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.

…

    • kossa@feddit.orgEnglish
      22·
      3 days ago

      Buy (or better let the state produce without profit motive) weapons that are not anti-person landmines? There’s a reason those are on the “bad guy” list.

      • tardigrade@scribe.disroot.orgOPEnglish
        41·
        3 days ago

        I am not a weapon expert nor a fan of any weapon, but which weapons would hold back an invader as effective as landmines?

        There’s a reason those are on the “bad guy” list.

        So Russia and China, amongst others, are bad guys, right?

        • kossa@feddit.orgEnglish
          21·
          2 days ago

          hold back an invader as effective

          Idk, but it’s about standing firmly to “we don’t do that here” is important. Like, having rules and only following them when it’s easy and convenient…makes no sense in my book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          So Russia and China, amongst others, are bad guys, right?

          They certainly are.

          • DdCno1@beehaw.orgEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            Have you heard of the concept of “lesser evils”? Mines are terrible, but it’s a lesser evil compared to the damage a Russian armored assault could cause without there being mines present. Even with drones and various anti-tank weapons existing, mines remain incredibly effective as a defensive tool.

            • kossa@feddit.orgEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              Heard about it, usually in the context of defending atrocities, yes.

              It’s fine for me. Get anti-personnel mines, next stop chemical warfare, because that is still better than Russian occupation, isn’t it? It’s the lesser of two evils after all and oh so effective.

              • DdCno1@beehaw.orgEnglish
                1·
                2 days ago

                You’re clearly not arguing in good faith or else you wouldn’t be attacking a straw man. You know that chemical weapons are a completely different and far more extreme level of escalation - and one that is absurd to even bring up in the context of Finland, one of the most robust democracies with one of the strongrest human rights records in the world.

                • kossa@feddit.orgEnglish
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  One forbidden weapon is clearly more forbidden than another forbidden weapon. You can’t make up this shit.

                  Like “chemical warfare is forbidden for a reason, while not using landmines were just for shit-and-giggles” or what?