← Back to context

Comment by jcranmer

15 hours ago

Arms control treaties are effective only if they are banning weapons that aren't useful. The problem is that landmines are incredibly useful weapons. What that means is that every country that has signed up to the Ottawa treaty either expects never to get into a major war again, is planning on relying on its allies who haven't signed the treaty to deploy landmines for them, or is planning on ignoring the treaty and using landmines anyways if it gets into another major war again.

In that vein, the Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty is commendable because they've stopped lying to everybody about what they're going to do come wartime.

> Arms control treaties are effective only if they are banning weapons that aren't useful. The problem is that landmines are incredibly useful weapons

There is not a single doubt in my mind that mines are useful. As are executions of people suspected of collaborating with the enemy. As is instituting precautionary concentration camps to round up folks who might have some bond with the enemy. The utility of dropping atom bombs on civilian centers is probably extremely high in negotiating with the enemy. But, like mines, these things are unconscionable, and when you start using these highly effective means, you should really ask yourself: "am I the good guy in this conflict?"

For me, the answer is no. I don't think we should commit war crimes, which somehow has become a controversial opinion.