Ok, thats a strong argument. But, Im not convinced.
For starters, if we assume humans have the ability to solve conflicts like the DMZ we should be able to put a structure in place to prohibit people from going to old mine fields. That is, fundamentally, the basis of nuclear waste storage: the belief that society can create a future political structure to keep humans out of a dangerous place. (I doubt that we can, so Im opposed to nuclear power, and I'll grant that it follows that this is an argument against mines.)
Im not arguing that land mines should be used liberally over large swaths of land. The DMZ is a narrow strip of land. If the Korean dispute ever ends (I have my doubts), it can be made into a nature preserve. Or it can be carefully de-mined over centuries like Europe has been since the wars. Continental Europeans have lived and worked around unstable explosives for over 100 years.
And, as long lasting as land mines are, its not obvious to me that our conflicts can not outlast them (!! I do have faith in our obstinacy). The Korean war is 70 years old, the DMZ is not a dry desert (some border regions are, however). Eventually the materials will crumble and nature will take over.
Finally, the basic question remains unanswered: are the (relatively rare) loss of life and limbs of innocents over decades or centuries worse that a war like the one that would break out between the Koreas? That's not obvious to me.
> Finally, the basic question remains unanswered: are the (relatively rare) loss of life and limbs of innocents over decades or centuries worse that a war like the one that would break out between the Koreas? That's not obvious to me.
That is a false dichotomy. There are choices between "all-out war" and "decades of needless innocent casualties," and pretending otherwise does your argument no favors.
Its not a false dichotomy because, so far, no one has argued against my argument that landmines can increase the cost of war and therefore help avoid it. The argument has been implicitly accepted.
Attack the argument, reject it, and then argue for the third way. Or argue that war is a blast.
However, Ill accept no citations from a US general or RAND corp. Itd be the "appeal to authority" fallacy and they've lost too many wars to claim expertise. You're free to restate their arguments though.
