Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Anti-personnel mine

An anti-personnel mine is an explosive munition primarily designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity, or contact of a person, with the purpose of incapacitating, injuring, or killing one or more individuals.^[1]^[2] Unlike anti-vehicle mines, which target mechanized forces, these devices focus on dismounted infantry to channel movements, protect obstacles, and impose attrition on advancing troops.^[3] Anti-personnel mines are categorized into blast types, which rely on pressure or proximity fuses to deliver lethal overpressure and fragmentation from the casing upon detonation, and fragmentation variants that either propel shrapnel directionally or launch submunitions skyward before exploding.^[4] Their deployment expanded significantly during the World Wars, with innovations like bounding mines enhancing lethality against personnel in open terrain, and they remain staples in defensive doctrines for their low cost and ability to deny access to large areas without continuous manpower.^[5]^[6] While effective in combat for hindering enemy maneuvers and safeguarding fixed positions, anti-personnel mines generate enduring hazards, as uncleared fields continue to cause casualties years after hostilities cease, prompting the 1997 Ottawa Convention that bans their production, stockpiling, and use for 164 states parties.^[5]^[7] Major non-signatories including the United States, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan retain them for territorial defense, arguing that alternatives inadequately replicate their deterrent value against infantry assaults.^[8]^[9] Recent conflicts, such as in Ukraine, underscore ongoing reliance on minefields for static defense amid high mobility threats.^[10]

Historical Development

Pre-20th Century Origins

The precursors to modern anti-personnel mines emerged as rudimentary area-denial devices in ancient warfare, primarily non-explosive obstacles designed to impede infantry and cavalry advances by leveraging terrain and inflicting injuries without requiring active engagement. Caltrops, four-pointed iron devices that always landed with one spike upward, were employed by Greek forces around 330 B.C. to lame Persian war elephants and horses by puncturing hooves or feet.^[11] Roman engineers under Julius Caesar further integrated caltrops with spiked pits, ditches, and abatis during the Siege of Alesia in 52 B.C., creating layered defenses over 100 meters deep that slowed Gallic assaults and channeled attackers into kill zones.^[11] These passive tools imposed asymmetric costs on advancing forces, exploiting foot mobility vulnerabilities in pre-industrial armies. The transition to explosive variants began with gunpowder innovations in Asia, marking the shift from mechanical injury to blast effects. In 1277, during the Song dynasty, Chinese defenders deployed the earliest recorded self-contained antipersonnel land mines against Mongol invaders, using bamboo or iron casings filled with gunpowder and triggered by pressure plates or tripwires to fragment and kill infantry.^[11] By the 16th century, European engineers adapted similar concepts into fougasse devices—pre-positioned charges of black powder packed with rocks or shells in rock-cut mortars—for fixed fortifications, as seen in Samuel Zimmermann's designs at Augsburg.^[11] Fougasse functioned as directional antipersonnel weapons, scattering shrapnel over wide arcs upon ignition, and saw use in conflicts like the defense of Fort Mercer in 1777.^[11] In the 19th century, improvised explosive torpedoes represented a key evolution toward victim-operated antipersonnel devices, particularly during the American Civil War. Confederate General Gabriel Rains pioneered mechanical land mines in May 1862 at the Battle of Williamsburg, burying artillery shells or mortar rounds fitted with pressure-sensitive fuses just beneath roads and fields; these detonated under Union troops' weight, killing one soldier and wounding six in the first documented battlefield use.^[12] General John Bankhead Magruder expanded their deployment earlier that year at Yorktown, Virginia, embedding hundreds of such devices to delay McClellan's Peninsula Campaign advance, often using scavenged munitions triggered by friction or impact.^[13] By war's end, these low-technology explosives had become widespread Confederate tools for defensive attrition, buried in paths and fortifications to exploit infantry density against numerically superior forces.^[13]

World War I and II

In World War I, anti-personnel mines received limited deployment, chiefly by German forces to hinder enemy efforts to clear anti-tank minefields amid trench stalemates. These early pressure-activated devices supplemented barbed wire and machine-gun fire, which dominated casualty causation, with mines inflicting only several hundred wounds overall due to rudimentary designs and production constraints.^[14]^[15] Defensive tactics emphasized static fortifications, where mines channeled assaults into kill zones, though artillery and small-arms fire accounted for the bulk of infantry losses exceeding 8 million across fronts.^[16] World War II marked the mass industrialization of anti-personnel mines, with Germany producing nearly 2 million S-mines (Schrapnellmine 35) from 1935 onward for integration into defensive belts like the Siegfried Line. This bounding fragmentation mine, triggered by tripwires or pressure, propelled upward to scatter shrapnel over a 20-60 meter radius, effectively denying area to unprotected infantry and compelling deliberate mine-clearing that delayed assaults.^[17]^[18] Soviet forces employed wooden-box blast mines such as the PMD-6 and PMD-7 series, which used minimal metal to evade detection, sowing them in vast numbers along Eastern Front lines to protect tank obstacles. Allied advances, including the Normandy campaign of June 1944, encountered dense German minefields blending anti-personnel and anti-tank variants, which inflicted severe wounds on roughly 13 percent of U.S. casualties in comparable Italian theater battles like Anzio, underscoring mines' role in attrition warfare.^[3] In the Siegfried Line breaches from September 1944, engineers faced interlocking mine patterns that slowed mechanized infantry, with U.S. Army records attributing 2.5 percent of combat fatalities to mines overall in Europe while exacerbating logistical strains through required breaching operations.^[19]^[20] This efficacy in static defenses forced attackers into prolonged vulnerability, amplifying casualties from enfilading fire during clearance.^[21]

Cold War and Proxy Conflicts

During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union ramped up anti-personnel mine production to bolster defensive capabilities in anticipated large-scale conflicts and to equip proxy forces in asymmetric wars. The U.S. introduced the low-metal M14 blast mine around 1955, optimized for undetectable, scatterable deployment via artillery or airdrops, with millions incorporated into stockpiles alongside other types, reaching a total of approximately 15 million anti-personnel mines by the late 1990s.^[22] The Soviet Union similarly manufactured extensive arrays, including the PMN-series wooden-box blast mines and plastic PFM-1 scatterable variants, which could be delivered by helicopter or mortar to rapidly contaminate areas.^[23] These efforts reflected a strategic emphasis on mines as cost-effective force multipliers for extending perimeters without committing large troop numbers. In the Vietnam War (1955–1975), U.S. forces deployed the M18A1 Claymore directional fragmentation mine extensively from the early 1960s, positioning it to cover kill zones along trails, perimeters, and ambush sites, where its 700 steel ball projectiles inflicted heavy casualties on advancing Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army infantry.^[24] This application channeled enemy movements into predictable paths and disrupted assaults, enhancing defensive efficiency in jungle terrain.^[25] Soviet-backed forces in proxy conflicts like the Angolan Civil War (1975–2002) employed similar tactics, using supplied mines to fortify positions and impose attrition on opposing advances by factions such as UNITA, thereby prolonging control over contested territories at minimal manpower cost.^[26] The Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) exemplified scatterable mine utility, with PFM-1 "butterfly" mines air-dropped to deny mobility to mujahideen fighters along supply routes and mountain passes, complicating guerrilla operations and forcing reliance on longer, more vulnerable paths.^[23] Military assessments indicate that during active combat phases of these conflicts, anti-personnel mines primarily affected combatants, yielding higher military-to-civilian casualty ratios compared to post-conflict legacies, as their placement prioritized tactical denial over indiscriminate sowing.^[27] Overall, these deployments demonstrated mines' role in asymmetric warfare by economically amplifying defensive reach and exacting disproportionate losses on offensive forces.^[28]

Post-Cold War and Recent Conflicts

In the 1991 Gulf War, the United States deployed 27,967 antipersonnel mines alongside antivehicle types in Iraq and Kuwait to impede Iraqi retreats and counterattacks, contributing to persistent contamination in the region decades later.^[29] Iraqi forces had also emplaced extensive minefields from prior conflicts, exacerbating clearance challenges post-war.^[30] During the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, including operations in Kosovo, Yugoslav and Serbian forces laid mines—predominantly antivehicle but including antipersonnel variants—around defensive positions, resulting in an estimated 150 civilian and military casualties from mines and unexploded ordnance by early 2000, with monthly rates of about 10 incidents.^[31] Legacy contamination persists, prompting specialized demining training hubs in Kosovo to address unexploded remnants from these conflicts.^[32] In the Syrian Civil War since 2011, government forces under Bashar al-Assad, allied militias, and opposition groups systematically emplaced antipersonnel mines along borders, frontlines, and around military sites, often without markings or warnings, leading to hundreds of civilian deaths annually from detonations.^[33]^[34] This practice intensified after territorial shifts, with over 200 fatalities from war remnants reported in the first three months following Assad's fall in late 2024, underscoring mines' role in denying access to recaptured areas.^[35] The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine saw widespread Russian deployment of antipersonnel mines, including the POM-3—a sensor-fuzed fragmentation type produced by KB Khimavtomatiki—that detects footsteps via seismic and magnetic triggers before launching shrapnel, contaminating roughly one-third of Ukrainian territory and hindering counteroffensives.^[36]^[37] At least 13 Russian antipersonnel mine types have been documented in use, with Ukrainian forces also employing them defensively despite treaty obligations.^[38] To bolster Ukrainian defenses against Russian ground advances, the Biden administration authorized transfers of U.S. antipersonnel landmines on November 20, 2024, reversing a 2022 policy limiting such exports to the Korean Peninsula, with the munitions intended for remote-laid barriers along eastern fronts.^[39]^[40] Facing escalated Russian threats along its borders, Poland's government proposed withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention in early 2025, citing the need for antipersonnel mines in deterrence; parliament approved the measure on June 26, 2025, initiating a six-month notice period under treaty rules.^[41] This move, echoed by Baltic states, highlights a regional pivot toward reinstating mine capabilities for asymmetric defense against potential invasion, prioritizing territorial integrity over non-proliferation norms.^[42]^[43]

Classification and Types

Blast Mines

Blast mines constitute a primary category of anti-personnel mines characterized by their reliance on direct explosive blast effects rather than fragmentation or projection mechanisms to incapacitate targets. These devices are typically buried shallowly and equipped with a pressure-sensitive fuze plate that detonates the main charge upon application of a threshold force, usually between 5 and 16 kilograms depending on the model. The resulting shockwave and overpressure propagate through air and ground, inflicting severe trauma primarily to the lower extremities of the triggering individual, often resulting in amputation to hinder mobility without necessarily causing immediate fatality.^[4]^[44]^[45] Prominent examples include the Soviet-era PMN series, such as the PMN-1 and PMN-2, which feature a circular bakelite or plastic body containing approximately 240 grams of TNT or similar high explosive, activated by 5 to 8 kilograms of pressure on the top plate. Similarly, the U.S.-designed M14 mine employs a low-profile plastic casing with a 29-gram tetryl charge, requiring 9 to 15.8 kilograms for detonation via a belleville spring mechanism. These mines are engineered for minimal detectability, with non-metallic components reducing vulnerability to magnetic sensors, and their blast radius for significant tissue damage is confined to 1-2 meters, concentrating effects on the victim due to the localized nature of the detonation in soil or soft ground.^[46]^[47]^[48]^[45] The physics of blast mine detonation involves an exothermic reaction producing a high-velocity shock front and subsequent gas expansion, which transmits overpressure capable of rupturing soft tissues and fracturing bones in close proximity, particularly effective against infantry traversing unpredictable terrain like vegetation or loose soil where precise clearance is challenging. Production costs for such mines remain low, often under $3 to $5 per unit in mass manufacturing, enabling widespread deployment by state and non-state actors alike, while their simplicity enhances reliability across diverse environmental conditions without dependence on complex fragmentation dispersal. This contrasts sharply with fragmentation variants, as blast mines prioritize immobilization through direct somatic disruption over area-denial via projectiles.^[45]^[49]^[50]

Fragmentation Mines

Fragmentation mines are anti-personnel devices engineered to propel pre-formed or generated shrapnel outward upon detonation, extending the effective casualty radius beyond that of pure blast effects by dispersing lethal fragments at high velocities over distances typically ranging from 10 to 50 meters.^[51] This design enhances lethality against personnel in open or semi-open terrain, where fragments maintain sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate soft tissue or light cover, thereby increasing the probability of hits during assaults or patrols compared to localized blast mines, which primarily injure via overpressure and limited casing breakup within 3-5 meters.^[48] Historical deployments, such as in World War II defensive lines, demonstrated fragmentation mines' superiority in sparse layouts for flank protection, achieving verified kill radii up to 25 meters in some variants versus blast mines' confined effects.^[6] Stake-mounted fragmentation mines are elevated on wooden or metal stakes driven into the ground, positioning the explosive charge above the surface to direct fragments horizontally or slightly upward upon tripwire or pressure-fuze activation, optimizing coverage in vegetated or obstacle-laden areas. The Soviet POMZ-2M, a cast-iron tubular mine weighing approximately 1.3 kilograms with a 60-millimeter diameter, exemplifies this subtype; it fragments via scored casing and was widely employed by Axis and Allied forces after 1941, including in Korean and Vietnam conflicts for perimeter defense.^[52] Effective fragment dispersion reaches 20-25 meters forward, outperforming ground-laid blast mines in detecting and injuring tripwire-crossing infantry.^[53] Bounding fragmentation mines incorporate a propelling charge that launches the main body 0.5 to 1.5 meters into the air before secondary detonation, scattering shrapnel omnidirectionally at waist height to maximize torso and head injuries across a 360-degree pattern. The German S-mine 35 (Schrapnellmine), developed in the 1930s and deployed extensively during World War II, used a 170-millimeter steel tube with 360 steel balls or pellets, achieving a casualty radius of up to 60 meters upon airburst; its design influenced post-war variants and proved effective in delaying advances by forcing troops to prone positions vulnerable to fragments traveling at over 1,000 meters per second.^[54] In Vietnam, similar bounding types contributed to higher wounding rates in uncleared paths compared to static blast devices.^[25] Directional fragmentation mines focus shrapnel into a narrow cone, typically 45-60 degrees, for targeted denial of specific avenues, with remote or command-detonation options enhancing tactical control. The U.S. M18A1 Claymore, introduced in 1960 and combat-tested in Vietnam, contains 700 steel spheres propelled by a C-4 charge, yielding a primary lethal radius of 50 meters within its arc and wounding potential to 100 meters, far exceeding blast mines' radial limits in ambush scenarios.^[55] Soviet-era MON-50 variants similarly projected fragments up to 50 meters in a 54-degree sector, prioritizing efficiency in resource-scarce deployments over omnidirectional coverage.^[51] These mines' projected fragments, retaining velocities sufficient for penetration at range, causally amplify hit probabilities against exposed formations, as evidenced by their use in covering enfilades during World War II and jungle warfare.^[6]

Specialty and Hybrid Variants

The BLU-92/B, a United States scatterable anti-personnel mine developed in the early 1980s as part of the Family of Scatterable Mines (FASCAM), exemplifies remote-delivery variants for rapid area denial. This circular, plastic-bodied fragmentation mine, weighing approximately 0.8 kilograms with a 170-gram explosive charge, deploys via air-dropped dispensers like the GATOR system, dispersing up to dozens per munition over targeted zones. It employs bi-directional electromechanical arming and incorporates self-destruct or self-deactivation timers—typically 4 to 48 hours—to mitigate persistent hazards post-mission, though field reports indicate occasional failures leading to uncleared remnants.^[56]^[57] Anti-handling variants integrate secondary fuzes that trigger on disturbance, such as pressure-release, tilt, or magnetic sensors detecting tampering, transforming conventional anti-personnel mines into protective booby-traps against clearance operations. These mechanisms, documented in military engineering tactics since World War II but refined in Cold War designs, detonate the primary charge if the mine is lifted, probed, or disrupted, with examples including add-on devices like the M2 or Soviet equivalents fitted to blast or fragmentation types. Empirical evidence from conflict zones shows they increase clearance casualties by 20-50% in contested minefields, as handlers must neutralize both primary and anti-handling triggers sequentially.^[58]^[59] Hybrid variants blend anti-personnel effects with anti-vehicle capabilities in unified systems, such as the U.S. GATOR cluster munitions (e.g., CBU-78/B), which dispense 15 BLU-92/B anti-personnel mines alongside 45 BLU-91/B anti-tank mines per payload. Deployed via aircraft since the 1980s, these create mixed minefields that empirically extend defensive depth: anti-personnel submunitions wound infantry attempting to breach or clear, channeling forces into anti-vehicle kill zones and amplifying tactical denial without requiring manual laying. Field analyses confirm such layering reduces penetration rates by forcing sequential countermeasures, though delivery inaccuracies can scatter hybrids unpredictably over 200-500 meter patterns.^[4]^[60]

Components and Functionality

Fuze and Trigger Mechanisms

Fuze and trigger mechanisms constitute the sensing and initiation components of anti-personnel mines, detecting target activation to propagate the detonation sequence via a firing train. These systems emphasize mechanical simplicity for field durability, with functional reliability thresholds typically ranging from 0.95 to 0.99 to balance activation sensitivity against environmental false triggers such as rain or wildlife passage.^[61] Integrated safety features, including arming delays, prevent premature detonation during deployment, allowing safe emplacement before full operational status.^[48] Mechanical pressure fuzes dominate basic designs, employing a spring-loaded striker released by downward force exceeding a calibrated threshold, often 4 to 10 kilograms, to pierce a primer.^[62] Tripwire triggers, utilizing tension-sensitive pins or cords attached to the fuze, activate via lateral pull or snag, common in fragmentation variants to cover pathways.^[48] Some incorporate combination fuzes responsive to both pressure and pull, as in World War II-era models like the M3 antipersonnel fuze, enhancing versatility against varied threats.^[63] Advanced mechanisms in select post-World War II developments include chemical delay elements, where corrosive agents erode a restraining wire over seconds to minutes, introducing arming variability that complicates immediate neutralization attempts.^[44] Anti-tamper provisions, such as auxiliary detonators linked to tilt switches or removal sensors, integrate into the fuze assembly to explode the mine upon disturbance, deterring clearance.^[64] Evolutionary progression from rudimentary pull-wire systems in early 20th-century mines to electronic variants with programmable timers in modern non-signatory designs enables self-deactivation after preset intervals, reducing long-term hazards while maintaining tactical utility.^[6]

Explosive Charges and Casings

Anti-personnel mines employ high explosives such as TNT or Composition B, a mixture of approximately 59% RDX and 39% TNT with 1-2% wax for stability, to generate the destructive force upon detonation.^[65] Charge weights vary by mine type and purpose, typically ranging from 30 to 60 grams in small blast variants like the PMN series, which uses 55 grams of TG-40 (a 40/60 TNT/RDX blend), to 420 grams in bounding fragmentation models such as the Valmara 69.^[66] These quantities balance lethality against portability, with Composition B favored for its higher detonation velocity of around 8,000 m/s compared to TNT's 6,900 m/s, enabling more efficient energy release in confined volumes.^[65] The casing encases the explosive fill, serving dual roles in structural integrity and performance optimization; modern designs prioritize non-metallic materials like plastic or phenolic resins to reduce detectability by electromagnetic sensors.^[67] For instance, the Valmara 69 features a plastic outer body surrounding a steel fragmentation sleeve packed with pre-cut fragments, minimizing overall metal content while containing the 420-gram Composition B charge.^[68] This low-metal approach trades traditional durability for evasion, as plastic casings resist corrosion but require precise sealing against moisture ingress, enabling operational longevity of up to several decades when buried.^[69] In blast-optimized mines, the casing is engineered to either fragment controllably or confine the initial explosion, directing pressure waves into the soil for enhanced ground-shock transmission rather than dispersing energy aerially.^[70] Such configurations, often using rigid plastic housings, maximize the transfer of blast impulse through the ground medium, amplifying injury potential via seismic effects over fragmentation alone.^[70] Waterproofing compounds and hermetic seals in these casings further ensure charge stability over extended burial periods, with material selections tested for resistance to environmental degradation.^[69]

Detonation Effects

Upon detonation, blast anti-personnel mines generate a high-pressure shock wave that transmits directly into the lower extremities of a target standing above the device, primarily causing traumatic amputation through mechanisms including spallation and brisance. Spallation occurs as the reflected blast wave creates tensile stresses within tissues and bones, leading to internal fracturing and separation, while brisance refers to the explosive's shattering effect on brittle structures like bone. This results in severance of limbs at or above the point of contact, often accompanied by stripping of soft tissues and vascular damage.^[71]^[72] Fragmentation mines, by contrast, propel pre-formed or casing-derived shrapnel outward in a radial or directed pattern, inflicting penetrating wounds via high-velocity impacts that lacerate skin, sever arteries, and damage internal organs. Injuries from fragments include deep lacerations, punctures to vital areas such as the torso or head, and secondary effects like hemorrhage and infection, with the design intent to affect multiple targets beyond the immediate detonation point. Unlike blast effects, which are localized to contact proximity, fragmentation prioritizes dispersion over a wider area to maximize casualties through cumulative trauma.^[6]^[73] Empirical models from field and surrogate testing indicate a 50% incapacitation radius of approximately 5-15 meters for fragmentation variants, varying by charge size and fragment density, with blast types limited to 1-2 meters for lethal overpressure but extending to similar incapacitation via foot-specific trauma. These radii align with military evaluations emphasizing non-lethal but debilitating wounds to overburden enemy logistics, as severe lower-limb injuries demand extensive medical intervention disproportionate to direct kills.^[74]^[75] Field tests and injury data reveal survival rates of 70-80% for blast mine detonations, predominantly due to the localized nature of primary effects, yet with near-universal permanent disability including amputation and chronic complications like nerve damage and impaired mobility. This pattern underscores the causal emphasis on resource denial through high-morbidity outcomes rather than immediate fatality, corroborated by surrogate limb experiments matching observed human trauma profiles.^[76]^[77]

Military Applications

Deployment Methods

Anti-personnel mines are typically deployed manually by infantry or engineer units, who emplace them individually or in small teams to create patterned fields. Mines are placed in predefined layouts, such as straight or staggered rows spaced 1 to 3 meters apart, or irregular patterns to enhance unpredictability, with burial depths of 3 to 10 centimeters to avoid detection while allowing pressure or tripwire activation.^[59] Camouflage involves covering with soil, vegetation, or debris matching the terrain, ensuring the mine blends seamlessly; tripwire mines may be staked or attached to fixed objects for directional triggering.^[59] This method allows precise control over density, often achieving 0.001 to 0.005 mines per square meter in defensive configurations.^[78]^[79] Mechanical deployment employs vehicle-mounted dispensers or remote delivery systems for rapid emplacement over larger areas. Armored mine layers, such as the Russian GMZ series, scatter mines at fixed intervals of approximately 5.5 meters while advancing, creating linear or zonal patterns without dismounting personnel.^[80] Artillery-delivered scatterable mines, like the U.S. ADAM system using 155mm projectiles (e.g., M731 or M742), disperse 36 mines each over a 50-by-200-meter footprint upon impact, enabling densities up to 0.005 mines per square meter from standoff ranges of 4 to 17 kilometers.^[81]^[82] Air-dropped variants, including dispenser pods from fixed-wing aircraft, achieve similar scatter patterns, as seen in Vietnam War operations where millions of gravel mines were aerially disseminated along infiltration routes like the Ho Chi Minh Trail starting in 1967.^[83] Defensive belts integrate anti-personnel mines into layered obstacles, typically 50 to 200 meters deep with multiple rows (2 to 4 or more) combining blast and fragmentation types alongside anti-tank mines for mixed denial effects.^[59] Patterns may follow linear fronts for channeling or irregular grids for area coverage, with row spacing of 10 to 20 meters to optimize trigger probability without excessive overlap.^[84] In historical contexts, such as U.S. forces in Vietnam, manual and remote methods created extensive free-fire denial zones, with M14 blast mines buried in grids or scattered via artillery to saturate trails and borders.^[85]^[25]

Tactical and Strategic Roles

Anti-personnel mines serve tactical roles primarily by delaying enemy infantry advances and compelling resource-intensive breaching efforts, thereby enabling defenders to engage with concentrated fire or reposition forces. In defensive operations, mixed minefields combining anti-personnel and anti-tank variants channel attackers into kill zones or slow their momentum, as evidenced by German use of the Siegfried Line in World War II, where extensive minefields delayed Allied breakthroughs and inflicted heavy casualties on units such as the U.S. 29th and 84th Infantry Divisions.^[5] This delay forces adversaries to adopt deliberate clearance tactics, expending time, personnel, and equipment, which amplifies the defender's positional advantage in fluid battles.^[86] Strategically, anti-personnel mines enable area denial over large terrains, deterring incursions without the need for continuous troop deployments and conserving manpower for other fronts. Along the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), persistent mine barriers have formed an integrated defensive system that slows potential North Korean advances—estimated to enhance defender effectiveness by 1.5 to 2.5 times—providing critical time for reinforcements amid the narrow 27-mile buffer to Seoul.^[87] This configuration deters large-scale aggression from North Korea's million-strong active army by imposing high costs on initial penetrations, including psychological barriers that discourage probing by special operations forces.^[5]^[87] These weapons offer asymmetric benefits to numerically inferior defenders, allowing control of expansive fronts with minimal forces through terrain denial and psychological intimidation, as mines require no ongoing maintenance once emplaced.^[86] However, unmapped or poorly recorded minefields pose significant risks of friendly casualties during retreats or counteroffensives, potentially undermining operational tempo if records are lost or terrain shifts.^[5] Such hazards underscore the need for reliable mapping and self-destruct mechanisms in modern variants to mitigate inadvertent losses while preserving utility.^[5]

Improvised and Non-State Adaptations

Non-state actors, such as insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, have adapted improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to replicate the effects of anti-personnel mines, often employing victim-operated triggers like pressure plates that detonate under the weight of a person. These devices, distinct from factory-produced mines, utilize locally sourced or scavenged materials, including commercial fertilizers (e.g., ammonium nitrate combined with fuel oil to create ANFO explosives) and repurposed artillery shells, enabling production without state industrial capacity.^[88]^[89] In Afghanistan, the Taliban extensively deployed pressure-plate IEDs, which function equivalently to banned anti-personnel mines by targeting individuals on foot, contributing to hundreds of civilian injuries annually in populated areas.^[90] Taliban adaptations included daisy-chaining multiple IEDs—wiring several charges together to detonate simultaneously—for enhanced lethality against dismounted patrols, as seen in a 2009 Helmand Province attack that killed eight British soldiers.^[91] In Iraq, groups like ISIS incorporated remote triggers such as cell phones or garage door openers for selective anti-personnel strikes, allowing operators to target responding forces after an initial blast, though victim-initiated variants emphasized indiscriminate area denial.^[92] These modifications prioritize adaptability over precision, using everyday components like cooking pots or plastic containers as casings to evade detection. Empirical data from U.S. operations indicate IEDs inflicted 60% of coalition fatalities in Iraq and approximately 50% in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014, underscoring their prevalence in asymmetric warfare despite countermeasures like electronic jammers.^[93] Improvised designs, however, suffer from reduced reliability compared to standardized military munitions, with inconsistent fuze sensitivity and explosive purity leading to frequent malfunctions or premature detonations during emplacement.^[94] This variability, while enabling rapid iteration in response to countermeasures (e.g., shifting from wire to wireless triggers), results in unexploded remnants that prolong hazards for both combatants and civilians.^[95]

Countermeasures and Clearance

Detection Technologies

Metal detectors remain the primary tool for locating anti-personnel mines, operating on electromagnetic induction to detect metallic components such as fuzes or fragments, with devices like the Vallon VMR3 Minehound capable of identifying small metal objects at depths up to 30 cm in various soils.^[96] However, their efficacy is severely limited against minimum-metal or plastic-cased mines, which lack sufficient ferrous content and produce high false alarm rates from soil clutter or debris.^[97] Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) addresses these gaps by emitting radar pulses to image subsurface anomalies based on dielectric contrasts, enabling detection of non-metallic plastic mines buried up to 20 cm deep, as demonstrated in field trials where GPR distinguished mine shapes from soil voids.^[98] Canine detection complements these technologies by exploiting dogs' olfactory sensitivity to explosive vapors like TNT, with trained mine detection dogs (MDDs) identifying anti-personnel mines in vegetated or cluttered terrain where electronic sensors falter, though performance degrades in high winds or contaminated environments.^[99] Emerging infrared thermal imaging exploits diurnal temperature differentials, where buried mines create detectable surface hotspots or cold spots due to differential heating, with UAV-mounted systems achieving preliminary identification in arid soils during morning or evening surveys.^[100] AI-enhanced drone surveys integrate multispectral imagery and machine learning algorithms to map disturbances or mine signatures, reporting detection accuracies of 80-90% in controlled tests on surface and shallow-buried anti-personnel mines, though real-world variables like vegetation reduce reliability.^[101] To counter plastic mine evasion of single sensors, multi-sensor fusion systems combine metal detection, GPR, and infrared data through algorithmic integration, reducing false positives by 50-70% in evaluations against low-metal targets and enabling probabilistic confirmation of threats.^[102]^[103]

Demining Operations

Demining operations involve the physical extraction, neutralization, or destruction of detected anti-personnel mines within defined grids or lanes, distinct from initial detection by prioritizing verified removal to specified safety thresholds. Military operations emphasize expeditionary breaching to facilitate troop movement, often integrating manual disruption with mechanical aids or explosives for rapid clearance, whereas humanitarian efforts focus on comprehensive release for unrestricted civilian access, guided by protocols like the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) that mandate exhaustive verification to achieve a post-clearance contamination rate below 0.01 per square meter in released areas.^[104] Military procedures tolerate residual hazards to prioritize speed, while humanitarian ones employ layered quality assurance, including sampling and canine rechecks, to minimize misses.^[51] Common removal methods include manual prodding with probes or bayonets to expose and defuse mines, followed by lifting or explosive neutralization; deployment of remote-controlled vehicles, such as the iRobot PackBot equipped with disruptors for inspecting and detonating threats without human exposure; and controlled in-situ detonations using donor charges on clustered ordnance.^[105] These techniques are applied grid-by-grid, with grids typically 1-2 meters wide, progressing systematically to ensure coverage, though military variants may expand to lane-based clearing for vehicle passage. Humanitarian operations sequence removal after detection confirmation, often integrating mechanical flails for initial proofing before manual finishing.^[106] Clearance efficiencies vary by context and risk posture: humanitarian manual teams typically process 20-50 square meters per day per operator under stringent protocols, limited by individual prodding and verification cycles, while military units achieve higher throughput—often 100-500 square meters daily per team—through mechanized aids and abbreviated safety margins.^[107] Since the 1990s, coordinated global demining has destroyed over 5 million anti-personnel mines, contributing to the release of more than 3,300 square kilometers of land, though humanitarian standards target miss rates under 0.4% via post-clearance audits, with military operations exhibiting variable residuals due to operational tempo.^[108]^[104]

Post-Conflict Challenges

In post-conflict environments, anti-personnel mines can migrate from original locations due to natural processes such as flooding and erosion, thereby contaminating previously safe areas and prolonging hazards for decades. Heavy rains in Mozambique during 1999 and 2000 displaced landmines remnants from the 1977–1990 civil war, with geological factors like soil erosion and water flow mobilizing unexploded ordnance into new sites. Similarly, in 1998, approximately 200 M14 anti-personnel mines were swept away by seasonal rains in the same region, illustrating how flood events can redistribute devices across landscapes, complicating clearance efforts. These migrations occur through mechanisms including flotation during floods, sediment transport, and slope erosion, which interact with mine design and terrain to extend contamination beyond initial battlefields.^[109]^[110]^[111] Hasty military retreats often result in unmarked minefields, as deploying forces prioritize rapid withdrawal over documentation, leaving civilians and returnees exposed to undetected hazards. During World War II, German forces in retreat frequently emplaced large numbers of small nuisance minefields containing mixed anti-personnel types without marking or recording positions, amplifying long-term risks in affected territories. In more recent conflicts, such as Yemen's civil war, retreating groups like the Houthis have abandoned unmarked minefields along frontlines, including in districts like Karsh, where the lack of records hinders systematic clearance. This practice stems from tactical imperatives during withdrawal, where time constraints prevent proper mapping, causally linking battlefield expediency to persistent post-conflict threats.^[19]^[112]^[113] Resource limitations, particularly chronic funding shortfalls for demining, exacerbate these challenges by delaying comprehensive clearance and sustaining civilian exposure. In Colombia, recent funding cuts have intensified risks for mine clearance operations in post-conflict zones, where evolving threats from unmarked fields strain limited budgets and personnel. Globally, donor fatigue and shifting priorities in post-conflict aid have led to gaps in financing for mine action, with operations often under-resourced relative to the scale of contamination, directly correlating with prolonged accident rates among non-combatants. These shortfalls arise from competing humanitarian demands and economic constraints in affected states, underscoring the causal disconnect between initial clearance pledges and sustained implementation.^[114]^[115]

International Regulations

Ottawa Treaty and Signatories

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, known as the Ottawa Treaty, was adopted on September 18, 1997, in Oslo, Norway, following diplomatic negotiations led by Canada.^[116] Signing ceremonies occurred on December 3–4, 1997, in Ottawa, with 122 states initially signing.^[117] The treaty entered into force on March 1, 1999, six months after the 40th ratification, marking one of the fastest major arms control agreements to achieve this status.^[118] The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), coordinated by activist Jody Williams, received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its role in advancing the treaty, with Williams as co-recipient; high-profile advocacy, including by Diana, Princess of Wales, who inspected minefields and promoted clearance efforts, contributed to global momentum.^[119] Under Article 1, states parties commit never to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer anti-personnel mines, nor assist or encourage others to do so.^[120] Article 2 requires destruction of all controlled stockpiles within four years of ratification, while Article 5 mandates clearance of emplaced mines in affected areas within 10 years, subject to extensions granted by states parties upon demonstrated need.^[121] The treaty also promotes international cooperation for victim assistance, mine-risk education, and technology transfer for detection and clearance.^[122] As of 2025, 165 states are parties to the treaty, representing over 80% of UN member states and covering most major exporters prior to 1997.^[123] Implementation has resulted in the verified destruction of more than 55 million stockpiled anti-personnel mines by 87 of 90 states parties that reported holdings, alongside a near-complete halt in legal exports since entry into force.^[124]^[125] Annual meetings of states parties, such as the 22nd scheduled for December 1–5, 2025, in Geneva, monitor compliance and progress toward deadlines.^[126]

Non-Participation by Major Powers

Major powers such as the United States, Russia, China, and India have not signed the Ottawa Treaty, citing the continued military necessity of anti-personnel mines for defensive operations against potential numerically superior adversaries.^[27]^[9] These states argue that such mines provide essential area denial capabilities in scenarios where conventional forces may be outnumbered, such as border defenses or prolonged conflicts.^[127] For instance, Russian military doctrine emphasizes mines for channeling enemy advances and protecting flanks, as demonstrated in operations requiring sustained territorial control.^[27] The United States maintains a policy exception allowing anti-personnel mine use solely for the defense of South Korea, retaining stockpiles estimated at around 1-2 million for potential deployment along the Korean Demilitarized Zone to counter North Korea's larger ground forces.^[128]^[129] Outside this context, U.S. policy aligns with treaty provisions by committing to destroy non-essential stockpiles and prohibiting production, export, or use elsewhere, though on November 20, 2024, the Biden administration approved transfers of anti-personnel mines to Ukraine to aid defensive efforts amid Russia's invasion.^[130]^[131] China and India similarly justify retention based on regional threats, including disputed borders with populous neighbors, where mines enable cost-effective denial of invasion routes without proportional troop commitments.^[27] Non-signatories collectively hold approximately 50 million anti-personnel mines, representing the majority of global stockpiles remaining after treaty parties destroyed over 50 million since 1999.^[127] This concentration underscores their strategic opt-out, prioritizing operational flexibility over universal adherence.^[132]

Enforcement and Alleged Violations

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction establishes compliance mechanisms under Article 11, enabling states parties to request clarification from another party regarding potential non-compliance, followed by consultations and, if unresolved, a fact-finding mission conducted by experts appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.^[133] Fact-finding missions, which have not been formally invoked to date, grant access to relevant areas and installations and report findings to the Meeting of States Parties or a special meeting convened for the purpose.^[133] The treaty's Implementation Support Unit, hosted by the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, facilitates transparency through annual Article 7 reporting on stockpiles, clearance, and use, while the International Campaign to Ban Landmines-Cluster Munition Coalition's Landmine Monitor provides independent annual assessments of adherence across all states. Alleged violations by states parties have been documented sporadically since the treaty's entry into force on March 1, 1999, with Landmine Monitor reporting credible evidence of antipersonnel mine use by Ukraine in 2022 near Izium, including rocket-delivered PFM-series mines, prompting Ukraine to initiate an internal investigation.^[134] Further allegations emerged in 2024 when Ukraine received antipersonnel mines from the United States, constituting a transfer and potential use in breach of treaty prohibitions, followed by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's decree on June 29, 2025, to withdraw from the convention citing Russian aggression.^[135] ^[136] Non-state party Russia has faced repeated accusations of extensive antipersonnel mine deployment in Ukraine since February 2022, including PFM-1 "butterfly" mines documented by Amnesty International in civilian areas, though such actions do not violate the treaty itself but undermine the established international norm against their use.^[137] ^[138] Enforcement lacks binding penalties or automatic sanctions, relying instead on diplomatic peer pressure, public reporting, and cooperative compliance procedures, as seen in the Committee on Cooperative Compliance's 2024 review of reporting deficiencies among several states parties.^[134] Self-reporting gaps persist, with incomplete or delayed Article 7 submissions from multiple parties annually, reducing transparency and complicating verification.^[139] Notable outcomes include Eritrea's 2023 finding of non-compliance for failing to report clearance efforts, leading to its withdrawal in July 2023, highlighting the mechanism's emphasis on resolution over punishment but limited deterrent effect amid security-driven reconsiderations by parties like Ukraine.^[140]

Military Utility

Tactical Effectiveness

Anti-personnel mines contribute to tactical effectiveness primarily through their integration into mixed minefields with anti-tank mines, where they protect against breaching attempts by inflicting casualties on infantry and engineers.^[5] This combination disrupts enemy formations, canalizes movement into kill zones, and delays advances by compelling attackers to expend time, personnel, and equipment on detection and neutralization.^[86] Military doctrine emphasizes four key effects—disrupting, diverting, fixing, and blocking—achieved via deliberate placement and integration with fire support, forcing resource diversion from offensive maneuvers.^[86] In the 1982 Falklands War, Argentine forces laid approximately 20,000 anti-personnel mines alongside anti-tank variants, creating obstacles that increased risks and slowed British operations in defended sectors, such as requiring heightened caution during assaults like Mount Longdon where mines prematurely revealed positions.^[141] ^[142] These fields exemplified defensive utility by hindering rapid exploitation of breakthroughs, though rapid British maneuvers often bypassed heavily mined static positions.^[5] Production costs for basic anti-personnel blast or fragmentation mines range from $3 to $30 per unit, enabling economical area denial compared to alternatives like unmanned drones or precision munitions, which typically cost thousands of dollars each.^[143] ^[144] Declassified U.S. analyses of post-1945 conflicts highlight their role in defensive attrition, where fear of mines alone slows infantry advances and ties down breaching assets, amplifying the force-multiplying effect against numerically superior attackers.^[145]

Empirical Evidence from Conflicts

In World War II's European Theater, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines contributed to approximately 2.5 percent of U.S. Army battle deaths and 20.7 percent of tank losses, significantly impeding armored advances and forcing infantry to clear paths under fire, which reduced overall offensive momentum.^[3] During the Korean War (1950–1953), landmines accounted for 1.65 percent of U.S. military fatalities and 3.32 percent of wounded in action, with defensive minefields by both sides channeling attacks into kill zones and straining logistics due to the higher wounding rate.^[3] In the Vietnam War, improvised and standard anti-personnel mines used by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces inflicted an estimated 10–20 percent of U.S. casualties in certain operations, often through booby-trapped variants that halted patrols and required specialized breaching, thereby extending defensive perimeters effectively against superior firepower.^[146] Military analyses highlight mines' high wound-to-kill ratios—typically 2:1 or higher in these conflicts—as a key factor, where injuries like lower-limb amputations overwhelmed evacuation chains and medical resources, diverting up to 37 percent of survivors with mine wounds to rear-area hospitals in Korea.^[147]^[3] In the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present), extensive deployment of anti-personnel mines in Donbas has disrupted Russian assaults, slowing mechanized advances by compelling small-unit infantry probes and resource allocation to clearance, with minefields proving a persistent barrier to breakthroughs despite artillery dominance.^[148]^[149] Ukrainian and Russian forces have both employed them defensively, contributing to stalled frontlines where fear of mines has increased caution and extended operation timelines, though large-scale use has not decisively altered territorial outcomes.^[27] Empirical reviews of post-1940 conflicts indicate tactical utility in delaying offensives but limited strategic impact, as mines rarely shifted war results even when emplaced en masse.^[150]

Cost and Resource Efficiency

Anti-personnel mines exhibit high cost and resource efficiency in production due to their straightforward mechanical designs, which typically lack complex electronics and rely on simple pressure or tripwire fuzes. Manufacturing costs range from $1 to $3 per unit for basic blast or fragmentation types, enabling rapid scaling in wartime facilities.^[151]^[22] For instance, the United States produced over four million such mines between 1985 and 1996, demonstrating the feasibility of high-volume output without advanced technology dependencies.^[22] This simplicity minimizes material requirements and production failures, contrasting with more intricate munitions that demand specialized components. In deployment, anti-personnel mines offer advantages over physical barriers or manned defenses by providing extensive area denial at lower upfront and ongoing costs. Military analyses describe them as economical substitutes for personnel-intensive obstacles, such as fences or fortifications, which require substantial construction materials and continuous guarding.^[152] Experts in joint doctrine emphasize that mines achieve equivalent denial effects with fewer resources, as their passive nature eliminates the need for sustained human presence post-laying.^[153] While alternatives like barriers incur high material and labor expenses per linear meter—often orders of magnitude greater for comparable coverage—mines leverage terrain integration for persistent utility. Maintenance demands are negligible, as mechanical reliability endures without power sources or frequent inspections, conserving logistical resources compared to active systems. However, efficient use necessitates precise recording and mapping to facilitate friendly force navigation and potential recovery, imposing initial planning costs that are offset by long-term manpower savings.^[5] This passive persistence, effective for decades if undisturbed, underscores their resource efficiency in resource-constrained operations.^[5]

Humanitarian and Societal Impacts

Casualty Patterns and Statistics

Anti-personnel mines caused 833 casualties worldwide in 2023, the highest annual total since 2011, amid rising use in conflicts such as those in Ukraine and Myanmar. Overall landmine and explosive remnant of war casualties reached 5,757 that year, with anti-personnel mines contributing significantly, though exact breakdowns vary by inclusion of improvised devices.^[154] Casualty patterns show a consistent predominance of civilians, comprising 84% of recorded victims in 2023, including 37% children where age data was available.^[155] In active conflicts, combatants represent a higher proportion—potentially 30-40% in zones like Ukraine—compared to post-conflict environments where nearly all victims are non-combatants. Farmers and children face elevated risks post-conflict due to encounters during agriculture and play in contaminated areas; for instance, in Angola, over 60% of landmine victims in the five years prior to 2020 were children born after the civil war's end.^[156] Global anti-personnel mine casualties have declined from approximately 25,000 annually in the late 1990s to under 1,000 in recent years for manufactured types, correlating with reduced production and stockpiling among treaty signatories.^[157] However, spikes occur in non-signatory states and ongoing conflicts, with 2023's increase driven by such regions.^[158]

Long-Term Economic and Health Effects

Anti-personnel mine injuries frequently result in severe trauma, including limb amputations, which impose lifelong health burdens on survivors through repeated surgeries, prosthetic fittings, and chronic pain management.^[159] In the 1990s, global landmine casualties peaked at around 26,000 killed or injured annually, with a majority suffering permanent disabilities that require ongoing medical intervention.^[160] Treatment costs for amputees vary by country but often exceed several thousand dollars per individual for initial care and prosthetics, escalating with lifetime rehabilitation needs.^[161] Economically, mine contamination renders vast areas unusable for agriculture and infrastructure, leading to sustained productivity losses. In Croatia, landmines have caused an estimated annual net loss of $230 million to the agricultural sector by making land unsuitable for cultivation.^[109] Clearance operations to mitigate these effects typically cost between $0.50 and $3 per square meter, depending on terrain and density, representing a substantial investment to restore economic viability.^[162]^[163] Globally, such contamination hinders development, with recent assessments in affected regions like Ukraine indicating annual GDP drags in the billions due to restricted land access and impeded growth.^[164]

Psychological and Community Consequences

Landmine contamination instills pervasive fear among affected populations, leading to widespread avoidance of potentially hazardous areas and resulting in significant behavioral changes. In regions like Iraq, community members in or near contaminated zones report dominant feelings of insecurity, which restrict routine activities such as farming, foraging, and travel, thereby disrupting daily survival and economic opportunities.^[165] Similarly, in Afghanistan, the psychological risks from unexploded ordnance limit safe access to livelihoods, exacerbating family vulnerabilities and hindering post-conflict recovery.^[166] This fear manifests in reduced mobility and social isolation, with surveys and reports indicating that populations in mine-affected areas curtail movement to minimize perceived risks, often abandoning villages entirely. Human Rights Watch documented cases in the early 1990s where fear of landmines prompted wholesale desertion of communities, stifling migration, trade, and agricultural use of land.^[167] In Afghanistan, prior to clearance efforts, parental concerns over mine threats prevented children from attending school, further entrenching educational and developmental disruptions.^[168] Survivors of anti-personnel mine blasts experience profound psychological trauma, including high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, often compounded by physical disabilities. A study of child and adolescent survivors in mine-affected regions found elevated PTSD prevalence linked to amputation and impaired daily functioning, highlighting the causal role of injury severity in mental health deterioration.^[169] In Bosnia-Herzegovina, two decades post-conflict, civilian landmine victims reported persistent anxiety and depression alongside multiple surgeries, underscoring long-term emotional burdens.^[170] Comorbidity of anxiety and depression is common, as evidenced in global reviews of explosive remnants impacts.^[171] Community-level consequences include stigma and social rejection of disabled survivors, which erode social cohesion and reintegration. In Cambodia, landmine victims face stigmatization, relationship difficulties, and unemployment, amplifying individual suffering into broader familial and communal strains.^[172] Factors exacerbating PTSD risks, such as prolonged stress exposure and lack of social support, further isolate survivors within their communities, as noted in analyses of mine-related psychiatric impacts.^[173] These dynamics perpetuate cycles of dependency and marginalization, distinct from physical health effects.

Debates and Future Directions

Indiscriminacy Claims vs. Defensive Value

Humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), assert that anti-personnel mines function as indiscriminate weapons, incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians, with their civilian harm far exceeding any marginal military benefits.^[27] The ICRC's 1996 study, drawing on field observations from conflicts in over 20 countries, concluded that mines' persistent effects post-hostilities amplify civilian risks, rendering their tactical value negligible against the backdrop of thousands of annual injuries, predominantly among non-combatants in contaminated areas.^[27] Similarly, reports from groups like Human Rights Watch emphasize mines' incompatibility with international humanitarian law due to uncontrollable blast radii and failure rates, which lead to unintended detonations affecting passersby long after deployment.^[174] In contrast, empirical data from active theaters reveal that during ongoing hostilities, anti-personnel mines inflict casualties disproportionately on military forces advancing or maneuvering through defended areas, with overall landmine victim tallies in 2022 showing elevated military impacts amid conflicts like those in Ukraine and Syria, where fresh deployments target enemy infantry.^[174] ^[139] Military doctrine underscores this selective effect when mines are emplaced in predictable, marked defensive belts, channeling attackers into kill zones while minimizing stray civilian exposure in controlled zones; for instance, U.S. Army analyses identify four core roles—inflicting personnel losses, impeding mine clearance, terrain denial, and perimeter security—that enhance force multipliers without requiring indiscriminate scattering.^[5] Defensive applications further highlight strategic value over purported indiscriminacy, as seen in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), where approximately 380,000 anti-personnel mines since the 1953 armistice have fortified a 250 km barrier, deterring North Korean incursions and obviating the need for denser troop deployments that could escalate to full-scale war.^[87] ^[175] This deterrence has preserved relative stability for seven decades, with mine-related civilian incidents rare due to strict border demarcations and signage, arguably averting casualties from hypothetical invasions that could claim millions; military assessments affirm such fixed fields amplify defensive efficiency, reducing required manpower by channeling and attriting aggressors predictably.^[87] ^[5] Critics from NGOs like the ICRC maintain that even defensive utility fails to justify risks, citing global data where 85% of 2022 casualties were civilians, often from legacy fields, and arguing no reliable command-detonation or marking mitigates long-term hazards.^[174] ^[27] Proponents, including tactical evaluations from defense think tanks, counter that these statistics conflate wartime precision with postwar abandonment, emphasizing mines' proven role in asymmetric defenses against numerically superior foes, as in potential Korean or Eastern European scenarios, where they provide causal leverage by imposing high costs on offensives without equivalent alternatives.^[5] ^[176] Such analyses, grounded in operational simulations, prioritize verifiable deterrence outcomes over aggregated humanitarian tallies that include non-defensive misuse by non-state actors.^[87]

Innovation and Alternatives

Research into enhancing anti-personnel mines has emphasized self-destruct and self-deactivation fuzes to mitigate unexploded ordnance risks. United States policy since 1991 mandates that all newly acquired anti-personnel mines incorporate self-destruct mechanisms, typically activating between 4 hours and 15 days after deployment, combined with self-deactivation features like electronic failures after 120 days for remotely delivered variants.^[177]^[178] These innovations, tested extensively in the 1990s, demonstrated reliabilities exceeding 90% in laboratory and simulated field conditions, though operational degradation occurs in environments like sand, vegetation, or slopes due to environmental interference with fuze electronics.^[179]^[28] Despite these advancements, self-destruct fuzes do not achieve perfect reliability, with residual dud rates necessitating ongoing demining efforts, as evidenced by post-conflict clearance data where 1-10% of equipped mines fail to detonate as designed.^[28] Non-signatories to the Ottawa Convention, such as the U.S., have continued limited development of such "smart" fuzes under domestic doctrines prioritizing defensive utility, but international norms have curtailed broader patenting and commercialization of persistent mine technologies.^[180] Military alternatives to anti-personnel mines include networked sensor-effector systems like the U.S. XM7 Spider, deployed since the early 2000s, which uses tripwires, motion detectors, and command-detonated munitions for controlled area denial without self-initiated blasts.^[181] These substitutes offer discriminate targeting via remote activation but incur higher costs—estimated at 5-10 times that of traditional mines—and demand batteries, communications infrastructure, and personnel for setup and monitoring, reducing their passivity compared to unattended ground sensors.^[182] Other options, such as reinforced barriers, concertina wire, or direct-fire infantry tactics, provide non-munition denial but lack scalability in expansive theaters, as demonstrated in NATO doctrinal studies favoring hybrid approaches over full replacement.^[27] Feasibility assessments indicate that while self-destruct innovations address humanitarian concerns partially, alternatives prioritize operational control at the expense of cost-efficiency and endurance; U.S. Army evaluations from 2003 concluded no single substitute fully replicates the low-resource, persistent denial of anti-personnel mines without trade-offs in reliability or logistics.^[182] The Ottawa Convention's production bans on signatory states—164 as of 2024—have shifted R&D toward detection technologies rather than mine improvements, potentially constraining defensive innovations for non-participants facing asymmetric threats.^[183]

Recent Policy Developments

In November 2024, the United States reversed its self-imposed restrictions on anti-personnel mine transfers by approving the supply of such munitions to Ukraine, marking the first such export in decades and diverging from a 2022 policy that prohibited transfers outside the Korean Peninsula.^[184]^[40] This decision, announced on November 20, responded to intensified Russian advances and Ukraine's defensive requirements along contested fronts.^[130] A subsequent transfer in December 2024 further underscored the shift amid ongoing conflict dynamics.^[185] Poland formalized its withdrawal from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (Ottawa Treaty) on July 25, 2025, when President Andrzej Duda signed the bill into law, following parliamentary approval earlier that month.^[186] This action, driven by perceived threats from Russia and Belarus, enabled Poland to reintegrate anti-personnel mines into its arsenal for border defenses.^[187] Similar moves occurred among NATO's eastern members, with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania denouncing the treaty in 2025, citing inadequate deterrence against potential Russian incursions; these withdrawals, recommended by defense ministers in March 2025, reflected coordinated efforts to bolster fortifications on the alliance's flank.^[188]^[189] EU and NATO discussions in 2024–2025 highlighted tensions between humanitarian commitments and security imperatives, with eastern states advocating mine deployment for static defenses amid Russian hybrid threats, while western members upheld treaty adherence.^[190] Global stockpile destruction under the convention progressed unevenly, as evidenced by 2025 intersessional meetings focusing on compliance shortfalls and universalization challenges, with non-signatories like Russia continuing production and use, stalling broader elimination goals.^[191] These developments signal a resurgence in defensive mine advocacy, contrasting persistent calls for 2025 mine-free targets that remain unachieved due to geopolitical escalations.^[192]

References

[1]
anti-personnel mine - UNTERM
Definition. A mine designed to wound, kill or otherwise incapacitate personnel. · Remark. These small, inexpensive munitions are designed to be detonated, inter ...
[2]
Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act
1 Anti-personnel mine means a mine designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or ...Interpretation · Prohibitions · Destruction of Anti-personnel... · Inspections
[3]
Hidden Killers 1994: The Global Landmine Crisis - State Department
Antipersonnel (A/P) mines were developed to impede the removal of antitank (A/T) mines and to prevent enemy penetration of protective minefields. On the offense ...<|separator|>
[4]
Cluster Munitions and Anti-Personnel Land Mines: An Explainer
Mar 28, 2025 · Blast mines are pressure-activated mines that explode when stepped upon or otherwise disturbed. For instance, the Russian PMN-4 is an anti- ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[5]
[PDF] Antipersonnel Landmines - Do Their Costs Outweigh Their Benefits?
Jul 10, 2023 · Antitank mines, by themselves, are relatively easy for foot soldiers to either remove or destroy. Most antitank mines are either pressure or ...
[6]
[PDF] Anti-Personnel Mines - ICRC
In this article, which does not claim to be exhaustive, we shall review the different types of mines currently in use, their technology, the means of detecting ...
[7]
Hidden Killers 1994: The Global Landmine Crisis - State Department
Antipersonnel landmines pose an enduring threat to post- war reconstruction around the world. These weapons continue to take thousands of innocent civilian ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[8]
The Ottawa Convention: Signatories and States-Parties
Some key current and past producers and users of landmines, including the United States, China, India, Pakistan, and Russia, have not signed the treaty. The ...
[9]
https://www.statista.com/chart/31838/mine-ban-treaty-countries/
[10]
Russian Minefield Tactics Pose Challenge To Mobility - tradoc g2
Nov 13, 2024 · The Russian Army is laying minefields that are significantly larger and, therefore, more challenging to breach than what has been seen in Ukraine since Russia ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[11]
The Origins of Military Mines: Part I
Early Obstacles Caltrops were used as recently as the Korean Conflict, when the U.S. Air Force dropped them on Chinese convoys to puncture tires. The U.S. also ...
[12]
Birth of the landmine | National Museum of American History
Aug 9, 2016 · This soldier witnessed the first use of a mechanical landmine in battle and its triumph as a new and deadly weapon of war.
[13]
Mine Warfare in the Civil War - The Army Historical Foundation
Torpedoes, weapons better known as mines today, form a little-known albeit important part of Civil War history.
[14]
Why was there relatively little use of land mines in WW1?
Jun 23, 2023 · Antipersonnel mines were initially developed to protect antitank mines and stop them being removed by enemy soldiers. They were used defensively ...
[15]
A History of Landmines - ICBLCMC
Sep 2, 2023 · Antipersonnel mines were initially developed to protect antitank mines and stop them being removed by enemy soldiers. They were used defensively ...
[16]
How Many People Died in World War I? - History.com
Apr 19, 2023 · 9.7 million military personnel from more than two dozen nations lost their lives, plus more than 6.8 million civilians who died from causes such as starvation ...Missing: anti- mines
[17]
German S-mine was Shrouded in Secrecy - - Military Historia
Jan 17, 2024 · The S-mine was a German anti-personnel mine widely used during World War II, particularly effective in open areas against unprotected infantry.
[18]
The Story Behind the Scary 'Bouncing Betty' S-Mine
Apr 23, 2021 · They were built from 1935 all the way till the wars end in 1945, with almost 2 million being made in total. A German ...
[19]
PMD series mines - Wikipedia
The PMD-6, PMD-7 and PMD-57 series mines are Soviet Union blast-type anti-personnel mines that consist of a wooden box with a hinged lid with a slot cut into ...
[20]
The Teller Mine and other German WWII Land Mines
The French nicknamed the mine “the silent soldier.” Germany used the S-mine heavily during defensive operations later in the war.
[21]
[PDF] ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES – DO THEIR COSTS OUTWEIGH ...
Jul 4, 2003 · The Siegfried Line was built using several obstacles, of which the landmine (antitank and antipersonnel) played a significant part. Although the ...
[22]
[PDF] The Siegfried Line Campaign - GovInfo
To many an Allied soldier and officer and to countless armchair strategists,. World War II in Europe appeared near an end when in late summer ...<|separator|>
[23]
the Production of Antipersonnel Mines - Human Rights Watch
The US currently has a stockpile of 15 million antipersonnel mines, although three million older mines are scheduled to be destroyed by the end of 1999.
[24]
PFM-1 Anti-Personnel Mine - Military Factory
Mar 29, 2023 · Initial use was in the Soviet-Afghan War where the mine's green bodies were easily noticeable against the dry, desert environment of the Afghan ...<|separator|>
[25]
How the Claymore Mine changed the battlefield forever
Oct 5, 2023 · Designed to strengthen defensive perimeters and ambush bad guys, the claymore mine became infamous during the Vietnam War.<|separator|>
[26]
How Did Land Mine Warfare Work in Vietnam? - HistoryNet
Nov 15, 2023 · Anti-personnel mines used a combination of blast and fragmentation effects. Most anti-vehicular mines used blast effect. Land mines are most ...
[27]
Hidden Killers 1998: The Global Landmine Crisis - State Department
More than three decades of almost constant internal conflict have left Angola with one of the world's most serious landmine problems. Civil war has been the ...
[28]
[PDF] Anti-personnel landmines - Friend or Foe? - ICRC
This study examines the military case for continued use of these weapons in light of their employment in actual conflicts since 1940, whether by professional ...
[29]
[PDF] Anti-Personnel Landmines: A Force Multiplier or an Operational ...
May 18, 2001 · Abstract: Statistics reflect that an estimated 100 million anti-personnel landmines (APLs) left from previous wars remain active in at least ...<|separator|>
[30]
Landmines in Iraq: Questions and Answers (Human Rights Watch ...
The U.S. used 117,634 landmines in Iraq and Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. Of these, 27,967 were antipersonnel mines and 89,667 were antivehicle mines. U.S. ...
[31]
Iraq - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor
Apr 11, 2025 · Legacy mined areas account for most known antipersonnel mine contamination in Iraq and are the result of the 1980–1988 war with Iran, the 1991 ...Missing: 1990 | Show results with:1990<|separator|>
[32]
Number of land mine victims in Kosovo is high - PMC - NIH
An estimated 150 people were maimed or killed by explosions of mines or unexploded ordnance in Kosovo. This corresponds to a monthly incidence rate of 10 per ...
[33]
Post-War Kosovo Becomes Hub for Mine-Clearance Expertise
Mar 9, 2020 · A training centre in Kosovo is teaching deminers to remove explosives in other conflict-ravaged countries around the world.
[34]
Syria: Landmines, Explosive Remnants Harming Civilians
Apr 8, 2025 · Between 2011 and December 2024, Syrian government forces, its allies, and armed opposition groups used antipersonnel landmines, cluster ...Missing: personnel | Show results with:personnel
[35]
A new landmine crisis in the Middle East - Syrian Arab Republic
May 28, 2025 · Conventional anti-personnel (AP) and anti-tank (AT) mines were extensively laid around military positions, fluctuating frontlines and along ...
[36]
Landmines in Syria kill hundreds of civilians returning home after fall ...
Mar 17, 2025 · More than 200 people, including women and children, have been killed in Syria in incidents involving war remnants in the three months since the fall of the ...Missing: personnel | Show results with:personnel
[37]
New Russian Land Mine Poses Special Risk in Ukraine
Apr 6, 2022 · The sophisticated POM-3 mine was discovered last week by Ukrainian bomb technicians, as Russia contaminates much of the country with unexploded munitions.
[38]
Two years after the Russian invasion, land mines plague one-third ...
Feb 20, 2024 · Russian forces in Ukraine have deployed a deadly new type of anti-personnel mine, known as the POM-3, which is designed to detonate when someone ...
[39]
Landmine Use in Ukraine | Human Rights Watch
Jun 13, 2023 · This background briefing surveys the types of landmines used in Ukraine since the full-scale Russian invasion began on February 24, 2022.Missing: history | Show results with:history<|separator|>
[40]
Biden Agrees to Supply Ukraine With Anti-Personnel Mines
Nov 20, 2024 · The Biden administration has approved supplying Ukraine with American anti-personnel mines to bolster defenses against Russian attacks.
[41]
Biden approves antipersonnel mines for Ukraine, undoing his own ...
Nov 19, 2024 · Biden in 2022 revived an Obama-era policy that banned the transfer and use of U.S. antipersonnel land mines outside the Korean Peninsula.
[42]
Parliament approves Poland's withdrawal from international anti ...
Jun 26, 2025 · Poland's parliament has approved a proposal by the government to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, which commits signatories to eliminate the use of anti- ...Missing: consideration | Show results with:consideration
[43]
Poland and Baltics to quit landmine treaty over Russia fears - BBC
Mar 18, 2025 · Poland and the Baltic states have announced plans to withdraw from a key international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, citing the ...
[44]
Which countries are quitting a key landmine treaty and why? - Reuters
Jun 30, 2025 · Ukraine has joined other countries bordering Russia in signalling that it will withdraw from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines.
[45]
How Landmines Work - Science | HowStuffWorks
Nov 22, 2023 · Blast - A blast antipersonnel mine is buried no deeper than a few centimeters and generally triggered by someone stepping on the pressure plate.Missing: PMN | Show results with:PMN
[46]
[PDF] Blast Mines: Physics, Injury Mechanisms And Vehicle Protection.
Detonation of an AV mine causes an explosive, exothermic reaction which results in the formation of a shockwave followed by a rapid expansion of gases. The ...
[47]
Pmn landmine - CAT-UXO
This is the Russian PMN (ПМН), a High-Explosive-Blast (HE-Blast), Delay (DLY) armed, pressure-actuated, circular, bakelite-bodied, Anti-Personnel (AP), ...Missing: definition M14 activation injury
[48]
doc-58-pmn-mines-FP - 55 Field Surgical Team RAMC
The PMN series of blast anti-personnel mines were designed and manufactured in the Soviet Union. They are one of the most widely used and commonly found devices ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[49]
CISR: Munitions Reference Guide - JMU
43 Riegel mine is an obsolete bar mine used extensively during World War II. The mine consists of a steel tray containing two shear wires and two main fuzes ...
[50]
8 Not-So-Fun Facts About Landmines (and 3 More Hopeful Ones)
History of Landmines. Most modern types of anti-personnel landmines have been in use since World War II. However, similar devices have been used in armed ...
[51]
Anti-landmines Campaign: Not Much Success So Far!
Jul 1, 1996 · The average mine costs only about $3. An anti-personnel mine can cost as little as 50 cents, while the anti-tank mines cost $30-$40 and can ...
[52]
[PDF] LANDMINES, EXPLOSIVE REMNANTS OF WAR AND IED SAFETY ...
Design variations mean that the number, size and distribution of fragments vary widely, but a typical bounding mine is likely to be lethal within 25 metres and ...
[53]
POMZ-2M Russian Anti-Personnel Mine - OE Data Integration Network
Mar 24, 2025 · The POMZ-2M is a stake-mounted anti-personnel fragmentation mine made in the former Soviet Union. The body of the mine is a cast-iron thick-walled tube.Missing: specifications historical
[54]
[PDF] IDENTIFICATION GUIDE - Bulletpicker
Jul 30, 2025 · Stake mines for antipersonnel missions were developed during. World War II by the Soviets and copied from them by the Ger- mans. The Soviet POMZ ...
[55]
S mine 35 landmine - CAT-UXO
This is the German S-Mine-35 (Schrapnellmine, Springmine or Splittermine), a High-Explosive-Fragmentation (HE-Frag), Anti-Personnel (AP), bounding, landmine ...Missing: WWII details
[56]
M18 Claymore
Jan 5, 1999 · The forward danger radius for friendly forces is 250 meters. The backblast area is unsafe in unprotected areas 16 meters to the rear and sides ...
[57]
BLU-92/B GATOR antipersonnel (AP) - GlobalSecurity.org
Jul 7, 2011 · The BLU-92/B GATOR is a circular plastic bodied A pers mine which is designed to wound or kill by fragmentation.Missing: personnel | Show results with:personnel
[58]
Blu 92 landmine - CAT-UXO
The landmine was 1 of the early components of the American Family-of-Scatterable-Mines (FASCAM) and came into service in the early 80's, designed for delivery ...
[59]
[PDF] Booby-traps and Anti-handling Devices: - COMMON TACTICS
Booby-traps use bait to lure victims to perform actions with hidden explosives. Anti-handling devices, like grenades, are used to prevent neutralization of ...
[60]
[PDF] FM 20-32 W CH 1-4 MINE/COUNTERMINE OPERATIONS
Field Manual (FM) 20-32 provides United States (US) armed forces with tactical, technical, and procedural guidance for conducting mine and countermine ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[61]
EXPOSING THE SOURCE - Human Rights Watch
The Navy's CBU-78/B shell contains fifteen BLU-92/B antipersonnel and forty-five BLU-91/B antitank Gator mines. Each Air Force CBU-89/B contains twenty-two ...
[62]
Chapter 14 Fuzing
The quality required of fuze designs is usually specified by two values: functional re-liability, which ranges typically from 0.95 to 0.99 for complex missile ...
[63]
Landmines - CAT-UXO
The M14-LM and M14E1 are non-metallic, pressure-actuated, HE-Blast, AP landmines that use an integral fuze with a steel Firing-Pin (FP). The top of the landmine ...
[64]
[PDF] TM 9-1940 Land Mines - The Sherman Tank Site
(2) FUZE, mine, antipersonnel, M3 (fig. 14), consists of a special blasting cap (U. s. Army blasting cap, type A) crimped to the. Combination Firing ...
[65]
US4202269A - Fuze mine anti-personnel - Google Patents
With minor modification, the fuze will also provide a suitable fuzing mechanism for a pressure-release type booby trap. Accordingly, it is a primary object of ...
[66]
Explosives - Compounds - GlobalSecurity.org
Jul 7, 2011 · Comp B explosives are made from TNT, RDX, and wax, such as 59.5 percent RDX, 39.5 percent TNT and 1 percent wax. Desensitizing agents are added.
[67]
Explosive content of mines - Humanitarian Mine Action
Valmara 69 (AP Fragmentation, 420g Composition B, Italy); PMOM-1 (AP Fragmentation, 425g TNT/RDX 50:50, Former Yugoslavia); MON-50 (AP fragmentation, 700g (PVV ...
[68]
Valmara 69 landmine - CAT-UXO
This is the Italian Valmara 69 (V-69), a High-Explosive Fragmentation (HE-Frag), cylindrical, plastic-bodied, Anti-Personnel (AP), bounding landmine.
[69]
Mines VALMARA 69
An inner casing is packed with fragments of chopped steel. The plastic outer case is usually green or sand coloured. Height: 205mm. Diameter: 130mm. Main ...
[70]
Are landmines waterproof? - Quora
Jul 3, 2022 · They are water resistant not waterproof. They will eventually absorb water and let water through.Missing: longevity | Show results with:longevity
[71]
Landmines - All You Never Wanted to Know - SJH Projects
Oct 31, 2019 · They are the ones mostly responsible for lower limb injuries and amputations. The charge size spans from the Russian PMN at 240g explosive ...
[72]
Blast-related fracture patterns: a forensic biomechanical approach
Dec 1, 2010 · Upon detonation of an anti-personnel mine (a), a blast wave is transmitted to the limb causing a brissance effect on the bones (b). Some 1–2 ...
[73]
Pathophysiology of Blast Injury and Overview of Experimental Data
When the incident overpressure wave (the initial shock wave that brings a sudden increase in atmospheric pressure) is transmitted through the body, it increases ...Missing: radius | Show results with:radius
[74]
Bombs, Mines, Blast, Fragmentation, and Thermobaric Mechanisms ...
Bombs, Mines, Blast, Fragmentation, and Thermobaric Mechanisms of Injury ... Five years on: Anti-personnel mines reman a constant threat for millions.
[75]
[PDF] Evaluation of a Silent Killer, the PMN Anti-Personnel Blast Mine - DTIC
The PMN mine was developed in the early 1960s by the former Soviet Union. Countries including China and Hungary produced similar clones. Its large explosive.Missing: cost | Show results with:cost
[76]
M14 and M16 Anti-Personnel (AP) Mines - GlobalSecurity.org
Jul 7, 2011 · The casualty radius is 27 meters for the M16 and M16A1 and 30 meters for the M16A2. A pressure of 3.6 to 9 kilograms applied on one or more of ...
[77]
Injuries from antipersonnel mines: the experience of the ...
The lower limb is injured but there is less chance of traumatic amputation or subsequent surgical amputation. Injuries to the head, neck, chest, or abdomen are ...
[78]
Physical Surrogate Leg to Evaluate Blast Mine Injury
The predicted leg injuries from experimental blast testing were in agreement with injury data for unprotected and protected legs. Post-test examination was ...
[79]
part one. mine operations - GlobalSecurity.org
The area density is 0.005 mine per square meter (100 mines/[200 meters x 100 meters]). Area density is normally used to express the density of scatterable ...
[80]
FM 20-32 CHAPTER 3 - GlobalSecurity.org
- AP area density: 132 (200 x 650) = 0.001 mine per square meter. Linear density: 564 650 = 0.87 mine per meter.
[81]
Threat Mine Operations - GlobalSecurity.org
Armored tracked mine layers known as GMZs ( Figure B-1 ) dispense mines at a predetermined spacing of 5.5 meters. Three GMZs can lay a 1,200-meter, three-row ...<|separator|>
[82]
Chapter: Appendix C: Current Types of US Landmines
This appendix provides descriptions of currently available antipersonnel landmines (APL) and some antitank (AT) mines that are part of mixed systems.Missing: subtypes stake- examples specifications
[83]
Latest US Aid Package for Ukraine Probably Includes ADAM Anti ...
Nov 25, 2024 · The ADAM was one of the US “family of scatterable mines (FASCAM)” that were designed in the 1980s and included six different types of ...<|separator|>
[84]
Common anti-personnel mines - Fourmilab
... antipersonnel mine is a rudimentary pressure-activated blast device in a wooden box. ... mine contains 700 steel balls and can kill targets up to 50 metres away.Missing: meters | Show results with:meters<|control11|><|separator|>
[85]
German Minefields at Alamein. (October - November, 1942)
4. MINE BELTS. These are usually 2 to h rows of mines deep, laid to a simple pattern by pacing, and at about 1 mine per 2 yard front. 2 mines per yard front is ...
[86]
The Claymore vs. the M14 mine in Vietnam - Warfare History Network
In Vietnam, it was proven effective against communist infiltrators, concentrations of enemy troops, and even light vehicles. More than 10,000 Claymore mines ...
[87]
Chapter: 3 Current Uses of Antipersonnel Landmines
Today's nonself-destructing mines are simple, reliable, low-cost weapons that can operate in all weather conditions, provide deterrence through fear, and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[88]
[PDF] Landmines: Why the Korea Exception Should Be the Rule
Feb 8, 2020 · This barrier system serves as a significant deterrent to any North Korean attack. Long-duration active mines along the. DMZ help deter the ...
[89]
[PDF] A Different Kind of War - Army University Press
Beginning with a description of the suc- cessful offensive against the Taliban regime, launched in late 2001 in response to the attacks of. 9/11, the book then ...
[90]
[PDF] Mines and Underwater IEDs in U.S. Ports and Waterways
maritime homeland security.1 The smuggling of drugs, arms, and people; vesselborne improvised explosive devices, like that used by terrorists against the.
[91]
World Report 2021: Afghanistan | Human Rights Watch
The Taliban's widespread use of pressure-plate IEDs, which function as banned anti-personnel mines, killed and injured hundreds of civilians using public ...
[92]
Taliban employs double bomb tactic used in Ulster and Iraq
Jul 12, 2009 · The attack was the most deadly to be launched by the Taliban against British troops in Helmand. It was caused by a "daisy chain" bomb.Missing: blasts anti- personnel
[93]
U.S. Policies and Actions Aim to Counter Improvised Explosive ...
Jul 17, 2017 · Non-state armed groups such as ISIS and the Taliban often use IEDs to destabilize peace operations and terrorize civilian populations in Iraq, ...Missing: mines | Show results with:mines
[94]
How the IED Won: Dispelling the Myth of Tactical Success and ...
May 1, 2017 · 60 percent of all American fatalities in Iraq and half of all American fatalities in Afghanistan, more than 3,500 in total, were caused by IEDs.Missing: prevalence statistics
[95]
The Enduring IED Problem: Why We Need Doctrine - NDU Press
Jan 1, 2016 · As the Services and joint force update their doctrine after nearly a decade and a half of counter–improvised explosive device (IED) ...
[96]
[PDF] The Human and Financial Costs of the Explosive Remnants of War ...
Sep 19, 2019 · This period was dominated not by landmines, but by extensive ERW contamination and eventually widespread use of IEDs by insurgent groups.
[97]
Metal Detectors | Landmines & IEDs - VALLON GmbH
Our detectors enable the reliable location of landmines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), submunitions, and unexploded ordnance (UXO), even under ...VMR3 Minehound Dual... · VMX10 – Large Loop Metal... · VMH3CS · MW1630B
[98]
[PDF] Detection Technologies for Anti-Personnel Mines
- Low cost (<$500). - Reliability above 98%. - False alarms below 20%. - Response time 0.1 second (scanning speed above 1m/s when there is no mine).Missing: fuzes | Show results with:fuzes
[99]
Detection of landmines using ground-penetrating radar
A promising alternative to metal detector technology is given by GPR systems. These have the potential to detect low- and non-metallic landmines and can be used ...
[100]
[PDF] Mine Detection Dogs - GICHD
The Centre is active in research, provides operational assistance and supports the implementation of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Page 4. iii.
[101]
Infrared Thermography for Land Mine Detection - SpringerLink
This chapter introduces the application of infrared (IR) thermography in land mine detection. IR thermography in general and for remotely detecting buried ...
[102]
Deep Learning-Based Real-Time Detection of Surface Landmines ...
According to Table 4, the YOLOv8-nano model exhibited high precision in identifying “butterfly” (97.69%) and “starfish” (99.4%) mines. However, the model showed ...
[103]
Land mine detection through GPR and EMI sensor fusion
In this paper, we develop a system to exploit sensor fusion for detecting and locating plastic A/P mines. We design and test the system using data from ...
[104]
Multi-Stage Sensor Fusion for Landmine Detection - ResearchGate
This paper proposes a multi-stage approach for landmine detection. It is based on a feature-level data fusion which combines data from several nonspecific ...
[105]
https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1701&context=cisr-journal
[106]
[PDF] Intelligent Robotic Behaviors for Landmine Detection and Marking
The ARC2 project will utilize the Foster-Miller Talon and the iRobot Packbot to develop and assess the new capabilities. Figure 8 shows the Cyterra. AN/PSS-14 ...
[107]
[PDF] PART 1 DEMINING - UNMAS
Oct 31, 2020 · Anti-Personnel Mines (APM) a mine designed to be exploded by the ... When operating a remote controlled clearance machine, from inside a protected ...
[108]
[PDF] Developing Technology for Humanitarian Landmine Clearing ...
Mar 26, 1997 · A typical mine clearing operation using a 2-person team of trained local personnel can clear between 20 and 50 square meters per day in average.Missing: efficiency | Show results with:efficiency<|separator|>
[109]
Fight against anti-personnel landmines continues in the face of ...
Nov 29, 2022 · In total, over 3,300km2 of mined area has been cleared globally and over 5 million anti-personnel mines destroyed. Fifty-five million mines ...
[110]
Geologically-Driven Migration of Landmines and Explosive ... - MDPI
Jun 14, 2023 · In Mozambique, anti-personnel landmines (remnants of the 1977–1990 civil war) were mobilized and displaced after heavy rains in 1999 and 2000.
[111]
Landmines in Mozambique: After the Floods - Human Rights Watch
Mar 28, 2000 · In one incident in August 1998, it was reported that 200 M14 antipersonnel mines had been swept away by rains. In April 1999, the ROK Joint ...
[112]
(PDF) Geologically-Driven Migration of Landmines and Explosive ...
Jun 6, 2023 · Possible processes by which a landmine or ERW may migrate because of a flood event. The outcome is likely to be influenced by the interaction ...
[113]
TM-E 30-451 Handbook on German Military Forces: Minefields: Tactics
When the Germans are in hasty withdrawal, they usually lay a large number of small nuisance minefields. These fields contain many different types of mines, ...
[114]
Minefields in mountains: when deminers face the greatest danger
Nov 7, 2021 · According to Project Masam, Houthis have left a trail of landmines in their retreat from various frontlines, including in the Karsh district, ...
[115]
New Frontlines and an Uncertain Future for Mine Clearance in ...
Mar 26, 2025 · New frontlines and funding cuts deepen risks for ex-combatants working in humanitarian mine clearance.Missing: shortfalls | Show results with:shortfalls
[116]
[PDF] Mine Action Funding: Trends, Modalities and Future Prospects
Donors have identified broader policy areas in which mine action has been integrated: humanitarian, post conflict recovery, fragile states, development.Missing: shortfalls | Show results with:shortfalls
[117]
Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction - UNTC
In accordance with its article 15, the Convention was opened for signature at Ottawa, Canada, by all States from 3 December 1997 until 4 December 1997, and ...
[118]
History and Text - Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
Signing of the Convention began on 3-4 December 1997 in Ottawa, Canada, remaining open until the Convention entered into force on 1 March 1999. For their ...
[119]
25th anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty - UNMAS
Signing of the Convention began on 3-4 December 1997 in Ottawa, Canada, remaining open until the Convention entered into force on 1 March 1999. For their ...
[120]
International Campaign to Ban Landmines – History - NobelPrize.org
ICBL was an important force behind the convention to ban antipersonel landmines signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by more than 120 countries. In 1997 the ...Missing: entry date
[121]
Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, 1997 - Article 1 - IHL Databases
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
[122]
[PDF] Text-OttawaConvention-eng.pdf - AP Mine Ban Convention
Each State Party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. Article 2.
[123]
Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention
Landmines come predominantly in two varieties: anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines. Both have caused great suffering in the past decades and continue to kill ...Missing: specialty variants
[124]
Membership | Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
States that have formally agreed to be bound by the Convention. Find below the list of States Parties with dates of formal signature of the Convention (when ...
[125]
Poland, Baltic states back away from land mine treaty - DW
Mar 21, 2025 · Before the treaty came into effect, there were about 50. More than 55 million antipersonnel mines have been officially destroyed from stockpiles ...
[126]
MAG statement on adherence to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban ...
Jul 8, 2025 · With its prohibitions on transfer and production, among others, the Ottawa Convention has also almost completely eliminated both the production ...<|separator|>
[127]
Meetings of the States Parties | Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
States Parties meet regularly to consider the implementation of the Convention. The next meeting is December 1-5, 2025 in Geneva. Past meetings have been in ...
[128]
CISR: Landmine Facts - JMU
Non-signatories stockpile approximately 50 million anti-personnel mines, the majority of which belong to Russia, Pakistan, China, India, and the United States ...Missing: percentage | Show results with:percentage
[129]
U.S. Anti-Personnel Landmine Use Policy - Congress.gov
Dec 9, 2024 · The convention requires States Parties to stop the production, use, and transfer of APLs, as well as to destroy all stockpiled APLs, except for ...Missing: M14 | Show results with:M14
[130]
Mine Ban Policy - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor
Nov 6, 2024 · Upon making the 2022 policy announcement, US officials confirmed that the last US use of antipersonnel mines was in Iraq and Kuwait during the ...
[131]
Biden administration approves sending anti-personnel mines ... - CNN
Nov 20, 2024 · The Biden administration has approved sending anti-personnel mines to Ukraine for the first time in another major policy shift.
[132]
Q&A: US Antipersonnel Landmine Transfers | Human Rights Watch
Dec 13, 2024 · On November 20, 2024, the administration of United States President Joe Biden announced the transfer of antipersonnel landmines to Ukraine, reversing a ...
[133]
Landmine Monitor 2019 - World | ReliefWeb
Nov 21, 2019 · In 1999, all states collectively (both treaty signatories and non-signatories) stockpiled about 160 million antipersonnel mines. Today, the ...
[134]
[PDF] BANNING ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES - THE OTTAWA TREATY ...
2.5.3 Resolving doubts about compliance. Another mechanism established by the Ottawa treaty to promote confidence in its implementation is an enquiry process to ...
[135]
Mine Ban Policy - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor
POM-2 and POM-2R mines are stockpiled by Russia, Ukraine destroyed its stocks of this mine in 2018. POM-3. Russia. Fragmentation. Seismic. Used only by Russia, ...Missing: 2022-2025 | Show results with:2022-2025
[136]
Five European States Withdraw from Mine Ban Treaty
Jul 1, 2025 · The Mine Ban Treaty, which entered into force on March 1, 1999, comprehensively prohibits antipersonnel mines and requires countries to destroy ...
[137]
Tentative Remarks on Ukraine's Suspension of the Ottawa Convention
Oct 8, 2025 · Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' June 29 statement cites Russian aggression, stressing the extensive use “of anti-personnel mines as a ...
[138]
[PDF] UKRAINE/RUSSIA: THE USE OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES IN ...
Jul 26, 2024 · While both civilians and Ukrainian military personnel may have been the intended target of the PFM-1 mines, this case is emblematic of how the ...
[139]
Ukraine: Banned Landmines Harm Civilians - Human Rights Watch
Jan 31, 2023 · Human Rights Watch has documented Russia's use of other kinds of antipersonnel mines in Ukraine but has not verified claims of Russian forces ...
[140]
[PDF] Landmine Monitor 2024 - ICBLCMC
Nov 25, 2024 · They must destroy all stockpiled antipersonnel mines within four years and clear all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under their ...<|separator|>
[141]
Assessing the Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Convention Withdrawals
Mar 27, 2025 · This post reviews the Ottawa Convention, States' withdrawal approaches, and military factors shaping landmine and war policies.
[142]
Falklands cleared of nearly all landmines, 38 years on from war
Nov 11, 2020 · The removal of the mines laid during the conflict with Argentina means the UK has met its obligations under the anti-personnel mine ban ...
[143]
Progress in Removing Argentine Mines from the Falkland Islands
The Argentines are believed to have laid up to 25,000 anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines in the Falkland Islands during the 1982 conflict but, since the ...
[144]
How Much Do Weapons Cost? From The Smallest Land Mine To ...
Jun 28, 2024 · We look at the numbers, from the smallest land mine to the largest missile system. Mine $3-$30 Grenade $45 Helmets $150-$200 Kamikaze Drone $200-$300
[145]
Clearing the Path: Innovating Solutions for a Landmine-Free Future
Mar 25, 2024 · Due to their low production cost (ranging from $3 to $75 each), those who deploy them can easily manufacture large quantities. However, ...Missing: blast | Show results with:blast
[146]
[PDF] goalie without a mask? the effect of the anti-personnel landmine ban ...
US mine warfare doctrine identifies two types of tactical ... mines to be effective, the anti-personnel mine ban will not diminish mine warfare's ability.Missing: declassified | Show results with:declassified
[147]
[PDF] The Making of a US Policy on Anti-Personnel Landmines. - DTIC
May 16, 2025 · The landmine proved an effective weapon system for the Viet Cong as well as the Peoples Army of Vietnam, and estimates of US personnel killed by ...
[148]
[PDF] Assessing the Effectiveness of Conventional Weapons
Data from the Korean War tell a similar story: 37% of survivors with land-mine injuries were evacuated to CONUS, and about one-half of those evacuated were ...
[149]
European countries are now turning to landmines to create new ...
Oct 3, 2025 · Minefields have proved very effective as a defensive tool in the current Ukraine war because of their ability to disrupt enemy assaults. This ...
[150]
Anti-Tank Mines Relevant, as Seen in Russia-Ukraine War - AUSA
Feb 28, 2025 · The fear of encountering mines can slow an enemy's advance, increase caution and force the enemy to divert resources to mine-clearing operations ...
[151]
Anti-Personnel Landmines: Friend or Foe? A Study of the Military ...
Jun 9, 2020 · His study examines the military case for continued use of anti-personnel landmines. Mines employed in conflicts since 1940, whether by professional armies, by ...
[152]
Landmines - Reaching Critical Will
Cheap and easy to make, landmine production costs are around $1, yet once delivered it can cost more than $1,000 to find and destroy a landmine. 13 countries ...Missing: blast | Show results with:blast<|separator|>
[153]
[PDF] Economics of Landmines and Demining - DTIC
Chapter IV provides an analysis of the economic impact of landmines and their cost implications. This chapter also suggests solutions to the landmine problem ...
[154]
[PDF] SYMPOSIUM OF MILITARY EXPERTS ON THE MILITARY UTILITY ...
Jan 12, 1994 · The AP mine is the most cost-effective system available to the military. The alternatives require more resources and are less effective. In ...
[155]
Landmines: 22% more victims in one year - World - ReliefWeb
Nov 20, 2024 · Published on 20 November, the Landmine Monitor 2024 reports at least 5,757 casualties, representing an increase of 22% from 2022 (4,709 ...
[156]
Landmines: New Casualties Show Need to Support Treaty Ban
Nov 19, 2024 · Civilians made up 84 percent of all recorded casualties in 2023, while children were 37 percent of casualties when the age was recorded. A total ...
[157]
A clear path to a landmine-free Angola? - MAG US
Over the past five years, more than 60 percent of the victims of the country's landmines have been children, the majority born after the war ended. Tepa ...Missing: post- casualties
[158]
Amid Global Instability, Upholding the Mine Ban Treaty is More ...
Mar 28, 2025 · The 1997 Ottawa Treaty has been instrumental in reducing landmine casualties from approximately 25,000 per year in 1999 to fewer than 5,000 in ...Missing: effect | Show results with:effect
[159]
Sharp rise recorded in landmine casualties in 2023, warns report
Nov 20, 2024 · The number of people killed or wounded worldwide by landmines and explosive remnants of war surged in 2023, according to a new report.Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[160]
Rehabilitation After Landmine Injury - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Landmine survivors may also suffer damage to the upper extremities, vision, and hearing. The incidence of acute and chronic pain among landmine survivors during ...
[161]
All Mine: The United States and the Ottawa Treaty
Dec 30, 2019 · Additionally, the Treaty has established meaningful mechanisms for compensation and rehabilitation for victims of landmines and their ...
[162]
Rehabilitation of landmine victims: the ultimate challenge
The medical costs of treatment, physical rehabilitation, and prosthetics to treat individuals with landmine amputations vary from country to country.
[163]
[PDF] 5. Manual Mine Clearance Costings and Sensitivity Analysis - GICHD
The generic MMAC model tests the common hypothesis that manual mine clearance costs “US$1 per square metre”.
[164]
[PDF] Mine Action Program - World Bank Documents & Reports
The Mine Action Program “is a broad set of efforts both to prevent and to address the problems caused by mines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants ...
[165]
Landmines cost Ukraine $11 bln in GDP each year, says report
Sep 10, 2024 · World Bank estimates $34.6 billion needed for demining. KYIV, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine loses more than $11 billion annually in gross ...
[166]
[PDF] No safe recovery: The impact of Explosive Ordnance contamination ...
“Fear has become a dominant feeling among many of the community members who live in or close to contaminated areas. They always feel insecure; no one feels safe ...
[167]
Six things to know about mine action in Afghanistan - OCHA
Nov 6, 2023 · They also pose mental and psychological risks arising from fear, and they limit safe access to livelihoods and income that aggravate families' ...
[168]
[PDF] LANDMINES LANDMINES - Human Rights Watch
Nov 12, 1992 · Fear of landmines has led to the wholesale desertion of ... community focuses only on the demining effort, the landmine crisis will never.
[169]
[PDF] An Evaluation of the Mine Action Programme of Afghanistan - UNMAS
Children who were not allowed to go to school out of fear of mines prior to clearance are now able to pursue their education again. Accessing healthcare and ...<|separator|>
[170]
Mental health disorders in child and adolescent survivors of ... - NIH
In the current study, the higher rate of PTSD indicated that amputation and disability in daily routine tasks cause a variety of mental disorders, especially ...
[171]
A survey of civilian survivors in Bosnia-Herzegovina 20 years after ...
The majority of civilian landmine survivors report adverse health effects due to their injuries, including anxiety, depression, multiple surgeries, and ...
[172]
Articles The effect of explosive remnants of war on global public health
May 18, 2017 · The direct psychological effects of landmines or UXO appear high. We identified comorbidity of anxiety and depression in landmine or UXO victims ...
[173]
The Psychosocial Effects of Landmines in Cambodia - jstor
Individual difficulty in relationships and daily functioning is considerable, and the landmine victim faces social stigmatization, rejection and unemployment.
[174]
[PDF] Psychological support and social reintegration for landmine survivors
Psychological and psychiatric impact of landmines. Risks for PTSD. • Intensity of the stress factors;. • Duration of the stress exposure;. • Absence of social ...<|separator|>
[175]
Landmine Monitor 2023: Current conflicts, long-lasting ...
Nov 14, 2023 · Factory-made antipersonnel mines accounted for 628 casualties. Explosive remnants of war account roughly for 20% of the casualties recorded by ...Missing: global | Show results with:global
[176]
[Feature] Tall order to transform DMZ minefields into peace zone
Oct 28, 2019 · “Approximately 380,000 anti-personnel mines are laid in the DMZ, and it is expected to take 15 years for South Korean troops to remove them on ...
[177]
The Disarmament Treaties Prohibiting Anti-Personnel Mines and ...
Apr 9, 2025 · Both anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions have real-world military utility (albeit at the tactical and not the strategic level).
[178]
[PDF] The Proliferation of Anti-Personnel Landmines & Why the United ...
remotely-delivered anti-personnel mines must self-destruct within 30 days and self-deactivate within 120 days. Page 39. 22. Ironically, the only solid ...
[179]
[PDF] Back in Business? U.S. Landmine Production and Exports
A self-destructing mine blows itself up after a set period of time, which for U.S. mines ranges from four hours to fifteen days. Both self-destructing and ...Missing: reliability post-
[180]
Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War
... anti-personnel land mines along with anti-tank land mines. (The Ottawa Convention permits use of mixed systems consisting of anti-tank land mines that have ...
[181]
Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines (2001)
In December 1997, 122 countries signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their ...Missing: patents | Show results with:patents
[182]
The US Military's Alternatives to Anti-Personnel and Persistent ...
Oct 14, 2011 · The US has produced two alternative systems, the XM7 Spider Network Command Munition Systems (Spider Systems) which replaces anti-personnel mines in the ...<|separator|>
[183]
[PDF] Alternatives to Anti-Personnel Landmines - DTIC
The study results have obvious military benefit, as they supply NATO with a thorough analysis of military characteristics and capabilities that are lost when ...
[184]
The Ottawa Convention at a Glance | Arms Control Association
The Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty seeks to end the use of anti-personnel landmines (APLs) worldwide.
[185]
U.S. to Supply Landmines to Ukraine - Arms Control Association
US President Joe Biden approved plans to supply Ukraine with anti-personnel landmines, changing his administration's policy barring such transfers.
[186]
ICBL Strongly Condemns Second US AP Mine Transfer to Ukraine
Dec 4, 2024 · Current US policy states it will “not export or transfer” antipersonnel mines and “not assist, encourage, or induce anyone, outside of the ...Missing: personnel | Show results with:personnel
[187]
Poland withdraws from international anti-landmine treaty amid ...
Jul 25, 2025 · Polish President Andrzej Duda has signed into law a bill formally withdrawing the country from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans the use of ...
[188]
Mine Ban Policy - Poland - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor
On 18 July 2025, the Polish Senate voted in favor of withdrawing from the treaty. The bill was approved by President Andrzej Duda on 23 July 2025. Article 20 of ...Missing: consideration | Show results with:consideration
[189]
Five NATO countries ditching anti-landmine treaty because of Russia
Jul 2, 2025 · NATO members Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are withdrawing from a treaty that banned anti-personnel landmines.
[190]
Embrace Poland and the Baltic States for Embracing Anti-Personnel ...
Jun 6, 2025 · On March 18, the defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland recommended the withdrawal of their states from the Ottawa Convention.
[191]
Anti-Personnel Mines Look Set to Return on Europe's Eastern Flank
Jul 16, 2025 · On June 26, the Polish Sejm overwhelmingly voted in favour of leaving the Ottawa Convention, also known as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, ...
[192]
Statements | Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
Stockpile Destruction. IM25 7b Stockpile destruction Greece20 June 2025 ... Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.
[193]
The Lasting Promise of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
Sep 29, 2025 · The Convention prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines, while obligating States Parties to clear ...