not signed the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of Antipersonnel Mines, but at the same time they comply with the Geneva Conventions, namely - Protocol to prohibit or restrict the use of mines, booby traps and other devices "as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention)
There are a lot of features. Here is the text on the ICRC website, I highly recommend it for your reference:

https://www.icrc.org/ru/doc/resources/documents/misc/treaties-ccw-protocol2-revised-101080.htm

[Insurgent]

Quote: Mik13

There are a lot of features. Here is the text on the ICRC website, I highly recommend it for your reference:

Why get acquainted?
So that my split consciousness begins, from comparison in all respects verified text и the reality - one-legged and completely without two legs of young guys who blew up on PMN-2?

[Sofa batyr]

Quote: Mik13

Here is the text on the ICRC website, I highly recommend it for reference:

https://www.icrc.org/ru/doc/resources/documents/misc/treaties-ccw-protocol2-revised-101080.htm

I am amazed at your naivety and faith in "International Law".
Do you really believe that things like this work?

The dictum of the Italian General D. Douai, a very mediocre practitioner, but a great strategist, one might even say - a philosopher:

“For it would be childish to indulge in illusion: all restrictions, all international agreements,
which may be planted in peacetime will be swept away like dry leaves by the wind of war.
The one who fights not for life, but for death - at the present time it is impossible to fight otherwise, 
- has the sacred right to use all the means at his disposal so as not to perish.
Military means cannot be qualified as civilized or barbaric.
The war itself will be barbarism, but the means that are used in it,
you can distinguish one from the other only by their effectiveness, by their power and by the damage they can inflict on the enemy.
And since in war it is necessary to inflict maximum damage on the enemy,
the means most suitable for this purpose will always be used, whatever they may be.
A madman, if not a paricide, could be called one who would come to terms with the defeat of his country,
if only not to violate formal conventions limiting the right to kill and destroy, but the methods of destruction and murder.
Restrictions allegedly applied to so-called barbaric and brutal military means,
represent only a demagogic hypocrisy of an international character "...

[Runway]

The answers are in the abbreviation of injectors. It also implies the tactics of using those.
UMP - Managed Minefield.

[Insurgent]

Quote: WFP

UMP - Managed Minefield.

Ah-ah ... Now it's clear. It is necessary to give a decryption right away, because not all of them are often sappers.
Even to me, who is more or less familiar with working with "engineering ammunition" (mines), the "freelancer" does not understand the abbreviation UMP, the Mine Barrage is more familiar.

[Runway]

I have nothing to do with military engineers. VIP (military engineering training) 4 years old "gnawed". Further "practice".
Not rich, but bright.
Push-on, remotely exposed (such as POMki) form an MP. It is long and tedious to “pick up” them by the sappers, but the sown areas are healthy. These are the mines that must "die" themselves.
And OZM / MONK (with which you can cover the same MP from sappers "partners" or organize a line on a probable / dead area-approach to their positions) should be "long-livers".

[Cowbra]

Major human rights activists have not signed half of the international human rights treaties.
The main fighters for the climate are one of only TWO (!!!) countries in the world that do not participate in the international regulation of atmospheric emissions.
Most of all the mattresses who howl against "inhuman weapons" use antipersonnel, cluster bombs, phosphorus, and the latter, in general, chemical weapons. By the way, they did not destroy chemical weapons either, not Russia.
Well, other little things, such as the fight against nuclear power plants - and we will not remember a single closed American nuclear power plant.
Ordinary fascism - we have only rights, you have only responsibilities

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Cowbra

Ordinary fascism - we have only rights, you have only responsibilities

Yes, even fascism among mattress makers is now becoming more and more wonderful! Fascism who needs fascism, treat with understanding!

[novel66]

and no one can refuse, a necessary thing

[Cowbra]

Quote: novel xnumx

necessary thing

Especially the zyghails and their slaves:

This is OZM-72, which was stuck on the side of the checkpoint ...

[Insurgent]

Quote: Cowbra

This is OZM-72, which was stuck on the side of the checkpoint ...

Information varies from OZMka to MONKA, it is hardly possible to determine exactly one or the other. .
Both are equipped with similar striking elements - balls or rollers (depending on the version).

[Cowbra]

On the fresh trail, they said that they had found a glass ... Again, according to the vidos from the video recorder - the explosion is not exactly on the ground, but the fact that the uk has strapped the MON to a tree branch - well, it's hard to believe. they are raguli, but not that much! However, what kind of antipersonnel is not important.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Cowbra

However, what kind of antipersonnel is not important.

Exactly ! As well as whether the detonation was carried out intentionally or not.

There were no mines in Donbass before the invasion of the raguli!

Quote: Cowbra

On fresh tracks, they said that they found a glass ...

In the video below, from "Large-caliber commotion", you can see what the "glass" of OZM turns into after it is triggered.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Insurgent

There were no mines in Donbass before the invasion of the raguli!

True, a mine to eliminate Bragin Akhatia Khafizovich (aka Alexander Sergeevich Bragin, aka Alik the Greek /a photo/) - used by the notorious Rinat Leonidovich Akhmetov, who later took the highest hierarchical place in the criminal world of Donbass and the outskirts.

Let me remind you that Alik Grek was blown up at the stadium that belonged to him during the meeting between Shakhtar and Tavria Simferopol on October 15, 1995.

[Cowbra]

Quote: Insurgent

There were no mines in Donbass before the invasion of the raguli!

I agree. And the ladders on the side of the road - I drove the creatures out of the "dung" with a snout. "Azov" "so war" - copyright. No, but he himself is a hotel, from Yalta, which is near Mariupolm. I was stunned - you shit yourself

[Insurgent]

Quote: novel xnumx

and no one can refuse, a necessary thing

Our "MON-50", "inspired by the motives" of the American M18 Claymore, which I wrote about above, and rethought in the direction of increasing the destructive properties.

The video, by the way, was filmed at our test site. And I was all perplexed - " where is it filmed ? "until the son" poked his nose "into a number of landmarks inherent in our area ...

[Lech from Android.]

MON-50 was used by terrorists in Kaspiysk against our people at the May 9 parade.
It is imperative that such things not fall into the wrong hands ... the consequences are dire.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Lech from Android.

MON-50 was used by terrorists against our people at the May 9 parade.

In Kaspiysk, 2002?

It was also reported about the detention of a group of terrorists with a device that consisted of a MON-100 anti-personnel mine with a detonator and a control panel. On May 9, the terrorists used the MON-50 mine, which is twice as weak as the seized mine, to undermine the column of demonstrators.

The terrorists reinforced the MON -50 mine with several TNT sticks and tied pieces of metal wire to it.

MON-100, stuffed with 2 kg of TNT (MON-50 only has 750 g of explosives) while still at the plant, does not need to be supplemented - 400 10 mm rollers loaded into it destroy all living things at a distance of 80 meters.

[Konstantin Gogolev]

Insurgent, the destruction of the enemy (scattering of ready-made elements of defeat) occurs in the corridor (reverse cone) - a kind of "death ray" (directed explosion). I think you know that, you just misspelled it a little. All living things around are destroyed by the OZM.
I served as a sapper. I also had to "clean" the minefield with an irrelevant mining map. First, you set fire to the grass ("green" is hard and with the help of fuels and lubricants), there is a T-64 with a trawl, then you walk with your legs and, basically, hope for your eyes and a probe - because the mine detector will often beep (there is a lot of combat iron in the soil). And one hell you find many different "gifts". I remember in one day (after trawling) I found a POMZ 2M (in fact, this mine is an enlarged F-1) and an activated shot from a fail-safe gun.
Our "petals" must also self-destruct, but of course there is no 100% guarantee. Taking into account the invisibility of the "petal", I remember that the commanders turned us back when they discovered this product (fortunately, the main use in the forest, and there they were rarely).
Anti-personnel mines will not leave our civilization - they are too effective. All bases, checkpoints will use mining for protection. There is a concept - a controlled minefield. Remote detonation (via an electrical circuit, radio detonation) will definitely reduce the number of "unauthorized detonations."
Our deminers in Laos are cleaning the Water Lily Valley (UNESCO heritage site) of the past striped presence.

By the way, there is a rumor that we are going to build an airfield there (supposedly of a dual purpose).

[Insurgent]

Quote: Konstantin Gogolev

Insurgent, the destruction of the enemy (scattering of ready-made elements of defeat) occurs in the corridor (reverse cone) - a kind of "death ray" (directed explosion). I think you know that, you just misspelled it a little.

Explain - Where and What, "a little wrong"?

[Konstantin Gogolev]

Yes, the enemy's manpower is destroyed at a sufficiently large distance, but there is a "width of the affected area" (at a distance of 100 meters, the guaranteed defeat is about 10 meters (reverse cone, directed explosion). In general, MON 100 is a rather dangerous mine for the operator - there is a partial dispersal fragments in absolutely all directions (30 meters), and it is better to install them on trees, pillars.The whole MONOC family developed from MON 100.

There is no destruction of all living things at a distance of 80 meters (guaranteed radius of destruction), only within the direction of the concave side.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Konstantin Gogolev

The whole MONOC family evolved from MON 100

Not all "family".

MON - 90 ("brick", "fat MONKA"), this is a "derivative" of MON - 50, and MON-200 ("searchlight") from MON - 100 ("flashlight").

In the photo, respectively - MON-50 and MON-90 and below MON-50, MON-100 and MON-200

[Konstantin Gogolev]

Okay. MON-100 was the first engineering ammunition from this family. MON-50 was developed on the basis of "Claymore. So, yes, it will be more accurate. We MON-200, called" boob "(it looked like a form, or maybe just a hungry conscript).

[Insurgent]

Quote: Konstantin Gogolev

Yes, the enemy's manpower is destroyed at a sufficiently large distance, but there is a "width of the kill zone" (at a distance of 100 meters, the guaranteed defeat is about 10 meters (reverse cone, directed explosion).

So you did not explain why I was wrong ...

[Blue fox]

The entire MONK family evolved from MON 100.

Better to be honest. In the USSR, directional mines were developed with the creation of MON-50, and she, in turn, is our version of the American M18A1 Claymore with a major improvement.

[Konstantin Gogolev]

No. First MON-100.

Claymore has slightly less explosive charge. Slightly wider flight corridor of the fragments, compared to Monka. In the modern version, it is possible to use laser beams instead of wire. Although, for me, a fishing line or silk thread is better.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Blue Fox

Better to be honest. In the USSR, directional mines were developed with the creation of MON-50, and she, in turn, is our version of the American M18A1 Claymore with a major improvement.

This has been said.

Quote: Insurgent

Our "MON-50", "inspired by the motives" of the American M18 Claymore, which I wrote about above, and rethought in the direction of increasing the destructive properties.

[knn54]

whether he forgot about his promise, or changed his mind.
In ANY case, insanity grows stronger.

[Prisoner]

That's right. Who will let them? Produced, produced, you understand, money was earned on this, the lobby was fed and here you are. You are naughty, it will not work!

[cniza]

The Pentagon does not intend to abandon the use of anti-personnel mines

They are "exceptional", the whole essence of the United States is for destruction ...

[Basarev]

Mines cannot be banned, they are an effective weapon. And screams about humanism come from, as a rule, non-belligerent countries. These naive dreamers do not understand real war, they do not know that there is no place for morality, and there is only one task - to kill the enemy so as not to allow him to kill ours. Therefore, one should not hesitate to use all available means, including mines.

[stoqn477]

Quote: Basarev

Mines cannot be banned, they are an effective weapon. And screams about humanism come from, as a rule, non-belligerent countries. These naive dreamers do not understand real war, they do not know that there is no place for morality, and there is only one task - to kill the enemy so as not to allow him to kill ours. Therefore, one should not hesitate to use all available means, including mines.

The main issue is not whether the soldiers will be killed. Nobody wants his soldiers to be killed, but that's another matter. The main reason for banning anti-personnel mines is that they mainly affect the civilian population. The war is over, but the mines remain. Life goes on as usual and there will inevitably be casualties among the population. The idea is to stop this, but the great powers disagree.