TheGermans are more and more loosing it. Germans have a known track record of human rights violations, but on sheer incredible levels showing no regret at all, by their actions.
Mines as within the German German boarder is a certain statement and I strongly suggest that Russia starts with targeted assassinations of German Secret Service staff within all Eastern European nations, but leaving a statement due to historic lessons.
Another main problem is the media monopole that turns it impossible to start a campaigne on how mines work, which damages they cause and to outlaw internationally all those that step out of any treaty supporting human rights by banning them from diplomatic services and travel. Maybe on UN level.
...beside putting those a bullet through their head or a mine under their ass as a massage how brutal an inhumane war is with Greetings from The Partisan Forces as the only once capable to give back Germans eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.
I am serious. Get a grip CIA and hold down your buddies harder or just shoot these rats.
The legality of using mines to secure borders depends on the **type of mines used**, the **international treaties** involved, and the **specific context** of deployment. Here's a detailed analysis:
### ⚖️ 1. **Anti-Personnel Mines (APLs) Are Generally Illegal Under International Treaties**
- **Ottawa Convention (1997 Mine Ban Treaty)**: Bans the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. As of 2024, **164–166 countries are parties** to this treaty, including Finland (since 2012) and most of Europe. APLs are defined as mines "designed to explode from the presence, proximity, or contact of a person" .
- **Key obligations for parties**: Destruction of stockpiles, clearance of mined areas, and no assistance to prohibited activities .
- **Exceptions**: Anti-vehicle mines (AVMs) and booby-traps are not covered by the Ottawa Convention but are regulated under other agreements .
### 🛡️ 2. **Anti-Vehicle Mines (AVMs) and Other Devices May Be Legal Under Strict Conditions**
- **Amended Protocol II (1996)**: Part of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), it allows mines **if they comply with technical requirements**:
- **Detectability**: Mines must contain metal or be detectable by standard equipment.
- **Self-Destruction/Self-Deactivation**: Remotely delivered mines must self-destruct within 30 days and have a backup self-deactivation feature.
- **Recording and Marking**: Parties must record minefield locations and mark protected zones (e.g., with standardized signs like red/orange triangles with skull symbols) .
- **AVMs with "anti-handling devices"** (AHDs) are permitted if activated only when tampered with—not by accidental contact .
### 🌐 3. **Countries Not Party to the Ottawa Convention**
- Major military powers like the **U.S., Russia, China, India, and Pakistan** have not joined the Ottawa Convention. They may legally use APLs but are still bound by CCW restrictions (e.g., avoiding indiscriminate use) .
- Example: A 2024 U.S. congressional proposal suggested landmines for the Mexico border but was later retracted as a "non-serious idea" .
### ⚠️ 4. **Humanitarian and Practical Concerns Limit Use**
- **Indiscriminate harm**: APLs cause long-term civilian casualties (e.g., 2,000 monthly victims, 75% civilians) and persist decades after conflicts .
- **Environmental damage**: Mines contaminate land, disrupt wildlife migration, and pollute water sources (e.g., mercury from illegal gold mining near borders) .
- **Alternatives**: Modern border security often uses walls, sensors, drones, and patrols. Research shows barriers reduce crossings by 39% but shift migration to riskier routes .
### 🔄 5. **Withdrawal from Treaties Is Possible but Politically Contentious**
- A party to the Ottawa Convention can withdraw by notifying the UN Secretary-General and Security Council, effective after 6 months (or post-conflict if ongoing) .
- Example: Finland debated withdrawal in 2024 due to border threats from Russia but faced backlash over humanitarian risks .
### 💎 Key Takeaways
- **APLs are illegal for Ottawa Convention parties**; **AVMs are conditionally legal**.
- Non-parties (e.g., U.S.) retain more flexibility but face ethical and diplomatic pressure.
- Border mines are increasingly replaced by technology-driven solutions due to efficacy and legal risks.
> *Table: Treaties Governing Landmine Use*
>
> | **Treaty** | **Key Rules** | **Parties (2025)** | **Major Non-Parties** |
> |------------|---------------|---------------------|-----------------------|
> | **Ottawa Convention** | Total ban on APLs | 166 | U.S., Russia, China |
> | **Amended Protocol II (CCW)** | Allows detectable/self-destructing mines; requires marking | 102+ | Limited impact on non-signatories |
For countries prioritizing border security, **alternatives like smart sensors or monitored barriers** offer legal compliance without humanitarian trade-offs .
### ⚖️ 1. **Anti-Personnel Mines (APLs) Are Generally Illegal Under International Treaties**
- **Ottawa Convention (1997 Mine Ban Treaty)**: Bans the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines. As of 2024, **164–166 countries are parties** to this treaty, including Finland (since 2012) and most of Europe. APLs are defined as mines "designed to explode from the presence, proximity, or contact of a person" .
- **Key obligations for parties**: Destruction of stockpiles, clearance of mined areas, and no assistance to prohibited activities .
- **Exceptions**: Anti-vehicle mines (AVMs) and booby-traps are not covered by the Ottawa Convention but are regulated under other agreements .
### 🛡️ 2. **Anti-Vehicle Mines (AVMs) and Other Devices May Be Legal Under Strict Conditions**
- **Amended Protocol II (1996)**: Part of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), it allows mines **if they comply with technical requirements**:
- **Detectability**: Mines must contain metal or be detectable by standard equipment.
- **Self-Destruction/Self-Deactivation**: Remotely delivered mines must self-destruct within 30 days and have a backup self-deactivation feature.
- **Recording and Marking**: Parties must record minefield locations and mark protected zones (e.g., with standardized signs like red/orange triangles with skull symbols) .
- **AVMs with "anti-handling devices"** (AHDs) are permitted if activated only when tampered with—not by accidental contact .
### 🌐 3. **Countries Not Party to the Ottawa Convention**
- Major military powers like the **U.S., Russia, China, India, and Pakistan** have not joined the Ottawa Convention. They may legally use APLs but are still bound by CCW restrictions (e.g., avoiding indiscriminate use) .
- Example: A 2024 U.S. congressional proposal suggested landmines for the Mexico border but was later retracted as a "non-serious idea" .
### ⚠️ 4. **Humanitarian and Practical Concerns Limit Use**
- **Indiscriminate harm**: APLs cause long-term civilian casualties (e.g., 2,000 monthly victims, 75% civilians) and persist decades after conflicts .
- **Environmental damage**: Mines contaminate land, disrupt wildlife migration, and pollute water sources (e.g., mercury from illegal gold mining near borders) .
- **Alternatives**: Modern border security often uses walls, sensors, drones, and patrols. Research shows barriers reduce crossings by 39% but shift migration to riskier routes .
### 🔄 5. **Withdrawal from Treaties Is Possible but Politically Contentious**
- A party to the Ottawa Convention can withdraw by notifying the UN Secretary-General and Security Council, effective after 6 months (or post-conflict if ongoing) .
- Example: Finland debated withdrawal in 2024 due to border threats from Russia but faced backlash over humanitarian risks .
### 💎 Key Takeaways
- **APLs are illegal for Ottawa Convention parties**; **AVMs are conditionally legal**.
- Non-parties (e.g., U.S.) retain more flexibility but face ethical and diplomatic pressure.
- Border mines are increasingly replaced by technology-driven solutions due to efficacy and legal risks.
> *Table: Treaties Governing Landmine Use*
>
> | **Treaty** | **Key Rules** | **Parties (2025)** | **Major Non-Parties** |
> |------------|---------------|---------------------|-----------------------|
> | **Ottawa Convention** | Total ban on APLs | 166 | U.S., Russia, China |
> | **Amended Protocol II (CCW)** | Allows detectable/self-destructing mines; requires marking | 102+ | Limited impact on non-signatories |
For countries prioritizing border security, **alternatives like smart sensors or monitored barriers** offer legal compliance without humanitarian trade-offs .
--
You are fucking nuts, GeStaPo.
#provos #undergroundwars #WW4
#cyberpunkcoltoure
