Hard to "like" this - especially given the damage they'll do to bears, wolves and other wildlife should they actually have to be used, but I can see why Finland is taking this step.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I’m supporting withdrawal from the treaty. But the illusion that all mines will be marked on the maps, which I’ve also heard some politicians say, is ridiculous. In a conflict situation troops work under serious pressure and marking mines on the map will definitely not be their top priority.
To me it's insane that they don't have landmines on the border especially after seeing how vital they are for Ukraine. Finland could wait to deploy them until tensions begin to rise but they will need to build up big stocks
It would be dangerous waste to emplace the mines in peacetime. They have limited lifetime.
We should get at least months of strategic warning of any sizable attack. And mines and other anti-mobility measures would then be used - but not willy-nilly. A minefield not covered by fires is useless.
It's tricky, nobody wants to dump hundreds of tons of explosives in the wilderness, but when the time comes will they be able to deploy them quickly enough?
The plan has always been to deploy mines only when the fighting has started (or rather, looks like starting). Every army unit will have their own mines e.g. to protect flanks. They're surprisingly fast to place, and move, if you have them in stock.
Yeah, I don’t know what Finland uses, but the British Army has some interesting gear for rapidly turning fields into minefields. I guess Finland has something similar.
Comments
Whereas at this current moment, there's nothing stopping engineers from surveying everything out in exquisite detail.
We should get at least months of strategic warning of any sizable attack. And mines and other anti-mobility measures would then be used - but not willy-nilly. A minefield not covered by fires is useless.