Talk:Anti-personnel mine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Sub headings

I have converted some of the other style options into sub headings to be more standard. It also makes the Table of Contents (TOC) more useful.

Image (PTAB)

I have changed the image from the P2AB, because the P2AB is NOT an anti-personnel mine, but an anti-personnel submunition of a Russian cluster bomb. Yes, some cluster bombs release mines (AP and AT) as submunitions, but the PTAB is not one of these, it is designed to injure personnel yes, but not acting as a mine, it simply explodes immediately (possibly with a slight delay). The Valmara 69 is a much better photo, because it shows scale compared to a person as well as the usual placement of mines (in or on ground).

Fuze mechanism

It would seem to follow from the description given that the cinematic theme of a soldier who hears a click and ends up stuck standing on a mine, lest it explode when he removes his foot, is a myth. Could there be some discussion on this point? 68.165.204.148 (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gas mine

these are not mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.94.247 (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no discussion, in the context of the recent news of the US's refusal to sign the Convention, of whether or not the US still manufactures antipersonnel mines, and exactly which companies, belonging to which groups and supported by which investors, in which countries, do manufacture these mines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note you do not mention that Russia has not signed the Convention either. The original impetus for the ban came from the mass use of air-scattered anti-personnel mines in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where the intended targets were typically small bands of local insurgents/resistance fighters and the mined areas were places also regularly frequented by civilians. The use of anti-personnel mines as a deterrent against massed infantry attack by an invading military force in a largely evacuated war zone is quite a different matter: the large majority of casualties are indeed military personnel and mines are one of the cheapest and most effective methods of defense available to a country that cannot match the attacker in manpower or materiel. It was all very well for people like Princess Diana -- from an island nation far from any front line -- to demand a mine ban based on civilian casualties in Vietnam and Afghanistan; nations on the front line faced with a large agressive neighbour cannot afford to deny themselves the possibility of defending themselves with every possible method not restricted by the Geneva Convention. Death Bredon (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the above relevant to this article? Were you to post a similar comment to the article dealing with the treaty proper you might have a response by now. Drieux 04:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drieux (talk • contribs)

What happen to POV and Neutrality on subjects

Folks, The Ex links especially have but on POV and zero neutrality. That should be discussed on the a separate page dealing with the campagin to ban land mines. Not a page which deals with how land mines work and their history. Yes, a small paragraph should mention the treaty, but this is going in whole hawg for indoctrination and an agenda. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-personnel mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719000327/http://rtc.mvbc.com.au/about_landmines/gruesome_injuries.jpg to http://rtc.mvbc.com.au/about_landmines/gruesome_injuries.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]