Finland buying a million landmines
yle.fi
The move follows Finland's withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines.

…

Around 100 million euros is earmarked for the acquisitions.

Preparations for the purchase began after Finland’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention took effect in January, Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finnish news agency STT. He said there are around half a dozen companies in the country able to make mines.

Finland reintroduced landmines due to the worsening security environment. Ahead of the decision, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called Russia a long-term threat to Finnish and European security.

…

    • GardenGeek@europe.pubEnglish
      9·
      3 days ago

      Depends on the kind of war you want to use them for. Ideally the front isn’t stalled and you use mines to temporarily block some area/routes which you’ll be using for your own offensives in a couple of weeks.

        • klankin@piefed.caEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Not worth the risk of eventual harm to citizens.

          And sane government should be taking that into account.

        • GardenGeek@europe.pubEnglish
          3·
          3 days ago

          … it would be better if the mines were stable over the long term and could keep the restricted area secure for as long as possible. There are now even “self-healing minefields” in which adjacent mines can move into gaps left by cleared mines. From a humanitarian perspective, however, such long-term, non-self-neutralizing minefields are problematic, since the maps detailing where, when, and how many mines were laid are often lost in the chaos of war and continue to pose a danger to the civilian population for decades after the conflict ends.

          I think two factors may be at play here, which is why Ukraine received self-neutralizing mines:

          1. According to the Ottawa Convention, mines are generally no longer supposed to be manufactured; perhaps France wanted to at least reach a compromise by developing and producing self-neutralizing mines itself.
          2. Ukraine does not want to mine its own territory in the long term, especially since it hopes to be able to recapture certain areas.
          • KeenFlame@feddit.nuEnglish
            1·
            3 days ago

            I just don’t think it would be better. From a tactical perspective it is comforting to be able to write off that area as protected from a (in this case) tank advance, but strategically I don’t agree there ever is a good argument for mines to remain indefinitely. Ever.

            • GardenGeek@europe.pubEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              From a tactical perspective it is comforting to be able to write off that area as protected from a (in this case) tank advance

              It’s not even the case that you can simply mark a mined area as “secured.” After all, defensive measures must always be kept under your own surveillance or within your own area of control so that the enemy cannot clear them. A minefield, a tank barrier, or a barbed-wire entanglement without protection against clearance won’t hold up any army for long.

              I think we’re on the same page.

              • KeenFlame@feddit.nuEnglish
                1·
                12 hours ago

                That’s just an argument against mines, I was more inquiring about when you would them to remain indefinitely

                • GardenGeek@europe.pubEnglish
                  1·
                  10 hours ago

                  I don’t know if there’s any case where you’d want them to remain active indefinetly. Only case that comes to my mind are permanent no-acess zones like the DMZ between North and South Korea.