this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
187 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48384 readers
2290 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lemmy is the kind of place where people get offended by defense. and I don't mean what americans call "defense" but actual defense

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (5 children)

"defense", right.

these treaties were drafted for a reason.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Offensive landmines killing poor innocent invaders who come in and step on them.

Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

thats not the only people they kill. and there is no invaders.

you should look up why they are banned in the first place before acting high and mighty about it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

There is no invaders

I mean I hope so. There never are until there is

If you wanted to educate us you should post it here, it would work better

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They are banned for the same reason the use of cluster munitions are frowned upon. The problem of being left behind after deployed during war time as they continue to cause horrific civilian casualties which is a huge a big problem for a country trying to recover from war. Particularly if they were deployed inside a country to defend what was then the front line or a fortified location like the outskirts of a town or village.

However if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having an aggressive neighbouring country where you share a large land border who has broken peace treaty promises repeatedly and is repeatedly making threats about invading, then putting landmines along your border is a VERY effective way to deter and slow down an invasion.

I wish that we weren't in a situation where countries felt it necessary to deploy landmines for border defense but here we are.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Common sense takes are always buried 6 replies deep, I find.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Maybe I’m lacking imagination here, but how exactly would… …

“I’m planting landmines on my own land, which would only go off if someone decides to invade”

NOT be defence?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

Tankie your for sharing your opinion!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If nobody invades, there's no problem, no?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

there is the problem of people losing their limbs for generations to come.

but who cares right.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Wrong. If nobody invades, the mines don't get laid out in the first place.

If it does come to that, the positions are ~~marked~~ mapped and they will get cleaned out. The reason for the treaty was that in some places mines were just spread willy nilly.

I still haven't seen your explanation for how this is actually an offense, but keep moving that goalpost 👍

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

why the fuck make all that posturing around landmines, if they are not needed at all, and theres no indication it will?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Well, why the fuck does any country without an immediate conflict coming up maintain an army?

For a moment earlier it sounded like you were concerned with people losing limbs to mines, and there I would agree if mines were planted proactively.

But you're just offended by defense.

Tanks and goodbye!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

This guy has never heard of deterrence

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Specifically marked minefields were never illegal even with that treaty so......

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What I mean is marked on a map, so I guess "mapped". I'm not operating with my native language here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah I mean the same the only thing that treaty was stopping was ap mines you could always have at mines and those can be rigged light to be jerry rigged ap.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

if they are not being invaded, why pull out of that treaty?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Mines are cheap and due to geography, they would be a relatively effective defense. For that reason, signing them away with the treaty was called a mistake even back then. Public opinion was about fifty-fifty for a long time and there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal, or even for the opponents to be particularly vocal about it.

So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic became hot immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. That took some time, but it's how we got here.

Edit: improved my bad explanation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

i don't think cheapness is a good justification

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Now you have circled us back to the question you dodged before. You said there's no invasion. No invasion => No mines. What is the problem?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

As long as there's no military need for them against an invasion there will be zero mines in the ground. No one will hurt themselves with them, unless some storage worker happens to drop a box on their toes.

As of why now, you can't pull out of agreement and start to build up manufacturing and logistics if there's active invasion going on. I hope not a single one of them is ever dug on our Finnish soil, but I'm glad that our military is prepared to use any viable option if they need to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

And how many die in wars if someone invades?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And that reason is no longer a viable one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Reasoning is viable in that it sucks for people living there. But so does invasion. If land mines can do deterrence, it definitely is going to act as a net positive.