A few words in defense of land mines
I want to be careful here. But I also keep in mind that writing a good blog is not a popularity contest. FP ran a terrific column the other day about land mines, provoked by the nasty little one that ripped off Joao Silva’s feet in Afghanistan the other day. He is the legendary New ...
I want to be careful here. But I also keep in mind that writing a good blog is not a popularity contest. FP ran a terrific column the other day about land mines, provoked by the nasty little one that ripped off Joao Silva's feet in Afghanistan the other day. He is the legendary New York Times photographer.
Land mines are awful little things, as this article shows so well. Especially evil are the simple little ones, no bigger than a can of tuna fish, last for decades, and blow up kids, dogs, sheep and photographers. Once, while studying the Soviet war in Afghanistan, I read an article about the secondary and tertiary damage done by land mines. It turns out that not only do they maim intentionally, rather than kill, they also punish the organs -- liver, kidneys, heart -- but especially the brain. People who step on land mines are likely to have years of lingering agony from these invisible blast effects. That medical study came to my mind when in the spring of 2002, while wandering around the neighborhood in Kabul in which I'd lived for two years as a teenager, I wound up in what my driver tardily said appeared to be a minefield. (And thanks to the U.S. Army Europe for the mine-awareness course they made me take before I embedded in Bosnia in 1995. Their lessons came in handy that day, especially in re-tracing my steps as I exited that overgrown, animal-less field in the middle of a city.)
So why do I have even one good word to say about land mines? Because those that are built to self-destruct after a set period -- say six months -- can still be useful. For example, if Pakistan descended into total chaos, it might be a very good idea to air-drop land mines around the bunkers holding its nuclear warheads, just to keep them from falling into terrorist hands while the situation is sorted out. Considering that the alternative could be a nuclear 9/11, in New York, Bombay, Madrid, Paris, or London, suddenly land mines don't seem so bad. This is of course an extreme situation, but it tells me there are some instances where an argument can be made for certain kinds of land mines.
I want to be careful here. But I also keep in mind that writing a good blog is not a popularity contest. FP ran a terrific column the other day about land mines, provoked by the nasty little one that ripped off Joao Silva’s feet in Afghanistan the other day. He is the legendary New York Times photographer.
Land mines are awful little things, as this article shows so well. Especially evil are the simple little ones, no bigger than a can of tuna fish, last for decades, and blow up kids, dogs, sheep and photographers. Once, while studying the Soviet war in Afghanistan, I read an article about the secondary and tertiary damage done by land mines. It turns out that not only do they maim intentionally, rather than kill, they also punish the organs — liver, kidneys, heart — but especially the brain. People who step on land mines are likely to have years of lingering agony from these invisible blast effects. That medical study came to my mind when in the spring of 2002, while wandering around the neighborhood in Kabul in which I’d lived for two years as a teenager, I wound up in what my driver tardily said appeared to be a minefield. (And thanks to the U.S. Army Europe for the mine-awareness course they made me take before I embedded in Bosnia in 1995. Their lessons came in handy that day, especially in re-tracing my steps as I exited that overgrown, animal-less field in the middle of a city.)
So why do I have even one good word to say about land mines? Because those that are built to self-destruct after a set period — say six months — can still be useful. For example, if Pakistan descended into total chaos, it might be a very good idea to air-drop land mines around the bunkers holding its nuclear warheads, just to keep them from falling into terrorist hands while the situation is sorted out. Considering that the alternative could be a nuclear 9/11, in New York, Bombay, Madrid, Paris, or London, suddenly land mines don’t seem so bad. This is of course an extreme situation, but it tells me there are some instances where an argument can be made for certain kinds of land mines.
More from Foreign Policy
Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.
So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.
Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.
Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
