Keep the land mines
This is one of those “why change the status quo?” issues. An international treaty banning landmines was agreed to by most of the world a decade ago. We didn’t jump on board, and rightfully so. Now, the Senate is urging President Obama to sign the treaty, and to his credit he has refused, citing national security. It appears that the Administration is now reconsidering, however:
Two senior U.S. officials speaking on the condition of anonymity indicated that the administration is actively looking for ways to come into compliance with the treaty without endangering security needs.
Why reconsider? We use landmines as weapons of war, and far as I know, they effectively do what they do. While I understand that some countries have them randomly strewn about, sometimes injuring or killing civilians, isn’t that a problem for those countries to deal with? Go clean them up. The reality is, we will be at war again, and landmines may prove useful.
This is the same analysis that the Administration should have conducted before signing the nuclear weapons treaty with Russia. Why change the status quo? How does diluting our military strength, if even by a little, benefit us? The President blew it with the nuclear weapons treaty. Here’s to hoping he doesn’t cow to the “let’s all get together and hold hands” crowd on landmines.