Green 1

Landmines
On average, one disposal expert is killed, and two injured, for every 5,000 mines
that are cleared (Faulkner). With statistics like these gaining public attention, many
people are debating whether or not landmines are worth their potential problems. The
people from The International Campaign to Ban Landmines won the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1997 for their efforts in bringing awareness to people around the world of this
controversial issue.
I chose this topic to write a paper on, because The International Campaign to
Ban Landmines can only bring information to so many people. This topic needs others
to be discussing it. This paper will attempt to explain the controversy behind landmines
and give the general public enough information to make their own decision on how
landmines should be dealt with.
Mines have been used in wars since WWII. They are a part of military war
strategy because they provide hidden defense. However, some people are starting to
question their usefulness because they have some fallbacks. In Man Versus Mine,
Robert Bryce reports, During World War II three percent of U.S. combat deaths were
caused by mines or booby traps. In Korea that figure was four percent. By 1967, during
the Vietnam War, it was nine percent... From June to November of 2005, lEDs
[improvised explosive devices] were responsible for 65 percent of American combat
deaths and roughly half of all nonfatal injuries. This exemplifies how landmine use has
evolved over the years to becoming a necessity because it has grown more effective in
terminating the enemy.

Green 2
People who want to continue the current use of landmines would argue that they
are cheap, effective, and don't jeopardize the lives of friendly troops. Faulkner says
landmines can be manufactured for as little as $3 per bomb. Rather than continuously
paying soldiers and putting their lives in danger by asking him to guard Area X, why
not use landmines instead? Using landmines is, a legitimate aim in warfare, when
military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all pockets of civilians (Deane).
Besides, landmines can be mass produced, whereas military personnel have to be
trained on how to defend an area and then paid continuously to do it.
Not only are landmines cheaper, they give the army a strategical advantage. If
the bombs are placed right, they will cause the enemy to change their planned attack
route and go to a certain territory which will allow for an easier win. This change of
direction is caused by a few landmines exploding and killing or injuring soldiers. The
anti-personnel mines are intended to injure rather than to kill. This is because an injured
soldier requires more attention than a dead one. With an injured soldier, medics are
required to help them recover and potentially save their life. It also requires people to
take care of them while they recover. These wounded troops could potentially be put out
of commision for the rest of their lives. This is exactly what those who laid those mines
want. By setting those mines, they lowered the number of enemy troops they have to
fight against.
Those who insist that landmines are not worth keeping in the military's repertoire
say that the facts that they kill innocent civilians, friendly soldiers, animals, and make
the land unusable outweigh any possible positive outcome. One of the biggest reasons
for these fatalities and injuries are the dumb bombs. Dumb bombs are landmines that

Green 3
are always dangerous once they are planted. They never deactivate. They simply
explode when there is at least a certain amount of weight on top of them. This is an
issue because, after a war is over, and civilians are no longer as afraid to leave their
homes, they go about their normal routine which takes them right through a minefield.
The mines dont have technology to tell what the weight on top of them is from. They
have simply been programed to detonate when there is 13 lbs. or more weight on them.
Thus, a civilian, friendly soldier, or animal who meets or exceeds the weight limit, is
going to suffer some injuries and possibly even death.
Another disadvantage to using landmines is that they interrupt the flow of daily
life. If landmines are placed in an area that is typically used as a water source, mining
area, farming area, or a marketplace, the people can't go there anymore unless they
want to chance getting seriously injured. This will wreak havoc on the citizens lives. It
will cause them to find other places for those same things and often times at a great
disadvantages. The help that some claim landmines are, don't outweigh the miserable
aftermath.
On the other hand, I believe that landmines can be a huge asset to our troops in
battle. However, I also believe that there should be some stipulations put on using them.
When we plant landmines, we need to make an extremely detailed map of where they
are. Once the war ends, they need to be given to mine disarming experts so that they
can go remove all of the remaining mines.
These efforts however, will no longer be necessary once smart bombs are the
only kind of bombs being produced. If Engineers design them the right way, they can all

Green 4
be deactivated with the push of a button so that we don't have to go out and find all of
the still active mines.
Defending an area with these smart bombs is a cheaper alternative to hiring and
training a sentry to guard the same area. At the moment though, there are a lot of dumb
bombs already manufactured. Rather than let these go to waste, even if the government
only allows smart bombs to be made from here on out, the old dumb bombs will still be
used until they are gone. Hence the maps will be needed so that we can destroy all of
the mines after the war is over to protect other lives from being ruined. These smart
bombs are a better and safer alternative than human guards because they don't risk the
lives of friendly troops in order to protect an area. They also won't cause extra
casualties after the war is over because they are disarmed.
Using these smart bombs will make our military harder to beat by funneling
enemy forces to positions where we want them and slowing them down. In Defending
Landmines, John Troxell explains that landmines are a combat multiplier, which means
that they make breaching our defense a much more formidable task for the enemy.
They make the fighting much harder and more intense. In Man Versus Mine, Bryce
Robert illustrates just how much of a difference using landmines can make. He says,
The growing use of IEDs is forcing America's military strategists to rethink centuries of
military doctrine holding that in warfare, mobility equals dominance. In short, this
means that 50-100 years ago, if an army wanted to win, they needed to be more mobile
than their enemy. In the past few decades though, this isnt the case because landmines
allow the military a huge advantage without having to be mobile.

Green 5
Those who would argue with my position may hold that smart bombs arent
guaranteed to deactivate. There is a chance that even though they have been
engineered to de-arm at a certain time, they won't and thus leave a live bomb in the
ground. This is true. There isnt a 100% guarantee that they will always work like they
should. But is that really a strong enough reason to kick them off of the list of weapons
available to use in war? Smart bombs are actually really reliable. They have a
99.9994% reliability rate (Troxell). Guns have a chance of going off when they arent
supposed to as well. Does that mean that we should not use guns in war either because
they could accidentally hurt an innocent civilian? If we ban both of these, what will we
fight our wars with? How will we protect ourselves? The answer is; we won't. We will be
left vulnerable to attacks, and instead of worrying about how ethical something is, we
will be finding other ways to protect ourselves. Lets face it. We need landmines.
Another flaw they may think they detect with my plan lies with the maps. Simply
because they are top secret does not insure that they will be kept away from the enemy.
I agree to a point. I agree that there will still be a possibility of them getting into the
wrong hands, but honestly, if something is kept top secret, how often does that
information get out? Not very often. There have been a few instances of classified
documents leaking out into society, but they are rare enough that I think the fact that the
maps are classified will keep them a secret for the most part.
These maps are the solution to another problem antagonists may foresee in my
solution. They may maintain that because we have dumb bombs that we are still going
to use, there is a possibility of missing a few of the dumb mines. This seems such an
insignificant point because we should be able to get most of them out. The maps will tell

Green 6
us where to remove the bombs. We also have mine detectors which will help as well.
Even if we miss a few, that is better than our current situation of not knowing if a field
has been mined and not removing any?
Those who still disagree with my proposed solution will also argue that the
landmines can still kill friendly soldiers. There is a simple solution to this as well. As long
as military leaders know where the landmines are placed, they can keep their troops
away from those areas. They don't have to tell them why, but simply direct their course
around the designated area.
The final flaw they might see in my plan is that civilians and animals can still get
hurt while the war is in progress. This, I do agree, is one of the major downsides. There
isnt really any way around that. We just have to be careful where we place the mines.
We should only put them in areas that would directly affect the enemy. We should not
put them where they are likely to be stepped on by civilians. But here is where military
strategy comes into play. Military strategists believe that some of the enemy can hide as
civilians, and so we should use landmines to kill the enemy and as a terror weapon.
This essay however, isnt focused on how to change military strategy in this way and the
reasons why we should do that. So, there is a possibility of innocent lives being ruined,
but as long as they are used responsibly, this shouldnt be a problem.
As technology increases, and our weapons of war get more sophisticated, we
may eventually turn to something entirely different than landmines of any sort, but for
now, this is a vital issue in all countries of the world. As one can see, there is not any
super simple answer, but if we want to help others, we need to find the best solution that
we can. If you agree with any of the viewpoints addressed in this essay, or you have a

Green 7
different solution to this problem, then share it with others. Raise awareness. Hopefully
by doing so, we can make a better world to live in for ourselves and others.

Green 8
Works Cited
"Beyond land mines." The Nation 3 Nov. 1997: 3. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Bryce, Robert. "Man Versus Mine." Atlantic 297.1 (2006): 44. Topicsearch. Web.
5 Dec. 2015.
Deane, Alexander. "Landmines--the best hope for peace." Contemporary Review
286.1668 (2005): 14+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
"Facts About Landmines." CARE, 16 Oct. 2003. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Faulkner, Frank. "The most pernicious weapon: landmines." Contemporary
Review 270.1574 (1997): 136+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Dec.
2015.
Troxell, John. "Defending Land Mines." The Wilson Quarterly 24.2 (2000): 103.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Troxell, John. "Landmines: Why the Korea Exception Should Be the Rule."
PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 2000. 2000. Web. 17
Dec. 2015.
"United Nations Disarmament - Landmines." UN News Center. United Nations
For Disarmament Affairs. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.