Weapons are prohibited. Part of 3. Anti-personnel mines
From exposure to cold weapons a soldier could fight off with a bayonet or a saber with proper training. From bullets, bombs and shells, even the heaviest, he could hide in trenches, dugouts or other shelters. A gas mask could protect him from chemical weapons. But from ordinary land mines there is simply no protection.
Landmines are munitions that are placed shallowly underground or on the surface itself. They are activated by the proximity, presence or direct impact of a person or a moving vehicle. There are two types of mines - anti-personnel and anti-tank. Moreover, the latter are dangerous primarily for heavy machinery, while anti-personnel mines pose a serious threat to the civilian population: they kill or make old people, women and children disabled. It is this fact that caused the prohibition of anti-personnel mines.
Ban
Anti-personnel mines were banned on the basis of a document that entered into force on December 3 1997 of the year.
As of November 2010, the contract was signed by 156 countries.
The main prohibition document: the Ottawa Treaty, or the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines. This treaty provided for a ban on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines, and also provided for their gradual destruction.
The treaty signed in Ottawa provided for the countries to completely abandon the use of anti-personnel mines. The destruction of the already created stocks of these weapons should have occurred within a four-year period (the exception was the minimum stock of mines, which was necessary for the development of methods for their extraction, detection or destruction). Also, in a ten-year period, demining of all existing minefields was to take place. The signed text of the treaty provided for the availability of special verification measures by the UN with the transfer of reports on measures taken to the Secretary General of the organization. Anti-tank mines and fragmentation guided anti-personnel mines of directional destruction, which include the famous American mine Claymore, did not fall under the scope of the treaty.
As of November 2010, the Ottawa treaty was signed by 156 countries, two more countries signed this treaty, but did not ratify it. 37 states of the world are not parties to this treaty. Among the countries that did not sign this treaty are three permanent members of the UN Security Council: Russia, the United States and China. Besides them, this agreement was not signed by India and Pakistan, as well as by a large number of countries in the Middle East. At the same time, some countries expressed agreement in principle with the provisions of the document and expressed their intention to join its implementation in a "reasonable time." The first country in the world to become free from anti-personnel mines was Rwanda, which happened in the 2009 year.
Anti-personnel mines
The main importance of anti-personnel mines is the mining of the terrain, directed against enemy personnel. According to the striking effect of anti-personnel mines are divided into fragmentation and high-explosive. And according to the principle of bringing into action on the mines tension or pressure action. When installing anti-personnel mines is very important characteristic of the affected area. For example, circular mines are most often installed in open areas, and directional mines are usually set to block narrow passages (corridors, paths, glades, ravines, doorways in buildings). Very often, directional action mines are used by snipers, who thus try to secure their rear.
The method of installing mines determines their structural features - invisibility among vegetation, the ability to not be damaged when falling from a height, automatic firing of a fuse into a fighting position, and much more. At the same time, anti-personnel mines can be installed either manually or with the help of special mechanized means (mine layers) or with the help of remote mining tools (rocket-artillery systems and aviation).
Anti-personnel mines can be used in a variety of ways: it is possible to install single mines, including mine-traps, as well as create solid minefields. Usually minefields are organized in such a way that the troops who installed them could completely view and sweep through these fields, preventing the enemy from making passages into them. Minefields can be used both in long-term and field fortification, and quite often they are used with wire and other types of barriers. Minefields can be created only from anti-personnel or only anti-tank mines, and can also be mixed.
The worst thing about anti-personnel mines is the insuperable horror from the realization that you yourself can become your own killer. Just one step or movement, which is difficult to attribute even to awkward or incorrect, and you activate a mine. Such a fear of mines can deprive the courage of any soldier - from veteran to novice. Most often, mines have the strongest effect on experienced warriors who have already managed to witness someone's death on mines.
The main merit of anti-personnel mines is the ability to stop the onset of even numerically superior enemy forces. Often, after the soldiers learned that there was a minefield in front of them, they refused to go forward. Neither the field gendarmerie, nor the commissars with revolvers could move them. It is worth noting that the probability of hitting a two-row minefield from anti-personnel mines of push action is 7%. That is, from 100 soldiers who fall on him, only 7 will be amazed. However, this is quite enough to thwart the attack of the enemy. Often, the soldiers simply refuse to go forward, so great is their "mine fear."
The heyday of anti-personnel mines occurred in the XX century. They were massively used during the First World War and were ideally suited for it. After its completion, experts considered anti-personnel mines a weapon that was only inherent in the past conflict. All the attention of specialists was riveted to three new products - tanks, airplanes and toxic gases. That is why the beginning of World War II was characterized by very little use of anti-personnel mines. German troops successfully attacked and did not particularly need such weapons, and the French and British practically had no mines at all.
However, the further course of the hostilities led to the massive use of anti-personnel mines by all parties to the conflict. It was created a huge number of samples of different uses and levels of excellence. Very often it was enough to leave a box of mines on a perfectly safe 3-4 box, scatter around the wrapping paper, as well as several installed or simply lying “Mines!” Plates.
At the same time, attitudes toward mines on the part of the United States and European states seriously changed during the Korean War in 1950-1953. It turned out that the fighters of North Korea, not having such a number of tanks, aircraft and artillery, which the UN contingent possessed, inflicted on the enemy tangible losses by ordinary mines, which were often simply primitive. The results, which were summed up after the end of the conflict, showed that the mines provided about 38% of all casualties in personnel.
During the Vietnam War, anti-personnel mines, which were used by the Vietcong, became the basis of their combat operations against the American army. It should be understood that the Viet Cong could only oppose mines and small arms with the most modern means of warfare. It turned out that even with these simple means, often truly primitive ones, it is possible in some situations to very well neutralize the superiority of the enemy in any other type of weapon. During this conflict, mines were given from 60% to 70% of all casualties in the US Army, mainly wounded and maimed. The USSR army was not in the best position either, which in 1979 was involved in the conflict in Afghanistan.
It was the Vietnam War that pushed the United States to the further development of anti-personnel mines. The war showed that the lack of heavy weapons and tanks can be fully compensated by the active use of infantry, as well as the conduct of partisan warfare. An additional argument was made by the hostilities in the jungle, during which the American army systematically lost control over the significant territories of South Vietnam.
Starting from the second half of the 1960-s, work on the creation of anti-personnel mines simultaneously proceeded along two directions - the creation of means of remote mining and minimizing the size of mines. In the end, the combination of these two areas led to the creation of a new mine weapon, which was even more effective against enemy infantry. Minimizing the size of anti-personnel mines, which was accompanied by an inevitable decrease in the mass of the charge, and hence the radius of destruction, is sometimes presented as the realization of a certain concept of "humane weapons" that does not kill the enemy soldiers, but only deprives them of their combat effectiveness. But in fact, mine developers were guided by more pragmatic considerations.
First of all, it is necessary to take into account the substantial reduction in the cost of the mine itself. If we take into account the fact that within the range of an expensive and powerful circular fragmentation mine, as a rule, no more than 2-3 enemy soldiers fall, guaranteed disabling one soldier with one cheap anti-personnel mine looks quite justified. This may also include reducing the cost of transporting mines - providing a larger number of mines per unit of weight transported.
Cheap mines also made it possible to organize high-density minefields, increasing the chance of hitting enemy soldiers. In addition, the integral reliability in this case increases, since the failure of one simple mine of a small radius of action will not entail a significant reduction in the barrier properties of the minefield as a whole. Another feature was the creation of small mines that were placed in a plastic case. Such mines were very difficult to promptly search and mine. It is enough to make all 10-15% min non-neutralizable, in order to create serious difficulties for the enemy's sappers, while at the cost it will be inexpensive.
Another plus to the miniaturization of mines was that the wound of a soldier provides a lot of problems for his evacuation from the battlefield, as well as its subsequent transportation to the rear and treatment. Assisting the injured person is distracted by a large number of skilled military personnel, and also requires significant costs for the preparation of the medical service. Most often, soldiers who were hit by anti-personnel mines remain disabled for life, they are not able to continue to perform military service and are not suitable for employment in the rear. All this undermines the state budget with expenditures on social security and further treatment, and a large number of victims of the war have a bad effect on the patriotic mood of society. In addition to all of the above, the miniaturization of anti-personnel mines successfully solved the problem with remote mining methods.
Information sources:
http://www.popmech.ru/technologies/13660-oruzhie-vne-zakona-10-zapreshchennykh-vooruzheniy/#full
http://www.lki.ru/text.php?id=6452
http://www.arms.ru/mines/theory4.htm
https://ru.wikipedia.org
Landmines are munitions that are placed shallowly underground or on the surface itself. They are activated by the proximity, presence or direct impact of a person or a moving vehicle. There are two types of mines - anti-personnel and anti-tank. Moreover, the latter are dangerous primarily for heavy machinery, while anti-personnel mines pose a serious threat to the civilian population: they kill or make old people, women and children disabled. It is this fact that caused the prohibition of anti-personnel mines.
Ban
Anti-personnel mines were banned on the basis of a document that entered into force on December 3 1997 of the year.
As of November 2010, the contract was signed by 156 countries.
The main prohibition document: the Ottawa Treaty, or the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines. This treaty provided for a ban on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines, and also provided for their gradual destruction.
The treaty signed in Ottawa provided for the countries to completely abandon the use of anti-personnel mines. The destruction of the already created stocks of these weapons should have occurred within a four-year period (the exception was the minimum stock of mines, which was necessary for the development of methods for their extraction, detection or destruction). Also, in a ten-year period, demining of all existing minefields was to take place. The signed text of the treaty provided for the availability of special verification measures by the UN with the transfer of reports on measures taken to the Secretary General of the organization. Anti-tank mines and fragmentation guided anti-personnel mines of directional destruction, which include the famous American mine Claymore, did not fall under the scope of the treaty.
As of November 2010, the Ottawa treaty was signed by 156 countries, two more countries signed this treaty, but did not ratify it. 37 states of the world are not parties to this treaty. Among the countries that did not sign this treaty are three permanent members of the UN Security Council: Russia, the United States and China. Besides them, this agreement was not signed by India and Pakistan, as well as by a large number of countries in the Middle East. At the same time, some countries expressed agreement in principle with the provisions of the document and expressed their intention to join its implementation in a "reasonable time." The first country in the world to become free from anti-personnel mines was Rwanda, which happened in the 2009 year.
Anti-personnel mines
The main importance of anti-personnel mines is the mining of the terrain, directed against enemy personnel. According to the striking effect of anti-personnel mines are divided into fragmentation and high-explosive. And according to the principle of bringing into action on the mines tension or pressure action. When installing anti-personnel mines is very important characteristic of the affected area. For example, circular mines are most often installed in open areas, and directional mines are usually set to block narrow passages (corridors, paths, glades, ravines, doorways in buildings). Very often, directional action mines are used by snipers, who thus try to secure their rear.
The method of installing mines determines their structural features - invisibility among vegetation, the ability to not be damaged when falling from a height, automatic firing of a fuse into a fighting position, and much more. At the same time, anti-personnel mines can be installed either manually or with the help of special mechanized means (mine layers) or with the help of remote mining tools (rocket-artillery systems and aviation).
Anti-personnel mines can be used in a variety of ways: it is possible to install single mines, including mine-traps, as well as create solid minefields. Usually minefields are organized in such a way that the troops who installed them could completely view and sweep through these fields, preventing the enemy from making passages into them. Minefields can be used both in long-term and field fortification, and quite often they are used with wire and other types of barriers. Minefields can be created only from anti-personnel or only anti-tank mines, and can also be mixed.
The worst thing about anti-personnel mines is the insuperable horror from the realization that you yourself can become your own killer. Just one step or movement, which is difficult to attribute even to awkward or incorrect, and you activate a mine. Such a fear of mines can deprive the courage of any soldier - from veteran to novice. Most often, mines have the strongest effect on experienced warriors who have already managed to witness someone's death on mines.
The main merit of anti-personnel mines is the ability to stop the onset of even numerically superior enemy forces. Often, after the soldiers learned that there was a minefield in front of them, they refused to go forward. Neither the field gendarmerie, nor the commissars with revolvers could move them. It is worth noting that the probability of hitting a two-row minefield from anti-personnel mines of push action is 7%. That is, from 100 soldiers who fall on him, only 7 will be amazed. However, this is quite enough to thwart the attack of the enemy. Often, the soldiers simply refuse to go forward, so great is their "mine fear."
The heyday of anti-personnel mines occurred in the XX century. They were massively used during the First World War and were ideally suited for it. After its completion, experts considered anti-personnel mines a weapon that was only inherent in the past conflict. All the attention of specialists was riveted to three new products - tanks, airplanes and toxic gases. That is why the beginning of World War II was characterized by very little use of anti-personnel mines. German troops successfully attacked and did not particularly need such weapons, and the French and British practically had no mines at all.
However, the further course of the hostilities led to the massive use of anti-personnel mines by all parties to the conflict. It was created a huge number of samples of different uses and levels of excellence. Very often it was enough to leave a box of mines on a perfectly safe 3-4 box, scatter around the wrapping paper, as well as several installed or simply lying “Mines!” Plates.
At the same time, attitudes toward mines on the part of the United States and European states seriously changed during the Korean War in 1950-1953. It turned out that the fighters of North Korea, not having such a number of tanks, aircraft and artillery, which the UN contingent possessed, inflicted on the enemy tangible losses by ordinary mines, which were often simply primitive. The results, which were summed up after the end of the conflict, showed that the mines provided about 38% of all casualties in personnel.
During the Vietnam War, anti-personnel mines, which were used by the Vietcong, became the basis of their combat operations against the American army. It should be understood that the Viet Cong could only oppose mines and small arms with the most modern means of warfare. It turned out that even with these simple means, often truly primitive ones, it is possible in some situations to very well neutralize the superiority of the enemy in any other type of weapon. During this conflict, mines were given from 60% to 70% of all casualties in the US Army, mainly wounded and maimed. The USSR army was not in the best position either, which in 1979 was involved in the conflict in Afghanistan.
It was the Vietnam War that pushed the United States to the further development of anti-personnel mines. The war showed that the lack of heavy weapons and tanks can be fully compensated by the active use of infantry, as well as the conduct of partisan warfare. An additional argument was made by the hostilities in the jungle, during which the American army systematically lost control over the significant territories of South Vietnam.
Starting from the second half of the 1960-s, work on the creation of anti-personnel mines simultaneously proceeded along two directions - the creation of means of remote mining and minimizing the size of mines. In the end, the combination of these two areas led to the creation of a new mine weapon, which was even more effective against enemy infantry. Minimizing the size of anti-personnel mines, which was accompanied by an inevitable decrease in the mass of the charge, and hence the radius of destruction, is sometimes presented as the realization of a certain concept of "humane weapons" that does not kill the enemy soldiers, but only deprives them of their combat effectiveness. But in fact, mine developers were guided by more pragmatic considerations.
First of all, it is necessary to take into account the substantial reduction in the cost of the mine itself. If we take into account the fact that within the range of an expensive and powerful circular fragmentation mine, as a rule, no more than 2-3 enemy soldiers fall, guaranteed disabling one soldier with one cheap anti-personnel mine looks quite justified. This may also include reducing the cost of transporting mines - providing a larger number of mines per unit of weight transported.
Cheap mines also made it possible to organize high-density minefields, increasing the chance of hitting enemy soldiers. In addition, the integral reliability in this case increases, since the failure of one simple mine of a small radius of action will not entail a significant reduction in the barrier properties of the minefield as a whole. Another feature was the creation of small mines that were placed in a plastic case. Such mines were very difficult to promptly search and mine. It is enough to make all 10-15% min non-neutralizable, in order to create serious difficulties for the enemy's sappers, while at the cost it will be inexpensive.
Another plus to the miniaturization of mines was that the wound of a soldier provides a lot of problems for his evacuation from the battlefield, as well as its subsequent transportation to the rear and treatment. Assisting the injured person is distracted by a large number of skilled military personnel, and also requires significant costs for the preparation of the medical service. Most often, soldiers who were hit by anti-personnel mines remain disabled for life, they are not able to continue to perform military service and are not suitable for employment in the rear. All this undermines the state budget with expenditures on social security and further treatment, and a large number of victims of the war have a bad effect on the patriotic mood of society. In addition to all of the above, the miniaturization of anti-personnel mines successfully solved the problem with remote mining methods.
Information sources:
http://www.popmech.ru/technologies/13660-oruzhie-vne-zakona-10-zapreshchennykh-vooruzheniy/#full
http://www.lki.ru/text.php?id=6452
http://www.arms.ru/mines/theory4.htm
https://ru.wikipedia.org
Information