Prev: Re: FT3 testlist Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG

Re: DSII Question- Obstacles

From: Los <los@c...>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:36:05 -0500
Subject: Re: DSII Question- Obstacles

The ban does not cover antitank mines OR command detonated mines like
It's pretty much doctrine of any Western-style Army to cover obstacles
fire and observation. If you don't they're sort of useless.  When a unit
leaves to a new location, they usually take their mines with
somebody shoos them away in a hurry). They don't grow in trees after

You get a  country like North Korea sitting across the DMZ in a pretty
much no
notice assault posture. Of course they're not gonna sign away a major
multiplier in that circumstance. In any kind of real conevtional style 
like that wouldn't be smart. Especially if you are the snuffy in 1/507th
staring glumly across the DMZ.

Sort of reminds me of thae argument about how safe we all are now that
weapons aren't targetted at anyone any more. Wow  it takes like 30
seconds to
reporgramme targets into one of those things. Looks good on TV though
when the
politicains are saying how safe we all are. WHatever.....


ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:

> RE: real world:
> >From my understanding, it's only anti-personnel mines that is covered
> the treaty due to the long term effect upon the local population. 
> than 90% of anti-personnel mine casualties are actually the local
> civilian population.	The American government not signing the ban is
> certainly worrying due to the number of war theatres they seem to get
> involved in.	The only conclusions I can get from this is the defence
> contractors have put pressure on the government & American forces use
> mines reasonably frequently...

Prev: Re: FT3 testlist Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers) - LONG