 |
||||||||
|
3/01/2004 02:40:00 AM | Justin Bush Administration reverses U.S. policy against landmines This is really sickening. The Bush Administration has just reversed a 10 year policy against anti-personel landmines. According to Human Rights Watch, mines kill 15,000-20,000 people a year, 85% of whom are innocent civilian. In 2002, that included 2649 children. I have difficulty discerning any significant moral difference between the use of these barbaric weapons, and the use of suicide bombers. At any rate, it's hard to think what could be more terrorizing than having your neighborhood littered with ticking timebombs. The last time the U.S. officially used landmines was Gulf War 1, but the tone coming from Washington suggests that is about to change, since the development of "smart mines", which self-detonate after a certain number of weeks, potentially eliminating the long-term devastation of mine use. But will simply making timebombs that tick faster really solve the problem of civilian casualties? The technology allows for a 10% explosion failure rate, so it looks like minefields will still be littered with unexploded mines as before. Besides, the new policy will doubtless increase the use of dumb bombs by countries that don't have access to the new technology. Perhaps the only "redeeming" quality of these new mines is that they don't last as long, so countries will have to purchase more of them, providing a cash boon to U.S. weapons producers. (but that's just my pet conspiracy theory) The U.S. is the only NATO country that has not signed the mine ban treaty. However, it did pledge in 1998 to join the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006. The Pentagon announced the end of this policy a few days ago, but it's gotten scant little press coverage. The only reference in the New York Times is this short Op-ed today. Everyone must be too busy worrying about who's going to win the Oscars to worry about a few thousand more innocent civilian casualties here and there. Of course, if they were American, Israeli, or European casualties, it would be a different story. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.