...

Around 100 million euros is earmarked for the acquisitions.

Preparations for the purchase began after Finland's withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention took effect in January, Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finnish news agency STT. He said there are around half a dozen companies in the country able to make mines.

Finland reintroduced landmines due to the worsening security environment. Ahead of the decision, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called Russia a long-term threat to Finnish and European security.

...

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

The same people that let Google take part of their country? Sure.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    I can't really argue against it, as landmines have been quite effective in Ukraine.

    But I do hope that Europe gives serious consideration to long-term demining considerations. In some cases, self-neutralizing mines might be acceptable. Or maybe it's viable to make mines that are resistant to combat demining but not (cost-effective) non-combat demining.

    Every mine that gets placed is, long term, going to have to go away. It may be a very long term, but it'll still be a day that will come.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    If theres one European country that I have trust in to actually being responsible with mines it's definitely Finland

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    In this case, it is quite obvious where those are going to be placed. It will not cause any issues, unless certain eastern neighbour starts invading again, which is the point of getting them.

    I do have to note, I am extremely sad the situation has changed so, that we need them again. But the best way to avoid war with a much bigger, aggressive neighbour state, that cannot be trusted to follow any deals, is to have enough forces, so invading would be extremely costly. Mines are cheap and effective way to halt troops crossing the border. Such a shitty world, this is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    There are still some risks, even without an invasion. In Ukraine for example, Russia destroyed a major dam a while ago, which caused flooding that randomly distributed mines from known and mapped mine fields in all sorts of areas. A natural disaster like a flood could cause issues in Finland too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Good point, and I do agree otherwise, but the whole long border is mostly just forest, with barely any residents or infrastructure anywhere close, especially when you go up north, which is what makes the mines so appealing. Even if some natural (or caused) disaster would happen, having some remote area full of uncharted mines, is a far smaller problem, than what not having them could cause. Also, just the knowledge we do have them, and they might be somewhere, is pretty useful in itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    €100 / mine does not seem very efficient, but I guess they don't want to domestically produce them. (and honestly given the circumstances, probably they should)

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (16 children)

    An idea I have had for land mines are making them with an expiery date.

    I don't mean with electronics, I mean that there should be a slow chemicam process breaking down the explosives material over time.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 days ago (10 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPD_series_of_mines

    There's landmine donated by french gov to Ukraine.

    HPD-2 The mine arms itself after an initial delay of ten minutes and self-neutralizes after 30 days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    I expected a longer duration than 30 days, this seems too short, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    Depends on the kind of war you want to use them for. Ideally the front isn't stalled and you use mines to temporarily block some area/routes which you'll be using for your own offensives in a couple of weeks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (7 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    ... it would be better if the mines were stable over the long term and could keep the restricted area secure for as long as possible. There are now even β€œself-healing minefields” in which adjacent mines can move into gaps left by cleared mines. From a humanitarian perspective, however, such long-term, non-self-neutralizing minefields are problematic, since the maps detailing where, when, and how many mines were laid are often lost in the chaos of war and continue to pose a danger to the civilian population for decades after the conflict ends.

    I think two factors may be at play here, which is why Ukraine received self-neutralizing mines:

    1. According to the Ottawa Convention, mines are generally no longer supposed to be manufactured; perhaps France wanted to at least reach a compromise by developing and producing self-neutralizing mines itself.
    2. Ukraine does not want to mine its own territory in the long term, especially since it hopes to be able to recapture certain areas.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    Not a new idea. There has been work done on mines that deactivate themselves since the early '90s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mine

    I could swear there are mines like this already in use (IIRC it was mines delivered via mine-laying vehicles), but I can't find any examples right now. Still, as mentioned in the above article, no system - mechanical, chemical, electronic - will ever be 100% reliable, so at best, it'll only reduce the long-term risk of mines to civilians, not eliminate it entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I am very conflicted about this. It is very effective but also a terrible way to deter attacks. I mean look at all the Asian countries still cleaning these up and all the pictures of kids with missing limbs thanks to these.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    To be fair, had landmines been planted in 1920 to protect against Russia, they would have still been relevant today.

    Chances are these will also still be relevant 100 years from now. Russia is a cursed country at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago

    wise investment.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί