If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Should we clear the Falklands mines?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8564061.stm
Since 1982 parts of the Falklands have been host to unmarked, but known minefields. They're all wired off and the only casualties are the occassional sheep and unlucky penguins...
Under the Ottawa convention the UK has signed up to removing all land mines from its sovereign territory, including the Falklands. Critics including the Falklands Govt, say that its a waste of resources and would prefer the UK Govt put the money and resources into clearing mines from countries such as Angola where they still regularly kill. Others say that it is important that countries such as the UK live up to their International obligations, even though the clearance is unlikely to save a single life.
So should we clear the mines or leave them?
Since 1982 parts of the Falklands have been host to unmarked, but known minefields. They're all wired off and the only casualties are the occassional sheep and unlucky penguins...
Under the Ottawa convention the UK has signed up to removing all land mines from its sovereign territory, including the Falklands. Critics including the Falklands Govt, say that its a waste of resources and would prefer the UK Govt put the money and resources into clearing mines from countries such as Angola where they still regularly kill. Others say that it is important that countries such as the UK live up to their International obligations, even though the clearance is unlikely to save a single life.
So should we clear the mines or leave them?
0
Comments
And after nearly 30 years, will they still work anyway?
Apparently nowdays they can build mines with a limited lifespan, so after a while they become duds. Unfortunately tens of millions of mines across the world are still armed decades after their deployment.
yes, however there is no apparently about it, due to mines/minewarfare being near enough illegal through the Geneva convention (I think or something like that) they've had to create new ones to get round the high civilian casualty rate.
the same with new age cluster bombs. however more on topic, as everyone has said it doesn't pose any immediate threat so I don't think there is any urgency, deal with the ones killing the civilians first imo.
I don't doubt it, but 30 years is an awfully long time for something buried in the mud to continue working.
Either way, if people don't live/work in the area then is there a real risk? I think the money would be better spent on areas where the risk is greatest.
Well world war 2 sea mines are still live and do still go off.. so yah know?
Explosives from WW1 kill a couple of people a year still (and they were duds when fired). But yeah I agree its seems a waste of resources to remove them when they could use the expertise and equipment in where they are much more dangerous to life and limb (penguins aside)