Drones aim to undo Ukraine's landmine problem In late April, representatives of Canada-based industrial drone firm Draganfly are scheduled to demonstrate how the company's Commander 3 XL drone can be used to map the location of landmines in Ukraine. Ukraine is among the most heavily mined countries in the world and its Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources estimated …
Yes I up voted you because I agree with you about those who plant landmines.
I am however unable to down vote as well. I'd like to down vote 'cos Britain is amongst the world leaders in land mine production and export. Something which BREXIT did not have much of an effect on.
As far as I am concerned, those who make profit from munitions manufacture are really the lowest of human kind.................
ALF
"Britain is amongst the world leaders in land mine production and export".
Evidence, please.
The UK used to use and produce AP landmines, before we signed the treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mines. But then, just like most of the rest of the world, we stopped.
I think the UK may still produce the Bar Mine - a large anti-tank mine, not readily mistaken for a children's toy, and not something that a person is likely to detonate by stepping on it. Also, not covered by the AP mine treaty.
A quick check for landmine producers came up with this as the list of anti-personnel mine and cluster munition producers (from a few years back); the UK is notably absent:
http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/the-issues/faqs/most-common/how-many-countries-produce-mines-or-cluster-munitions.aspx
So it appears that Britain is far from being one of 'the world leaders', but more a 'bit player'.
Probably should have added (too late to edit) that the UK is one of the main supported of de-mining activity globally:
https://www.gichd.org/en/
And that there are a significant number of UK based EOD / de-mining specialist companies that have global reputations for the high quality of their work.
The UK is possibly the country that makes the biggest contribution to removing explosive ordnance of war globally (though the Norwegians seem to do a lot in this field, too)
Britain for a while tried to get back into the anti-personnel mine market with a less-damaging form of AP mine. The standard AP mine is a small package of plastic explosive and the means to detonate this when stepped on; the intent is to deny areas to ground troops. The problem with this design that whilst it is crippling but not lethal for a soldier, it is often majorly crippling and often lethal for a child to step on the mine.
The British variant started out as a simple pressure plate that fired a .22 bullet up through the unfortunate victim's foot, and evolved into a device to launch a stainless steel spike through the victim's foot. Provision was also made to make the components of the detonator degrade over time to harmlessness, giving the mine a service life of no more than a few months. The spike design was just as effective on soldiers, but was designed to be much less lethal for children setting it off accidentally.
The AP mine ban prevented this more humane design from going into production.
As far as I'm concerned those who set mines are a very special kind of sub-human. Yes I know the UK has done this too.
War is hell like that. But mines are still very popular for area denial.
Once again, this is not supporting one side or the other, just an attempt to provide balance.. But-
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/ukraine-banned-landmines-harm-civilians
Ukraine has also been using landmines extensively since 2014 along the Donbass contact lines, and has fired PFM-1 'Butterfly' mines into towns like Izium and Donetsk. There have also been photos and videos of scattered bodies after Russian forces walked into Ukrainian minefields, or Ukrainian volunteers mining roads with anti-tank mines. One of those videos showed a US international volunteer setting that mine. Neither Russia, nor the US are signatories to the Ottawa Convention, but Ukraine is and thus should have destroyed it's stocks of landmines.
This is a short video showing part of Ukraine's mine disposal efforts-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZunfqiOme4
You are conflating a couple of things there. The Ottawa (and subsequent rounds of the) Convention do not include anti-tank mines, e.g.,:
"Mines designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity or contact of a Vehicle as opposed to a person, that are equipped with anti-handling devices, are not considered anti-personnel mines as a result of being so equipped."
You are conflating a couple of things there. The Ottawa (and subsequent rounds of the) Convention do not include anti-tank mines, e.g.,:
No, I am not. The Ottawa Convention is pretty clear about signatory's responsibilities. I mentioned the use of PFM-1 mines, which are covered by the Convention, but are in use in Ukraine. They're especially nasty because they're typically deployed by artillery rockets and indiscriminate pretty much by definition. Ukraine is a signatory, it's admitted possessing them, it hasn't destroyed them, and there is strong evidence that it has been using them.
Anti-tank mines are going to be a much longer term challenge. Both sides have been using them, both sides will need to dispose of them before they can use the roads or agricultural land they've been scattered over. They're also a challenge for the 'Spring Offensives' planned by both sides given they'll have to find routes through heavily mined fronts. Ukraine's been sent a small number of mine clearing vehicles like Stryker engineering versions, but there's a lot of front to cover. So track the Strykers, find the offensive. Plus one of the main applications for landmines is to funnel forces into kill zones. So they may be able to clear a path a few meters wide, but then have to route forces through those paths all the while being under artillery fire.
Specifically "...or Ukrainian volunteers mining roads with anti-tank mines. One of those videos showed a US international volunteer setting that mine.". The Ottawa Convention places no restriction whatsoever on anti-vehicle mines (to cut-and-paste directly from Wikipedia ... which maybe a bad move).
I agree with your point(s) about the use of anti-personnel mines, but felt you weakened your argument by muddying the waters with evidence of non-anti-personnel (technically) mine laying.
I agree with your point(s) about the use of anti-personnel mines, but felt you weakened your argument by muddying the waters with evidence of non-anti-personnel (technically) mine laying.
True I guess. Personally I think any type of mine is bad news, and support the Ottawa Convention. There may still be issues with the types of anti-vehicle mines being used (by both sides) given their age. Some modern mines have fuzes that in theory should render them inert after a while, reducing their risk slightly. But it's going to be a huge de-mining task to clear Ukraine. Mines may not be accurately mapped, and have a nasty habit of moving due to soil effects like frost heave. Or just looking at Ukraine's hellscape, buried or moved by all the artillery craters, especially as many mines have fuzes that don't detonate due to shockwaves, and thus stay armed and deadly for a lot longer.
Curious how well these drones will work given the difficulty of doing stuff like GPR or MAD against devices that are designed to be hard to detect by old techniques like metal detection.. Plus there's going to be huge quantities of scrap metal around the battlefields anyway.
I suspect that Magnetometers will be relatively ineffectual for actual mine-detection work - as you note, a battlefield may well be littered with lumps of ferrous objects, and a lot of mines are plastic cased and mostly metal-free.
Surface based magnetometry for UXO risk mitigation for construction is certainty not that effective in my experience - 'down hole' techniques tend to be favoured, and that is where the risk profile is typically centred on a 250kg air-dropped bomb (i.e. quite a lot of iron).
However, for a rural site (ie farmers' fields), I can see drone based magnetometers potentially being useful for UXO (shells, etc), and you need to find them, as well as any mines.
For mines it will probably be the thermal sensor stuff, or something clever that detects mines using an indirect parameter - perhaps looking at subtle changes in the appearance of vegetation when viewed in certain spectrum, which might reveal which patches of grass are stressed because their roots are restricted by the presence of a mine just beneath, affecting soil moisture.
..perhaps looking at subtle changes in the appearance of vegetation when viewed in certain spectrum, which might reveal which patches of grass are stressed because their roots are restricted by the presence of a mine just beneath, affecting soil moisture.
Yep. Or spectrometry and chemical detection of the mine's materials or explosives. I've seen a few interesting ideas including training bees to detect chemicals, but there seems to be a huge risk for false positives. So there'll be UXO risks as you say from undetonated munitions that will need to be cleared, or detonated ones would still leave chemical residues. I guess there'd be similar risks with observing plants, ie do nitrogen residues promote or decrease plant growth? Or, could you genetically modify some variety of fast-growing grass that reacts to explosives? Bonus points I guess if you could make that reaction flouresce.
There's also some very neat laser scanning and digital terrain mapping tools that can highlight disturbed ground.. But again there's a problem given there's an awful lot of that along and around the contact lines. I think it would be better if mines were just completely banned, along with some other classes of weapons. We're still finding UXO from WW1 and WW2 that's still killing people, and now we've just added to that mess.
.. As capable as the Draganfly drone appears to be, I fully expect and support more creative uses by the troops on the ground.
If they can detect one mine, and save one local farmworker from injury or farm equipment from damage, they have succeeded in my humble opinion.
If Draganfly is used to deliver "pizzas" to Wagner? Even better!
I bought a Draganfly X6 back in 2009. Used it for commercial aerial photography.
Transport Canada was a nightmare to deal with in those days. A special permit was required for each aerial job.
Draanfly was a great company to deal with.
It looks like Zenon Dragan (the guy who started it all) must have retired when he sold the company. His name doesn't appear anywhere on their website.
Someday this war will end and Russia will owe reparations to Ukraine. One of the conditions ought to be that all the loudmouth Russian bloggers, TV people etc. who have supported this war should be drafted into mine removal roles, along with all Russian military officers and government officials.
They've supported, cheered on and made excuses for the deaths of Ukrainian civilians, so let them put their own lives on the line for a few years of mine removal. If they survive then they can be forgiven for their support of Putin's war. They don't get to say "we had no choice". They could have left, like many others did. They chose to stay and support Putin.
This would be a far more useful contribution than money, as entry into NATO and the EU and the resulting western investment and travel down the road will boost Ukraine's economy much more than Russia's less and less valuable over time fossil fuel money ever could.
Even though there's an increasing amount of evidence suggesting that it was not Russia, but Ukraine, who was responsible for the mass-deployment of illegal antipersonnel landmines that are killing their own people, as reported by credible, mainstream, western news outlets like NPR? https://www.npr.org/2023/01/31/1152743054/human-rights-watch-ukraine-landmines
Nobody is defending Russia's unlawful invasion, but two wrongs don't make a right, and fatally punishing Party A for the evil actions of Party B just because Party A is guilty of different evil actions is not justice, it's just a vindictive retaliation that will only encourage Party A to continue to seek vengeance against Party B.
Great plan, provided your goal is to make sure we have a Russia-Ukraine war: 2030's edititon to follow the first two 21st century Russia-Ukraine wars.
...fatally punishing Party A for the evil actions of Party B just because Party A is guilty of different evil actions is not justice, it's just a vindictive retaliation that will only encourage Party A to continue to seek vengeance against Party B.
Sadly, many supposed 'liberals' do not understand this principle, or distinction. This is probably why we've had so many conflicts since the establishment of the UN, and so many millions dead, wounded or displaced. Historians or military types tend to, hence why there were laws of war that discouraged some retaliatory or escalatory actions that just make conflicts worse, both for combatants and non-combatants.
I do however think a UN-administered 'Battle Royale' could be a good idea. Set aside a chunk of land, and invite our political elite to settle their differences on a battlefield. If they faced the consequences of their decisions or actions personally, they may be reluctant to start so many conflicts. Usually they're much happier letting other people die or be maimed for their beliefs. It'd also likely be self-financing with PPV, ad supported streaming etc. Will BoJo make it through this minefield? Place your bets on how far Bolton's moustache flies.. stay tuned after these messages from our sponsors..
"Nobody is defending Russia's unlawful invasion"
What? Many have defended Russia's actions here. And continue to do so.
Mr. Eel there has several times told how Russia's actions are quite lawful, welcomed by the Ukrainians and it's only the glue sniffing nazis in Kiev that do bad things.
Mr. Eel there has several times told how Russia's actions are quite lawful, welcomed by the Ukrainians and it's only the glue sniffing nazis in Kiev that do bad things.
That's the kind of gross distortion and misrepresentation I've come to expect from the far left.
1) Russia's actions are quite lawful. Ish. I've also said repeatedly that the justifications used to attack, invade and occupy small defenceless countries need to be clarified. I don't necessarily agree that they are lawful, but immediately prior to the invasion, Russia invoked pretty much exactly the same justifcation as we used to invade and occupy sovereign nations like Syria. Arguably Russia has more justification given the historical, ethnic and cultural connections between people living in Ukraine than we have with Syria.
So basically if it's legal for us to invade and occupy and steal resources from Syria, why shouldn't Russia do the same thing? Especially as our actions have lead to Syria being in the news again. Saudis are normalising diplomatic relations with Syria and Iran, relations between Sunni and Shia are improving, which will hopefully lead to less sectarian conflict. And of course de-dollarisation is acccelerating, which isn't good news for the West.
2) Some Ukrainains have welcomed Russia. Most obvious being Crimea, which voted to become part of Russia (again) after Crimean autonomy had been withdrawn by the incoming 2014 regime. There were numerous election monitors there, and it ran in accordance with UN principles of the right to self-determination. Obviously Kiev wasn't happy about this because it foiled the cunning (and obvious) plan to kick Russia's Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea and turn it into a NATO base. Much the same happened with Donbass, although a referendum would arguably be a lot less legal given much of it's population fled. But if you look at Ukraine's election results and demographics, it's pretty much split between West and East along cultural, ethnic and historical lines.
3) I'm pretty sure I've never claimed Western/Galacian Ukrainians are glue sniffers. There is however plenty of evidence for WW2 vintage far-right (or left) nationalist extremism. Azov's wolfsangel still appears regularly, as do other WW2 vintage German icons. Then there's the rehabilitation of Badneras, and the glorification of the OUN. When people mindlessly chant 'slava Ukraine', they really should perhaps look at where that chant originated. See also-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhmut#20th_century
In early 1942, German Einsatzgruppe C took some 3,000 Jews from Artemivsk to a mine shaft two kilometres outside of town and shot into the crowd, killing several people and driving the rest into a tunnel. The soldiers then bricked up the entrance to the tunnel, suffocating the thousands of people trapped inside.
An awful lot of blood has been spilled in Ukraine thanks to politics. I've been trying to find out if that memorial has survived, but given the current state of Bakhmut, it's doubtful.
4) I've never said it's only Kiev doing bad things. Both sides have been, but most of our reporting has been incredibly one-sided and unbalanced. But that's propaganda for you. Again it's like I said in my first post. Ukraine has and will have a collosal de-mining problem to deal with, thanks to heavy usage by both sides.
Oh, and respect for El Reg for changing the title to make this problem clearer.
voted to become part of Russia
Oh yes and I'm sure:
1) that vote was fully on the up and up
2) those who were against it had no fear of retribution should they vote that way
3) the outcome was not affected by all the Ukrainians who fled their homes when Russia swooped in and thus didn't vote, and all the Russians who were brought in to live there and allowed to vote
If a gang breaks down your door carrying AR15s, and asks you and your family to vote on whether the gang members can live there from now on I'm sure you'll respect the results of the vote (whether that's because your family's votes weren't counted, they were afraid to vote against the gang, or there were more gang members voting than members of your family) right?
1) that vote was fully on the up and up
Election monitors thought so. Think of it like Scotland and their demands for yet another referendum. And even their invocation of the UN's right to self-determination.
2) those who were against it had no fear of retribution should they vote that way</blockqoute>Most probably didn't, or feared the opposite given the incoming regime were very quick to start de-russification. Many reported at the time they were more afraid of Kiev than Moscow. Partly I suspect given Crimea had long been Russian, long enjoyed local autonomy and most identified as ethnic or culturally Russian. Plus there were incidents like the alledged sef-immolation of the anti-coup Ukrainiands in Odessa.
3) the outcome was not affected by all the Ukrainians who fled their homes when Russia swooped in and thus didn't vote, and all the Russians who were brought in to live there and allowed to voteNot very many did, and I'm sure you have sound evidence of attempted vote rigging by bringing in hordes of immigrants to try and shift the demographics. Again this is why I said it was mostly fair given the number of observers that said the same thing, and the speed it happened. Millions did flee Donbas after Ukraine mined and shelled the Ukrainians living there, which is why I'd very much doubt anyone could argue a fair referendum there. But again, look at historical voting patterns for Ukraine, and you can see the very clear split between East and West.
<blockqoute>If a gang breaks down your door carrying AR15s, and asks you and your family to vote on whether the gang members can live there from now..
You have some very strange fantasies, but I suspect I know where they come from. Not sure why you mentioned AR15s other than some parts of the world live in terror of 'assault weapons', not the people that may own semi-automatic rifles. Or perhaps you live in terror because that's what you've been educated to do by politicians who'll ruthlessly exploit tragedies for their own political purposes. Which is somewhat ironic givein one of the first things Ukraine did is to hand out 'AR15s' to anybody that wanted one, and then demand more. It's almost as though a well-regulated militia can be a good thing.
I also curious why you came up with the idea that journalists and people who don't support the regime should be rounded up and worked to their deaths, simply for voicing opinions you disagree with. That happened in Germany not so long ago, and you can even read about it in the history books..
Even if you want to claim the election was fair and a majority of people living there wanted to be part of Russia, an armed invasion cannot be allowable under international law as the way to make that happen. What if people in northern Maine decide they want to be part of Canada? Should mounties invade then hold a vote? Or should someone just raise the issue in their city council meeting in a border town (not sure if there is such a border town but let's just pretend there is) and ask that be added to the ballot in their next city election, and the state of Maine and US government are just supposed to be OK with it even if the vote was unanimous?
If a majority of people living in Greenland voted to be under someone else's flag then Denmark loses all those natural resources waiting to be exploited once the ice melts? Heck, the US could probably pay them off for their vote and acquire those resources at about the same price as Alaska adjusted for inflation. Though if word got out China might come to the table and start a bidding war for their votes.
> One of the conditions ought to be that all the loudmouth Russian bloggers, TV people etc. who have supported this war should be drafted into mine removal roles, along with all Russian military officers and government officials.
Hey it's not bad if we do it.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/france-s-deadly-mine-clearing-missions-surviving-german-pows-seek-compensation-a-574180.html
Ukraine will have to deal with that problem for a long, long time.
WW1 ended more than one century ago. Around Verdun, 900 tons of ammunition are dug out every year. The time estimated for the disappearance of all WW1 ammunitions buried in France is 700 years. Add to this the soil pollution because of the chemicals used in ammunitions, like perchlorates.
Anyway congrats to that Canadian company, it's acting for the greater good.
WW1 ended more than one century ago. Around Verdun, 900 tons of ammunition are dug out every year. The time estimated for the disappearance of all WW1 ammunitions buried in France is 700 years. Add to this the soil pollution because of the chemicals used in ammunitions, like perchlorates.
Yep. Regardless of of politics, it's a collosal problem. Also why I think mines should just be banned across the board. They're dumb, and blissfully unaware of the state of the conflict. So they don't care if they're being driven over by a tank or a troop transport, or a tractor or a school bus. Plus WW1 had other nasties, like dirty old glass bottles that start giving off a brownish vapor when they're broken.
But from wiki-
Mine flails have the advantage of being able to clear most mines from an area comparatively rapidly - the manufacturer of the British Aardvark Mark 4 quotes a maximum rate of 3,000 square metres (0.74 acres) per hour, however 600 square metres (0.15 acres) per hour is more usual.
and watching some Robot Wars.. Israel's developed a lot of sophisticated autonomous vehicles for agriculture, so there's probably scope for doing something along those lines. And I'm sure companies are, but AVs that can automagically thoroughly cover an area. But there's a lot of area given a 1,000km+ front that might be 20km+ deep, and includes a lot of wooded areas. Like much of the border between Ukraine and Belarus. For chemical contamination, there have been some neat experiments form around Chernobyl using fast growing grasses that can suck up contaminants. Downside is the grass would still need to be processed, and they'd suck up useful nutrients as well. That rich agricultural land could become safe and productive again in a few decades.
So still better to just ban them completely, even though nations would probably still carry on using them. Or develop fully biodegradeable mines approved by the Soil Association.
So long as the US continues to want exceptions to a ban on land mines (wanting to use them to defend against a North Korean land invasion of South Korea) it won't happen. Heck, Trump undid Obama's ban on US production of new mines late in his term so even if the US agreed at some point to a total ban there's no reason for the rest of the world to trust that we won't go back on it next time someone with a small pecker is in the White House.
....when Henry Kissinger and his buddies signed a treaty in 1975............and then walked away from the mess the Americans left behind in Laos:
(1) https://www.npaid.org/mine-action-and-disarmament/news/laos-in-a-greener-direction ("Laos holds the undisputed record of "the world's most heavily bombed country". )
(2) Laos was NEUTRAL in the Vietnam war.
(3) But that didn't stop the Americans getting rid of millions of tons of explosives in Laos.....
(4) ....and walking away nearly fifty years ago......
......so that farmers and children are STILL being wounded and killed in 2023.......in one of the world's poorest countries!
Sure.....Ukraine needs help......but there are others who got into the queue for help fifty years ago......
This whole Russian invasion of Ukraine is so crazy. What does Putin hope to gain? It isn't like the world is going to let him seize Ukraine, and he's losing rather badly after a year, so why not just accept that your dictatorship is over and pull a Hitler in a bunker somewhere and save everyone the hassle of tracking him down?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
