Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Demining

Demining is the coordinated process of detecting, identifying, evaluating, rendering safe, recovering, or disposing of explosive ordnance, including anti-personnel landmines, anti-vehicle mines, and unexploded remnants of war, to eliminate hazards and restore land for safe civilian use.^[1] Primarily a humanitarian endeavor distinct from rapid military breaching, demining prioritizes thorough clearance over speed to minimize risks to non-combatants and enable agriculture, infrastructure development, and return of displaced populations.^[2] Global efforts have cleared record areas, with 237 square kilometers of land released in 2023 through demining and related activities, destroying 192,563 anti-personnel mines, yet contamination persists across at least 58 countries and other areas, causing 5,757 casualties that year—a 22% increase from prior trends driven by conflicts in Ukraine, Myanmar, and Syria.^[3]^[4] Methods encompass manual probing with metal detectors and excavation tools, which remain foundational despite their labor intensity; mechanical systems like flail chains or tillers to detonate or expose devices; animal detection using dogs or rats for rapid screening; and technologies such as ground-penetrating radar or neutron detectors for enhanced precision.^[5]^[6]^[7] The 1997 Ottawa Treaty, ratified by 164 states, has accelerated demining by mandating stockpile destruction and clearance deadlines, contributing to a decline in annual casualties from about 25,000 in the late 1990s to under 5,000 recently, though non-signatories and recent withdrawals signal ongoing military utility debates and new contamination from improvised devices.^[8]^[9] Demining faces persistent challenges including high costs—often exceeding $2-5 per square meter for manual work—elevated risks to operators from undetected explosives, and the indefinite durability of buried ordnance, which can remain lethal for decades, hindering post-conflict recovery and imposing economic burdens through restricted land access.^[10]^[11]^[12]

History

Origins of Landmines and Initial Clearance Efforts

The earliest precursors to landmines appeared in the 13th century, when Chinese forces under the Song Dynasty buried explosive devices filled with gunpowder to repel Mongol invaders during sieges.^[13] These rudimentary traps, often consisting of ceramic pots or bamboo tubes packed with incendiaries and shrapnel, were ignited via fuses or primitive pressure mechanisms, demonstrating an initial tactical use for area denial in defensive warfare.^[14] By the 16th century in Europe, Italian engineers developed fougasses—barrels or pots of gunpowder buried underground and detonated by flame fuses—which evolved into more directed explosive charges to channel or disrupt advancing infantry during sieges, as employed in conflicts like the Italian Wars.^[15] Significant advancements occurred in the mid-19th century with the invention of reliable pressure-sensitive fuses. Swedish inventor Immanuel Nobel patented a submarine mine with a pressure fuze in the 1850s, which was adapted for land use during the Crimean War (1853–1856) to protect fortifications against infantry assaults.^[16] This technology saw its first widespread battlefield application in the American Civil War (1861–1865), where Confederate Brigadier General Gabriel J. Rains deployed victim-activated landmines—artillery shells buried with sensitive pressure fuses—in 1862 to defend positions such as Yorktown, Virginia.^[17] These devices, often wooden-box or shell-based explosives weighing up to 32 pounds, proved effective in inflicting casualties and delaying Union advances; for instance, at Yorktown, they killed or wounded several probing soldiers, forcing attackers into predictable paths that amplified their defensive impact.^[18] Rains' innovations marked the shift from command-detonated traps to autonomous, indiscriminate weapons, with over 1,000 such mines reportedly laid in key Southern defenses by war's end.^[17] Initial clearance efforts were primitive and high-risk, relying on manual techniques rather than systematic processes. Soldiers typically probed suspected ground with bayonets, wires, or pointed sticks to locate and disarm devices, a method applied reactively during advances or sieges to avoid detonation.^[19] In the American Civil War, Union forces at Yorktown and other sites excavated or gingerly disarmed Confederate mines through trial-and-error digging, often under fire, resulting in numerous fatalities from premature explosions due to the fuses' sensitivity and poor visibility of burial sites.^[17] This approach persisted into World War I trench warfare, where improvised anti-tank and anti-personnel mines—frequently repurposed artillery shells—were cleared by infantry using bayonet prodding ahead of assaults, as mechanical aids like rollers or plows were rare and ineffective against camouflaged placements.^[20] Empirical records from these eras indicate clearance success depended heavily on local intelligence from captured maps or defectors, with failure rates high; for example, undetected Civil War mines continued killing post-battle scavengers and engineers, underscoring the weapons' lingering threat and the limitations of non-technological detection.^[21]

World War II and Immediate Post-War Demining

During World War II, belligerents deployed landmines on an unprecedented scale for area denial and defensive delaying tactics, with the Soviet Union alone estimated to have used approximately 222 million mines across various fronts.^[22] These devices, including anti-tank and anti-personnel variants, inflicted significant attrition on advancing forces; in the European theater, mines accounted for 20.7 percent of U.S. Army tank losses and about 2.5 percent of battle deaths.^[22] Innovations such as the German Schu-mine 42, a low-metal wooden-box anti-personnel mine produced in quantities exceeding 11 million units, exemplified efficient mass production to hinder infantry movement and complicate detection efforts.^[23] Minefields demonstrably slowed invasions by channeling attackers into kill zones, inflicting casualties that bought critical time for reinforcements and counterattacks, as seen in defensive preparations at key battles like El Alamein and Normandy.^[24] Allied clearance operations during the war prioritized breaching paths for immediate military mobility rather than comprehensive removal, employing mechanical innovations like the British Matilda Scorpion flail tank, first used at the Second Battle of El Alamein in October-November 1942 to detonate mines via rotating weighted chains.^[25] At El Alamein, engineers also utilized Bangalore torpedoes—explosive tube charges—to blast gaps in wire and mine obstacles, facilitating the breakthrough against Axis defenses.^[26] In Normandy landings on June 6, 1944, similar torpedoes and evolving flail variants, such as the Sherman Crab mounted on M4 tanks, cleared beachhead minefields under fire, enabling rapid inland advances despite ongoing threats.^[26]^[25] Immediate post-war demining in Europe and the Pacific shifted to organized large-scale efforts, often leveraging German prisoners of war for manual probing in contaminated zones, which yielded high casualty rates deemed acceptable for expedited results.^[27] In Denmark, for instance, clearance of around 1.5 million mines between 1945 and 1946 resulted in 150 fatalities among deminers, highlighting the persistent hazards of Schu-mines and other remnants.^[28] Pacific operations faced analogous challenges with unexploded ordnance and beach defenses, where initial sweeps focused on securing ports and airfields, though full remediation extended years amid tropical terrain complications.^[29] These efforts emphasized tactical path clearance over total eradication, restoring mobility while accepting residual risks to accelerate reconstruction.^[27]

Cold War Conflicts and the Rise of Humanitarian Demining

During the Cold War era, proxy conflicts fueled by superpower rivalries led to the widespread deployment of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) as tools for area denial and asymmetric warfare. The United States and Soviet Union supplied millions of these devices to allies and proxies, prioritizing tactical advantages over long-term clearance. In the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989), Soviet forces laid an estimated 10 million landmines, alongside cluster munitions and UXO from aerial bombings, contaminating vast rural areas to hinder mujahideen movements. Similarly, the Angolan Civil War (1975–2002), backed by Cuban and Soviet aid to the MPLA government against U.S.-supported UNITA rebels, resulted in approximately 9–10 million mines scattered across the country, often in defensive patterns to protect key territories and supply lines. Cambodia's conflicts, including the Khmer Rouge era and Vietnamese invasion (1978–1989), left 8–10 million mines, many Soviet-supplied, embedding contamination in agricultural lands and borders. These deployments, totaling tens of millions across such theaters, exemplified mines' role in prolonging stalemates by imposing high costs on advances, though they created enduring hazards for non-combatants as fighting subsided.^[30]^[31]^[32] The end of the Cold War in 1991 shifted global priorities from military utility to civilian protection, catalyzing the emergence of humanitarian demining as a formalized practice distinct from wartime breaching. Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the United Nations launched its first mine action efforts through the Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan, establishing systematic clearance, surveys, and marking to enable safe return of displaced populations. This model expanded in the early 1990s to Angola, Cambodia, and Mozambique, where UN-coordinated programs emphasized non-explosive detection, community education, and prioritization of high-risk civilian zones over rapid tactical removal. By 1993, the UN integrated these into broader "mine action" frameworks, appealing for international funding to address post-conflict legacies rather than ongoing combat needs; for instance, Cambodia received expanded U.S. humanitarian training support in 1994 to train local teams in manual probing and vegetation clearance. These initiatives marked a pivot toward evidence-based risk reduction, with protocols requiring pre-clearance impact surveys to map contamination and mitigate accidental detonations, contrasting the hasty, mechanized methods of military operations.^[33]^[34]^[35] This humanitarian focus, while addressing acute civilian casualties—estimated at thousands annually in affected regions—overlooked mines' demonstrated causal efficacy in deterrence, where dense fields imposed prohibitive risks on mechanized assaults and infantry pushes, thereby preserving territorial control without constant troop commitments. Empirical cases, such as the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) since 1953, illustrate this: minefields have served as a persistent barrier, significantly impeding potential North Korean incursions by channeling attackers into kill zones and complicating rapid advances, even amid technological countermeasures. In proxy wars like Angola, mine barriers similarly contributed to defensive equilibria, buying time for reinforcements and preventing wholesale losses; yet post-Cold War disarmament advocacy, driven by UN and NGO appeals, prioritized universal clearance norms over such strategic retention, reflecting diminished great-power incentives for proxy entrenchment rather than a rejection of mines' inherent military logic.^[36]^[37]

Nature of the Problem

Types of Landmines and Explosive Remnants of War

Landmines are broadly classified into two primary categories based on their intended targets: anti-personnel mines, which are engineered to incapacitate or kill infantry by blast, fragmentation, or pressure-plate detonation, and anti-vehicle (or anti-tank) mines, which are larger devices designed to disable tracked or wheeled vehicles through underbelly blasts that target suspension and tracks.^[38]^[39] Anti-personnel mines, such as the Soviet-era PMN series, often feature minimal metal components or plastic casings to reduce detectability, while employing simple fuzing mechanisms like crush or tilt-rod triggers that ensure functionality over extended periods without maintenance.^[40] These designs prioritize low production costs—often under $5 per unit—and environmental persistence, with chemical stabilizers in explosives allowing operational lifespans of decades in varied climates, thereby denying terrain access long after deployment.^[41] Anti-vehicle mines, by contrast, require greater pressure thresholds (typically 150-300 kg) to activate, incorporating heavier charges equivalent to several kilograms of TNT to penetrate armored undercarriages, and may include anti-handling devices to deter tampering.^[42] Examples include pressure-fuzed models like the TM-46 or off-route variants with magnetic or seismic sensors, which similarly emphasize durability and indiscriminate longevity to impede mechanized advances.^[40] This engineering for sustained denial has causal effects extending beyond active hostilities, as evidenced by civilian casualty patterns in contaminated regions like Cambodia, where over 63,000 mine-related injuries have been documented since 1979, with peaks occurring years or decades post-conflict due to agricultural or foraging activities.^[43] Explosive remnants of war (ERW) encompass unexploded ordnance (UXO) and abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO), comprising munitions such as artillery shells, aerial bombs, rockets, mortars, and cluster submunitions that failed to detonate upon impact—failure rates ranging from 10-40% depending on type and conditions.^[44]^[45] UXO retains priming and fuzing intact but malfunctions due to dud rates inherent in mass-produced ordnance, persisting as static hazards with lifespans determined by corrosion resistance and bury depth, often mirroring landmines in denying land use for generations. Cluster munitions, for instance, disperse hundreds of bomblets with high UXO yields, amplifying contamination density in affected areas.^[46] Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) represent a post-conflict evolution of ERW threats, frequently incorporating scavenged UXO components like artillery fuses or cluster bomblets as initiators or main charges, adapted with commercial detonators or command-wire systems for asymmetric attacks. In regions like post-Islamic State Iraq, remnant IEDs fabricated from ERW have prolonged hazards by repurposing factory-made explosives into victim-operated or remote variants, exploiting the abundance of undetonated ordnance to sustain low-cost denial without industrial production.^[47] This improvisation underscores the causal chain from wartime deployment to enduring civilian risks, as ERW stockpiles fuel non-state actors' capabilities years after ceasefires.^[48]

Global Extent of Contamination and Clearance Progress

Landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) contaminate approximately 59 states and other areas as of the end of 2023, with the most severe impacts in post-conflict regions of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, as well as newly affected zones from ongoing armed conflicts.^[49] Afghanistan remains one of the most heavily contaminated countries, with an estimated 800 square kilometers of mined territory persisting despite decades of clearance, while Ukraine's contamination has escalated dramatically since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, encompassing millions of square kilometers potentially affected by mines, cluster munitions, and ERW.^[49] ^[50] Historical production and deployment of antipersonnel mines exceed 100 million devices globally since World War II, contributing to entrenched hazards that block agricultural land, infrastructure, and civilian movement in affected nations.^[51] Clearance efforts since the 1990s have yielded verifiable progress, including the destruction of over 55 million stockpiled antipersonnel mines by Mine Ban Treaty states parties and the declaration of more than 30 countries as mine-free, such as Mozambique, which marked a decade without contamination in September 2025.^[51] ^[52] In 2023 alone, land release activities—encompassing clearance, technical survey, and non-technical survey—released over 200 square kilometers of land worldwide, though this represents a fraction of remaining contamination estimated in thousands of square kilometers across priority states.^[53] Countries like Cambodia and Croatia continue targeted operations, aiming for mine-free status by 2030 and 2026, respectively, but extensions highlight the scale of legacy and new threats.^[54] ^[55] Despite these achievements, annual casualties underscore incomplete progress, with 5,757 recorded deaths and injuries from landmines and ERW in 2023 across 53 countries and areas, 84% involving civilians including 37% children.^[56] Advances correlate with adherence to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which has curbed uncontrolled proliferation through stockpile destruction mandates, whereas non-signatories like Russia and the United States retain capabilities for military use, enabling new deployments in conflicts that offset humanitarian gains.^[49] This disparity reveals that while empirical data from treaty implementation shows reduced production and trade in signatory states, persistent use by holdouts sustains global contamination levels.^[51]

Objectives

Military Demining Objectives

Military demining operations focus on rapidly creating temporary breach lanes through minefields to enable tactical maneuver and maintain operational momentum during combat, rather than achieving comprehensive clearance of an area. These efforts prioritize speed and sufficiency for immediate advance, typically producing lanes wide enough for vehicles—often 6 to 8 meters—to pass while accepting residual hazards that could be addressed later or mitigated through suppressive fire and combined arms tactics.^[57]^[58] Unlike humanitarian demining, which seeks near-total elimination of explosives for long-term civilian safety, military breaching accepts incomplete neutralization to avoid delays that could expose forces to greater enemy fire and attrition.^[59]^[60] The primary objective is to facilitate force projection by clearing paths for infantry, armor, or mechanized units, often integrating engineer assets with artillery, air support, and infantry to suppress threats during the breach. Lane widths and numbers are determined by the assault force's composition and scheme of maneuver, with a single lane potentially sufficing for platoon-sized elements but multiple lanes required for brigade-level advances to prevent bottlenecks.^[61] Residual risk is deliberately tolerated, as exhaustive detection would slow operations below acceptable tempos, potentially increasing overall casualties through prolonged exposure; commanders balance this by proofing lanes post-breach to confirm passability for follow-on forces.^[62] This approach underscores a causal trade-off: partial clearance preserves combat initiative, enabling decisive engagements that historically outweigh the risks of lingering mines in dynamic battlefields. Historical examples demonstrate the efficacy of such tactics in enabling rapid assaults. During World War II, British Sherman tanks fitted with mine flails cleared paths at rates up to 200 meters per hour across dense North African minefields, doubling infantry probing speeds and allowing armored breakthroughs at El Alamein.^[63] Modern systems like the M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) extend this capability, propelling a 100-meter explosive line via rocket to detonate surface and shallow-buried mines, creating an 8-by-100-meter lane in seconds for immediate vehicle traversal and assault continuation.^[64] These methods have proven vital in conflicts where momentum disrupts enemy defenses, validating the prioritization of tempo over absolutist safety standards that could otherwise stall offensives.^[65]

Humanitarian Demining Goals

Humanitarian demining seeks to eliminate all known explosive hazards from post-conflict areas to enable unrestricted civilian access, prioritizing long-term safety over the rapid breaching typical of military operations. This involves comprehensive non-technical and technical surveys to delineate contamination, followed by clearance or safe marking of hazards, with the ultimate aim of restoring land for agriculture, housing, and infrastructure development. The process emphasizes community reintegration by reducing civilian exposure to risks that persist after hostilities end, targeting a hazard density low enough to support normal socioeconomic activities without ongoing restrictions.^[66]^[67] International Mine Action Standards (IMAS), developed by the United Nations Mine Action Service and the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, mandate thorough release processes, including 100% detection and removal of mines and unexploded ordnance to a typical depth of 15-20 centimeters for anti-personnel threats, verified through methods like canine detection or ground-penetrating radar. These standards focus on evidence-based land release, where areas are surveyed, cleared if necessary, and certified safe, aiming to drive annual civilian casualty rates from landmines toward zero in treated regions. For instance, in Croatia, demining efforts since the 1990s wars have released over 1,600 square kilometers of suspected hazardous areas through systematic clearance, facilitating the return of farmland and reducing incidents from an initial post-war average of dozens annually to near negligible levels by the 2020s.^[68]^[69]^[70] While these goals promote verifiable safety, critiques highlight that IMAS protocols' emphasis on absolute clearance can escalate costs and timelines disproportionately to residual risks, as post-clearance inspections and verification layers add expenses without commensurate reductions in low-probability events. Economic analyses indicate that such stringency in humanitarian contexts—unlike military needs—may delay community recovery, with unit costs per square meter often exceeding practical risk thresholds in sparsely contaminated zones, potentially perpetuating displacement longer than warranted by empirical hazard data. Studies by organizations like the GICHD underscore the need for adaptive, cost-benefit-informed adjustments to balance thoroughness against efficiency, though implementation varies by national authorities.^[71]^[72]^[73]

Detection Technologies

Conventional Detection Techniques

Conventional detection techniques in humanitarian and military demining primarily rely on manual probing, metal detectors, and canine olfaction to identify landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW). These methods emphasize human expertise augmented by basic tools and animals, achieving field-proven reliability in diverse environments despite inherent limitations. Prodding involves using non-metallic rods or bayonets to tactilely probe soil for anomalies after initial sweeps, confirming suspected targets without detonation.^[74] Handheld metal detectors, such as those from Vallon, detect electromagnetic anomalies from metallic components in mines, effective for ferrous targets but prone to false positives from scrap metal, shrapnel, or mineralized soils, which can exceed hundreds per square meter in cluttered areas.^[75] These devices operate via induction principles, signaling audio or visual alerts for investigation, yet their sensitivity necessitates integration with prodding to discriminate threats from debris.^[74] Mine detection dogs (MDDs) exploit canine sensitivity to explosive vapors, particularly effective for low-metal or plastic-cased mines where detectors falter, with reported detection rates up to 80% in controlled dry conditions.^[76] Trained breeds like Labrador Retrievers alert via sitting or barking, covering areas faster than humans in open terrain, though efficacy drops in wet soils, heavy vegetation, or high temperatures that disperse scents.^[77] Combined application—metal detectors for initial scans, dogs for vapor confirmation, and prodding for verification—yields typical productivity of 20-25 square meters per deminer per day in hazardous conditions, varying by team size (often 4-8 personnel) and terrain.^[78] Limitations include non-detection of purely non-metallic mines by detectors alone and environmental factors reducing dog performance, underscoring the need for multi-method protocols to minimize misses while managing false alarms that slow operations.^[77]^[75]

Advanced and Developmental Detection Methods

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) represents a key advancement in subsurface imaging for landmine detection, employing high-frequency electromagnetic pulses to generate reflections from buried objects, thereby differentiating metallic and plastic-cased explosives from soil clutter. Developed extensively since the 1990s, GPR systems have demonstrated detection probabilities exceeding 90% in controlled tests, though challenges persist with signal attenuation in moist or conductive soils.^[79]^[80] Infrared thermography complements GPR by exploiting thermal contrasts between mines and surrounding soil, particularly after solar heating or artificial illumination, to reveal surface or shallow-buried anomalies via hyperspectral imaging. Field efficacy trials, such as those conducted in varied terrains, indicate detection rates up to 80% for anti-personnel mines under optimal diurnal conditions, but performance degrades in vegetated or homogeneous environments due to limited penetration depth.^[81]^[82] Nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) and neutron-based techniques target molecular signatures of explosives directly, bypassing metal content. NQR excites nitrogen nuclei in common explosives like TNT, producing detectable radiofrequency signals specific to the compound, with laboratory prototypes achieving discrimination of explosives from interferents in under 1 second per scan. Neutron methods, including thermal neutron activation, induce gamma emissions from nitrogen or hydrogen to quantify explosive bulk, showing promise in trials for low-metal mines but requiring shielding and facing regulatory hurdles from radiation sources. These approaches, researched since the late 1990s, offer high specificity yet remain developmental due to equipment complexity and costs exceeding $100,000 per unit.^[83]^[84] Acoustic and seismic methods utilize mechanical waves—generated by seismic thumpers or vehicle-induced vibrations—to probe buried targets through changes in wave propagation velocity or resonance frequencies, enabling detection of both metallic and non-metallic mines at depths up to 30 cm. Efficacy studies report vibration-based systems reducing false positives by analyzing soil-mine interactions, with field experiments in sandy soils yielding over 85% detection accuracy, though efficacy drops in rocky or water-saturated ground.^[85]^[86] Biosensors leverage biological olfaction for trace explosive vapor detection, with African giant pouched rats trained by organizations like APOPO outperforming electronic noses in sensitivity, identifying TNT at parts-per-trillion levels and clearing over 1,000 minefields since accreditation in 2004. Bees and dogs exhibit similar olfactory prowess but face scalability issues, as animal fatigue limits daily coverage to 200-500 m² per handler, and training costs range from $5,000-10,000 per animal; trials confirm high sensitivity (95%+ in odor discrimination) but poor large-area efficiency compared to mechanical systems.^[87]^[88] Dual-sensor fusion, integrating GPR with electromagnetic induction or metal detectors, processes complementary data to suppress false alarms from clutter, with evaluations showing up to 100% rejection of non-target metal fragments in some configurations and overall false alarm reductions of 50-90% in test fields. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) enhance survey scalability by mounting multispectral or magnetometric sensors for broad-area contamination mapping, achieving 70-80% accuracy in identifying suspect zones during trials in post-conflict regions, though ground-truthing remains essential for confirmation. These methods, advanced through R&D since the 1990s, promise efficacy gains but are constrained by high development costs—often $1-5 million per prototype—and variable field performance, necessitating ongoing trials for humanitarian adoption.^[89]^[90]^[91]

Clearance and Removal Techniques

Manual and Mechanical Clearance Methods

Manual clearance methods in humanitarian demining rely on human operators to systematically search, locate, and remove explosive hazards following initial detection. Deminers use non-metallic prodders to gently probe suspect areas identified by detectors, confirming the presence of buried items through tactile feedback on resistance or shape. If a mine or unexploded ordnance is verified, it is carefully excavated using tools like shovels or trowels to expose the device without triggering it, after which neutralization occurs via controlled low-order detonation or manual defusal when feasible.^[92]^[93] This process ensures high reliability in confirming clearance, as operators can verify the absence of hazards in excavated voids, though it demands rigorous training to minimize accidents from improper probing angles or soil conditions.^[94] Clearance rates for manual methods typically range from 20 to 50 square meters per deminer per day, influenced by factors such as terrain hardness, vegetation density, and mine density; for instance, a 10-person team might clear 500 square meters daily under favorable conditions.^[95]^[96] In trials, rates have varied from 1.6 to 17.4 square meters per deminer, highlighting variability but underscoring the labor-intensive nature suited to precise, low-density humanitarian contexts where complete verification is prioritized over speed.^[92] Mechanical clearance employs armored vehicles equipped with attachments like flails, rollers, or plows to disrupt or detonate mines across larger areas. Flail systems use rotating chains or hammers to beat the ground, detonating pressure- or magnetic-fused devices, while plows on bulldozers such as the Caterpillar D9 push soil and explosives aside or bury them to neutralize threats.^[97] Rollers compress the surface to trigger shallow mines. These methods excel in vegetation removal and initial proofing, with machines like the Armtrac achieving up to 1,600 square meters per hour on flat terrain.^[98] However, mechanical systems can displace unexploded ordnance deeper or laterally without detonation, potentially leaving hazards that require subsequent manual verification, reducing overall efficiency in humanitarian operations where false negatives must be minimized. Clearance effectiveness varies, approaching 100% in ideal conditions but dropping to 50-60% in complex soils or with anti-tank mines that damage equipment. Thus, while faster—often 300-900 square meters per hour—they are typically adjunct to manual efforts in civilian demining, contrasting with military breaching where speed trumps exhaustive clearance.^[99]^[97]

Explosive and Remote Neutralization Methods

Explosive neutralization methods employ linear or bulk charges to trigger multiple landmines simultaneously via overpressure and sympathetic detonation, enabling rapid breaching of dense fields without direct contact.^[100] The M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) system, for instance, uses rocket-propelled lines of explosives to project a detonating charge over a minefield, generating peak pressures and impulses that neutralize mines within the blast radius.^[100] This technique proved effective during the 1991 Gulf War, where U.S. forces employed MICLIC to breach Iraqi minefields, clearing paths for armored advances despite requiring subsequent proofing to ensure complete clearance.^[101] The Bangalore torpedo, a sectional pipe filled with explosives, serves as a man-portable alternative for narrower breaches, assembled on-site and propelled or pushed into position before detonation to create 3- to 4-meter-wide paths through mine-obstacle mixes.^[102] Launched via rocket or manually, it delivers a single impulse effective against tilt-rod and pressure-fuze antitank mines but less reliable against pronged or double-impulse antipersonnel types.^[103] MICLIC variants can clear 100-meter lanes in under a minute, minimizing human exposure in high-threat areas compared to manual methods.^[101] Remote neutralization extends these principles through unmanned systems that deliver and initiate charges from standoff distances. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) robots, equipped with manipulators and wiring tools, position small explosive charges on individual or clustered mines detected via prior surveys, then detonate via remote command to avoid operator risk.^[62] These platforms, such as tracked robotic systems, enable precise targeting in contaminated zones, with operational efficacy demonstrated in military countermine operations where they reverse area denial by systematically wiring and blasting remnants.^[104] Bulk remote applications involve vehicle-launched explosives for wider areas, prioritizing speed over precision in tactical scenarios like post-conflict lane proofing.^[100] Overall, these methods enhance efficiency in dense contamination by reducing personnel vulnerability, though they necessitate follow-on verification to address incomplete detonations.^[101]

Personal Protective Equipment and Safety

Equipment Standards and Usage

Personal protective equipment (PPE) for demining operations focuses on mitigating risks from blast overpressure, fragmentation, and secondary hazards during manual clearance, including helmets, full-face visors, blast-resistant suits, gloves, and footwear. The International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) 10.30 mandate that employers provide, maintain, and train on PPE suitable for identified risks, with visors required to offer fragmentation protection per STANAG 2920 (V50 fragment velocity of at least 250 m/s using 1.1g steel fragments).^[105]^[106] Blast suits typically incorporate layered ballistic fabrics like aramid (e.g., Kevlar) for shrapnel resistance up to NIJ Level IIIA equivalents, while helmets use composite shells with integrated ventilation to counter heat stress without compromising overpressure and fragment shielding.^[107]^[108] In humanitarian demining, full PPE ensembles are compulsory during high-risk probing and excavation phases to serve as the final barrier against accidental detonations, prioritizing survival over unencumbered movement; suits and visors extend coverage to the neck and torso, though they impose ergonomic trade-offs such as reduced dexterity and increased fatigue in prolonged operations.^[105]^[109] IMAS compliance requires regular inspection and replacement of damaged components, like visors showing any fragmentation-induced cracks, to sustain protective integrity.^[110] Despite these standards, PPE limitations persist against variable mine fuzing mechanisms, such as pressure or proximity types, where blast proximity can overwhelm fragment-only ratings; severe demining accidents occur at approximately one per 25-30 man-years of exposure, often involving lower-body injuries evading upper-body-focused gear.^[111]^[109] Empirical data from accident databases underscore that while PPE reduces upper-torso trauma, procedural adherence remains the dominant factor in averting fatalities, with equipment alone insufficient for all detonation scenarios.^[112]

Risk Mitigation Protocols

Risk mitigation protocols in demining operations emphasize systematic procedures to reduce personnel exposure to explosive hazards, including accreditation of teams, rigorous training regimens, and structured site management practices. Under the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS), demining organizations must obtain accreditation to verify their operational competence, as outlined in IMAS 07.30, which requires demonstration of qualified personnel, equipment, and adherence to safety procedures before commencing work.^[113] This accreditation process ensures that only capable entities undertake clearance, thereby lowering the incidence of procedural errors that could lead to detonations. Operational protocols incorporate risk management frameworks per IMAS 07.14, involving hazard identification, risk assessment, and mitigation strategies such as marking contaminated areas with warning signs, erecting physical fences, and implementing controlled access to prevent unauthorized entry.^[114] For unexploded ordnance or duds encountered during clearance, protocols mandate involvement of explosives ordnance disposal (EOD) specialists trained in render-safe procedures, avoiding improvised handling that heightens detonation risks. Redundancy measures, including dual verification of cleared areas through quality assurance and control checks as per IMAS 07.12, provide layered confirmation that hazards have been addressed, reducing false negatives in detection.^[115] Training protocols extend beyond technical skills to include fatigue management and operational discipline, with teams required to follow standard operating procedures (SOPs) that limit daily exposure hours and mandate rest periods to counteract cumulative stress.^[116] Empirical data from the Database of Demining Accidents (DDAS) indicate that the adoption of these standardized protocols since the 1990s has contributed to a marked decline in humanitarian demining accidents, with improved training and verification halving incident rates in monitored operations by enhancing procedural reliability. Nonetheless, these protocols cannot eliminate risk entirely, as inherent uncertainties in minefields—such as degraded fuzes or undetected items—persist, necessitating ongoing vigilance rather than over-reliance on procedural perfection, which in some field contexts has been observed to prolong clearance timelines without proportional safety gains.^[116]

Economic Considerations

Operational Costs and Funding

Humanitarian demining costs typically range from $1 to $5 per square meter, varying by contamination density, terrain, and operational standards, with higher figures in complex environments like $3–5 per square meter for agricultural land in Ukraine.^[117] Military demining, emphasizing rapid lane clearance over full-area certification, achieves lower unit costs, often below $1 per square meter due to reduced verification and higher throughput.^[118] Global mine action expenditures approximate $700 million annually, drawn largely from international donors supporting both humanitarian and military-related efforts.^[119] The United States has contributed over $4.2 billion to demining and conventional weapons destruction programs since 1993, positioning it as the leading donor and funding technical assistance, equipment, and capacity-building in multiple countries.^[120] Primary cost drivers include labor for manual detection and clearance, which dominates expenses in personnel-intensive operations, alongside equipment procurement, maintenance, and logistical transport.^[72] In Ukraine, post-2022 conflict demining has scaled dramatically, with full clearance estimated at $31 billion as of 2025, driven by over 150,000 square kilometers of suspected contamination and requiring extensive donor pledges exceeding $1 billion for initial phases.^[121]^[122] Technological and procedural advancements have driven efficiency gains, reducing unit costs in established programs—for instance, from $3 per square meter in 1990s Afghanistan to under $1 by the 2020s—though mandatory quality assurance and non-technical surveys inflate total outlays by 20–30% in rigorous humanitarian contexts.^[123]

Cost-Benefit Analysis Including Strategic Trade-offs

Demining facilitates the productive use of previously contaminated land, yielding measurable economic gains through restored agriculture, infrastructure, and settlement. In Mozambique, comprehensive clearance has averted an estimated 18-25% reduction in GDP per capita that would otherwise persist from restricted land access, enabling higher agricultural output and reduced medical costs from accidents.^[124] In Colombia, humanitarian demining correlates with increased local economic activity, including value-added growth that exceeds clearance costs per square meter in affected municipalities.^[125] These benefits, however, diminish in marginal areas where land suitability limits post-clearance utilization, as evidenced by variable returns in low-productivity zones.^[126] Conversely, retaining minefields provides a cost-effective means of deterrence, imposing high risks on potential aggressors at minimal recurring expense relative to manned defenses or barriers. In the Korean Demilitarized Zone, mixed antipersonnel and anti-vehicle mine systems have maintained separation from North Korean forces since the 1953 armistice, functioning as a persistent obstacle with low maintenance demands compared to alternatives like continuous troop deployments.^[127] This utility stems from mines' ability to channel or deny enemy advances without active engagement, preserving lives and resources that would otherwise support frontline operations.^[36] Strategic trade-offs arise acutely under frameworks like the 1997 Ottawa Convention, which prohibits antipersonnel mines and burdens signatory states—often weaker powers—with defensive handicaps not shared by non-signatories such as the United States, Russia, and Israel.^[128] While the treaty advances humanitarian goals, it overlooks mines' role in asymmetric warfare, where inexpensive barriers offset conventional disparities; empirical assessments indicate that mine-free borders heighten incursion risks, as seen in Israel's retention of minefields along contested frontiers to curb unauthorized crossings despite international pressure.^[129] In the 1982 Falklands conflict, the absence of pre-laid defenses facilitated Argentina's initial landings on undefended terrain, underscoring how demined or unmined zones invite rapid exploitation by mobile forces.^[130] Causally, the humanitarian toll of residual mines—primarily in post-conflict civilian contexts—must be balanced against their prevention of large-scale invasions, where unchecked aggression could exact casualties orders of magnitude higher; studies affirm that deterrence benefits often eclipse sporadic accident costs in high-threat environments.^[72]^[131]

Recent Developments

Robotic and Autonomous Systems

Robotic and autonomous systems in demining have seen accelerated adoption post-2020, primarily to mitigate human casualties by handling high-risk tasks such as soil excavation, mine probing, and mechanical neutralization in contaminated zones. These platforms, often ground-based, integrate remote operation with emerging autonomy features like AI-driven navigation to traverse uneven terrain and avoid obstacles, enabling sustained operations without direct personnel exposure. Deployments emphasize modular designs for adaptability to varied mine types, including anti-personnel and anti-vehicle devices, while prioritizing cost-effective scalability for humanitarian and military contexts.^[132]^[133] A notable example is the Japanese DMR robot, developed by a startup and field-tested in Cambodia in early 2025, which employs compressed-air excavation to gently remove soil layers around suspected mines, exposing them for safe manual neutralization without mechanical contact that could trigger detonation. This technology reduces the proximity risk to operators, allowing deminers to intervene only after robotic preparation, and has been positioned for broader export to conflict-affected regions like Ukraine. In Ukraine, since 2022, ground robots equipped with flail mechanisms, such as the Zmiy produced by Rovertech, have been deployed to mechanically detonate surface and shallow-buried mines in frontline areas, supporting rapid breaching in contested environments where manual clearance remains infeasible due to ongoing threats. Similarly, the British Armtrac 400, delivered to Ukrainian forces in late 2022 at a cost of nearly $500,000, uses tiller and flail attachments for efficient area reduction, marking an early integration of remote systems into active conflict demining.^[134]^[135]^[136] The integration of autonomy via AI pathfinding algorithms has further enhanced these systems' efficacy, as demonstrated in platforms like the open-source Disarmadillo, advanced in 2021, which supports programmed routes for repetitive clearance tasks in structured sites. Trials and operational data indicate substantial risk reduction; for instance, remote robotic intervention has enabled clearance in zones previously deemed too hazardous for humans, with organizations like the HALO Trust incorporating quadruped robots such as Boston Dynamics' Spot for initial surveys and manipulations that precede human teams, thereby lowering accident rates in explosive environments. The global demining robots market, valued at around $250 million in 2025, reflects this momentum, with projections for a 15% compound annual growth rate through 2033, fueled by technological maturation and rising demand in post-conflict reconstruction.^[137]^[138]^[139]

AI, Drones, and Sensor Innovations

Safe Pro AI's SpotlightAI platform employs machine learning algorithms to analyze drone-captured imagery, enabling rapid identification of landmines and unexploded ordnance by processing visual data in seconds and providing GPS-coordinated alerts to deminers.^[140] This approach has been deployed in Ukraine, where it analyzed over 1.6 million images from forested areas, detecting 27,450 potential landmines as of June 2025, thereby prioritizing high-risk zones for manual verification.^[141] The system's advancements in object detection precision, including provisional patents filed in December 2024 for methods to minimize false positives, address common limitations in aerial surveys where environmental clutter like vegetation can generate erroneous alerts.^[142] Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have facilitated non-technical surveys and route clearance, with multi-sensor payloads integrating ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and hyperspectral imaging for subsurface and material-specific detection. Deep learning-based multispectral fusion models on UAV platforms enhance mine localization by combining spectral signatures to distinguish explosives from soil or debris, reducing false alarm rates in field trials.^[143] Hyperspectral sensors mounted on multi-rotor UAVs, suitable for humanitarian demining, capture narrow-band reflectance data to identify explosive compounds, as demonstrated in post-2020 prototypes that improve detection depth and accuracy over single-modality systems.^[144] In May 2025, Draganfly Inc. partnered with Autonome Labs to integrate the M.A.G.I.C. (Mine and Ground Integrated Clearance) system onto heavy-lift UAVs, enabling aerial deployment of protective mesh over suspected minefields to create safe paths without ground exposure.^[145] Initial testing commenced in 2025, with pilots planned for post-conflict zones, showcasing scalability for rapid route proving where traditional methods are impeded by terrain or density.^[146] Post-2022 in Ukraine, adoption of these technologies has accelerated clearance, with AI-drone systems like MinesEye—tested in July 2025—enabling remote detection and halving processing times for non-technical surveys compared to manual methods.^[147]^[148] Complementary sensor innovations, such as MRead's magnetic resonance-based detectors developed in 2023, provide non-contact explosive identification by targeting molecular signatures in landmine fills, offering potential integration with drone surveys for validation.^[149] Trials indicate these fused approaches enhance overall efficiency, with sensor data fusion proven to lower false alarms and support broader area coverage in contaminated regions.

Challenges and Controversies

Technical and Logistical Challenges

Detection of buried landmines faces inherent physical limitations due to environmental interference, including soil clutter such as rocks, metallic debris, and unexploded ordnance remnants that produce signals mimicking explosive devices, leading to high rates of false positives.^[150]^[151] This clutter necessitates extensive manual verification, which dominates operational time and reduces overall clearance efficiency.^[152] Soil composition and weather conditions exacerbate detection challenges by altering electromagnetic properties; variations in moisture content, mineralization, and magnetic susceptibility can degrade sensor performance, with field trials demonstrating that high-conductivity soils increase false alarms and lower signal-to-noise ratios for metal detectors and ground-penetrating radar.^[153]^[154] Such variability requires site-specific calibration, often halving productivity in adverse terrains compared to controlled conditions.^[155] Empirical field detection rates for conventional sensors typically achieve 80-90% probability of detection for metallic targets, but plastic-cased antipersonnel mines, containing minimal or no metal, evade standard metal detectors, compelling reliance on complementary technologies like nuclear quadrupole resonance or infrared imaging with lower reliability and higher operational demands.^[156]^[157]^[158] Logistically, accessing contaminated areas in active conflict zones poses severe constraints; in Ukraine, as of June 2025, landmines and explosive remnants contaminate 139,000 km²—over 23% of the nation's territory—where ongoing combat restricts deminer mobility and exposes teams to secondary threats like artillery fire.^[159] Remote operations demand robust supply chains for specialized equipment and consumables, yet disruptions from insecure routes and limited infrastructure in post-conflict peripheries prolong response times and elevate costs.^[99] Natural processes such as erosion and flooding can relocate buried devices, invalidating prior surveys and necessitating repeated clearances in dynamic environments.^[160]

Policy Debates on Bans and Military Efficacy

The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, known as the Ottawa Treaty, entered into force on March 1, 1999, following its adoption in 1997, and prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. As of 2024, 165 states are parties to the treaty, though major military powers including the United States, Russia, China, and India remain non-signatories, citing the weapons' continued defensive utility in high-threat environments.^[161] ^[162] Non-signatories argue that bans undermine deterrence against invasion by superior forces, as evidenced by static border defenses where minefields have prevented successful penetrations for decades. In the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), established after the 1953 armistice, extensive minefields supplemented by anti-personnel devices have contributed to zero successful large-scale breaches by North Korean forces despite periodic incursions and artillery exchanges. Military analyses indicate that minefields enhance defensive efficiency, allowing fewer troops to hold ground against massed assaults by channeling attackers into kill zones and complicating breaching operations.^[127] Similarly, Israel's non-adherence to the treaty stems from reliance on minefields in the Golan Heights and other frontiers, where they form layered obstacles that have historically slowed Syrian advances, as during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, by forcing attackers to expend resources on clearance under fire.^[163] These examples underscore empirical evidence of mines' role in asymmetric deterrence, where numerical disadvantages necessitate non-lethal barriers to preserve troop lives during prolonged standoffs. Policy debates intensified in 2024 when the United States announced on November 20 its decision to supply Ukraine with anti-personnel mines amid Russian territorial gains, reversing a prior self-imposed export ban outside the Korean Peninsula. Non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch, condemned the transfer as risking post-conflict civilian harm and violating norms, yet Ukrainian forces reported mines' effectiveness in halting infantry probes, as seen in the 2022-2023 Battle of Bakhmut where dense Russian minefields inflicted heavy attrition on attackers, slowing advances despite artillery superiority.^[164] ^[165] ^[166] Critics of bans, drawing from declassified assessments, contend that humanitarian emphases by treaty advocates—often affiliated with institutions exhibiting institutional biases toward disarmament—overstate legacy civilian casualties relative to wartime savings, as post-1997 data shows most victims (over 80% civilians in recent years) occur in peacetime from uncleared fields rather than active conflicts.^[167] In contrast, doctrinal studies affirm that prohibitions erode defenders' options against aggressors unbound by treaties, potentially prolonging wars and escalating casualties through unchecked offensives, as first-principles analysis of force ratios reveals mines' causal role in equalizing infantry vulnerabilities without requiring proportional manpower commitments.^[127] This tension highlights a core tradeoff: while clearance efforts mitigate long-term risks, forgoing mines in existential defenses invites immediate threats, as non-signatories maintain for strategic depth.

References

[1]
Mine action | United Nations Peacekeeping
Mine action entails more than removing landmines from the ground. It includes high impact efforts aimed at protecting people from danger, helping victims ...
[2]
humanitarian mine action - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor
This has led to a new concept: humanitarian mine action, which is an integrated approach to removing landmines from the ground and reducing their disastrous ...
[3]
[PDF] CLEARING THE MINES 2024 - Mine Action Review
Nov 1, 2024 · In. 2023, global mine clearance of 237 square kilometres was the highest ever recorded, with 192,563 AP mines destroyed during land release ...
[4]
[PDF] Landmine Monitor 2024 - ICBLCMC
Nov 25, 2024 · The Landmine Monitor 2024 provides research and monitoring for the ICBL and CMC, related to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, and is the 26th annual ...
[5]
Detection and Clearance - GICHD
Manual mine clearance methods and techniques continue to rely on deminers working along marked lanes using metal detectors, prodders, rakes and excavation tools ...
[6]
APOPO's Unique Multi-method Approach To Mine Action
Apr 4, 2025 · Manual deminers are particularly important in areas where the use of animals or machines is impractical or inefficient. While dogs and rats can ...<|separator|>
[7]
[PDF] a handbook of mechanical demining - GICHD
Manual clearance is always the preferred method of clearing. “pattern minefields” followed by confirmation using flails, tillers or MDD. Manual clearance of ...
[8]
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 ...
[9]
Mine Ban Treaty Faces Significant Threats | Human Rights Watch
Mar 30, 2025 · The treaty's positive impact can be seen in the destruction of more than 55 million antipersonnel mines from the stockpiles of countries that ...
[10]
Landmines: The local effects of demining - ScienceDirect.com
Because landmines are hard to detect and costly to remove, they constitute one of the most pressing challenges to long-term development and post-conflict ...
[11]
The Global State Of Landmines: Insights From The 2024 ... - APOPO
The 2024 Landmine Monitor reveals the devastating impact of landmines and ERW worldwide, with 5757 casualties reported in 2023.
[12]
Economic Impact of Landmine Contamination on Communities and ...
High Demining Costs. It is an expensive and lengthy process to clear mines, and requires special equipment and trained staff. This high cost of clearance has ...
[13]
Planted to kill: A brief history of landmines – Project Masam
Sep 26, 2023 · The first recorded use of an explosive device was by the Song Dynasty to fend off invading Mongolians in 13th-century China.
[14]
[PDF] Mines, a comprehensive - iGEM
Jun 7, 2020 · Landmines are weapons with a long history that originated in China. In 1130, the Jin army attacked ShanZhou, and the Song army used "gunpowder ...
[15]
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/history-land-mines-weapon-wont-go-away-178286
[16]
[PDF] the development of landmine warfare
The first modern pressure-sensitive landmine was developed by Immanuel Nobel in the 1850s and first used during the Crimean War. Confederate Brigadier General.<|separator|>
[17]
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.
[18]
[PDF] LANDMINES IN AMERICA'S BACKYARD - JMU Scholarly Commons
Dec 15, 2020 · General Rains invented a pressure-sensitive fuse that was ... Thirty-two lb landmine, Confederate Army, American Civil War, Fort McAllister.
[19]
Tragedy Spurred the First Effective Land-Mine Detector
Jan 8, 2025 · Tragedy Spurred the First Effective Land-Mine Detector. Before World War II, soldiers hunted for land mines with pointy sticks. Joanna ...
[20]
FINNISH ARMY 1918 - 1945: LANDMINES PART 1
Aug 17, 2022 · The first antitank mines used during World War 1 were improvised designs like tarred wooden boxes containing explosives and artillery shells ...
[21]
Landmines - All You Never Wanted to Know - SJH Projects
Oct 31, 2019 · The first use of what we call landmines was in 1862 in the US Civil War. Invented by Confederate Brig. Gen. Gabriel Rains. They were pressure ...<|separator|>
[22]
Hidden Killers 1994: The Global Landmine Crisis - State Department
Using an estimated 222 million mines in World War II, the Soviet Union surpassed any modern nation in the use of mines in recent history. For the Soviets, the ...
[23]
The Teller Mine and other German WWII Land Mines
The Schu-mine 42 was a model of an antipersonnel blast-type mine. It ... It was a modified version of the Teller mine 42 that used simpler production techniques.
[24]
Do anti-personnel landmines deter countries from invading? - Quora
Mar 13, 2025 · ... minefield without damaging itself and alerting coastal defenses of an impending invasion? ... invaders take casualties and slowing them ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
[25]
The 'Funny' Tanks of D-Day | Imperial War Museums
The flail tank was not a new invention – the Matilda 'Scorpion' was used during the Battle of El Alamein in 1942 – but under Hobart's direction, the 'Scorpion' ...Missing: demining | Show results with:demining
[26]
Bangalore torpedo charges in the British Army - Armedconflicts.com
During World War II, Bangalore torpedoes were used in November 1942 in ... El Alamein and in 1943 during the Normandy beach landings. There are known ...
[27]
How was Europe cleared of landmines after World War Two? - Quora
Nov 15, 2015 · German POWs were put to work on mine clearance. The many resulting casualties were considered acceptable by the victors.Which theater of operations had more American casualties during ...How many troops in Europe on V-E Day wound up in the Pacific?More results from www.quora.com
[28]
How did the de-mining effort turn out in Post WW2 Europe and ...
Feb 2, 2022 · Around 1.5M mines were cleared. 150 people died during the de-mining work. There's a university site describing it in detail here (danish, but ...For the average American WWII soldier, which theater (Pacific or ...During the Pacific War, who cleaned up the islands after the ... - RedditMore results from www.reddit.com
[29]
[PDF] WWII Ordnance Still Haunts - Europe and the Asia-Pacific Rim
Between 1945 and 1957, 155 deminers were killed and five injured. Clearance of UXO is still a problem and ham- pers development in many of the aforemencioned.Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
[30]
Countries With the Highest Number of Landmines - World Atlas
The position of the third leading country with deployed mines is held by four nations namely Afghanistan, Angola, China, and Iraq with ten million mines each.
[31]
10 Countries With The Most Landmines - Listverse
Aug 11, 2008 · Cambodia. Cambodia-10083. Landmine Count: 8-10 million. Three decades of war in Cambodia have left scars in many forms throughout the country.
[32]
Protection from landmines and non-violence
In the few years of the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, some six million landmines were sown throughout various sections of the country—Angola nine million, ...
[33]
The Development of Mine Action and the Role of the United Nations
Sep 29, 2021 · The aftermath of the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 marks the start of the United Nations' involvement in mine action.
[34]
[PDF] Mine Action: The Early Years - JMU Scholarly Commons
The first four HMA programs in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, and Mozambique were all supported by the United Nations. However, they began independently at the ...
[35]
Hidden Killers 1994: The Global Landmine Crisis - State Department
The U.S. humanitarian demining assistance program for Cambodia was expanded dramatically in 1994, when specialized U.S. military trainers were deployed to help ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[36]
[PDF] Antipersonnel Landmines - Do Their Costs Outweigh Their Benefits?
Jul 10, 2023 · The landmines along the DMZ, although not the sole discriminating factor in the fight, are a significant impediment to a flood of North Korean ...
[37]
Together for mine action; a multilateral success story - UNMAS
The use of landmines can be traced back to the American Civil War (1861-1865). Later, during World War I mines were deployed to defend against tanks. Because of ...
[38]
Types of Mines - DEMIRA e.V.
One of the most common discriminations is to divide mines into two categories regarding their target: Antipersonnel Mines (APM) and Anti-Tank Mines (ATM).
[39]
Landmines - CAT-UXO
There are generally two types of landmines, Anti-Vehicle (AV) and Anti-Personnel (AP). Anti-Personnel (AP) landmines are designed to kill or injure people.Missing: classification | Show results with:classification
[40]
[PDF] Anti-Vehicle (Anti-tank) Mines - GICHD
q Classified by target: m Anti-Vehicle m Anti-Helicopter m Anti-Personnel. Mine Classifications. Page 4. © GICHD, 2002. Philosophy - AV/AT Mines q Hit the ...
[41]
Landmine Policy White Paper - state.gov
Feb 27, 2004 · First, their persistence. Mines are the only conventional weapons which, when functioning as designed, are lethal for a period of time after ...Missing: casualties conflict
[42]
Russia-Ukraine War: 4 Types of Landmines and How They Work
Aug 13, 2023 · Anti-tank mines are much larger versions of anti-personnel blast mines, designed to cause maximum damage to tanks by destroying their tracks and ...
[43]
The underreporting of landmine and explosive remnants of war ...
Cambodian mine action authorities have reported 63 815 casualties resulting from landmines and ERW since 1979. The Lao People's Democratic Republic has a ...Missing: lifespan persistence<|separator|>
[44]
Explosive remnants of war - ICRC
A term that refers to the unexploded ordnance – such as shells, grenades and bombs – left behind after a conflict.
[45]
Other explosive remnants of war - GICHD
Unexploded ordnance or UXO refers to munitions (bombs, rockets, artillery shells, mortars, grenades and the like) that have been used but failed to detonate ...
[46]
Explosive Ordnance (SO0201) - UNDRR
Explosive ordnance, including explosive remnants of war, is interpreted as encompassing the following munitions: mines, cluster munitions, unexploded ...
[47]
[PDF] LANDMINES, EXPLOSIVE REMNANTS OF WAR AND IED SAFETY ...
This handbook is the 3rd edition of the former Landmine and. Unexploded Ordnance Safety Handbook produced by the. United Nations in 2005, ...
[48]
Five things to know about the deadly legacy of explosive remnants ...
Apr 4, 2023 · Explosive remnants of war (ERW) are explosive munitions that have failed to explode after being fired or launched (unexploded ordnance, UXO)
[49]
Landmine Monitor 2024 report
Launched Wednesday, 20 November, this is the 26th annual Landmine Monitor report. It focuses on calendar year 2023, with information included up to October ...Missing: contamination extent
[50]
[PDF] Explosive ordnance contamination in Ukraine - Humanity & Inclusion
Entire communities are affected, deprived of access to essential services, particularly education and socioeconomic opportunities. According to a study led by ...
[51]
The deadly legacy of landmines - UN News
Apr 2, 2023 · Since the late 90s, more than 55 million landmines have been destroyed, over 30 countries have become mine-free, casualties have been ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[52]
Mozambique Marks a Decade Free of Landmines - ReliefWeb
Sep 17, 2025 · September 17, 2025 – In the week in which Mozambique marks a decade since it was declared landmine free, the HALO Trust is urging the ...
[53]
[PDF] Major Findings - ICBLCMC
Landmine Monitor 2024. Major Findings. 3. • In 2023, improvised landmines ... through land release activities in 2023, while the extent of contamination increased.
[54]
Mine-Free Cambodia Extended to 2030
Jan 16, 2025 · PHNOM PENH – Cambodia has extended its goal of being landmine-free by five years to 2030, the Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) says.
[55]
Croatia's demining experts hope to clear country of landmines by 2026
Apr 4, 2025 · "At the end of this year, we will complete all operations and on March 1, 2026, (we will) declare Croatia free of mine danger," Laura said.<|control11|><|separator|>
[56]
Landmines: New Casualties Show Need to Support Treaty Ban
Nov 19, 2024 · There were at least 5,757 new casualties from landmines and explosive remnants of war in 53 countries and 2 other areas in 2023, including 1,983 ...
[57]
FM 20-32 PART TWO CHAPTER 9 - GlobalSecurity.org
The lanes must be sufficient to allow the force to cross and accomplish the mission. (Table 9-1 provides information on lane widths.) The unit reducing the ...Missing: goals | Show results with:goals
[58]
M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC)
Sep 12, 1998 · The MICLIC is a rocket projected explosive line charge which provides a close-in breaching capability for maneuver forces.
[59]
Humanitarian Demining – Project Masam
In military demining, generally, the objective is to clear a safe path – referred to as a “breach” – through an otherwise mined area. This may need to be done ...
[60]
[PDF] The Role of the Military in Mine Action - GICHD
For some, the military expertise in breaching minefields is not easily transposed to humanitarian demining, where nothing less than 100 per cent clearance of ...
[61]
[PDF] Combined-Arms Breaching Operations - BITS
Aug 31, 2000 · The number and width of lanes created varies with the enemy situation, the assault force's size and composition, and the scheme of maneuver. The ...
[62]
[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 ...
[63]
https://www.beachesofnormandy.com/articles/Beating_the_Patient_Weapon/
[64]
[PDF] Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) - Army.mil
The M58 linear demolition charge is propelled over the minefield by a MK 22 5- inch rocket motor and then detonated by command wire, clearing a vehicle wide ...
[65]
Countermine Tactics: MINEFIELD BREACHING NEWSLETTER NO ...
Under perfect conditions, a MICLIC breaches 100 meters. A threat mixed minefield is 60-270 or more meters deep. Plan employing a minimum of two MICLICs per lane ...Missing: goals | Show results with:goals<|separator|>
[66]
About IMAS - International Mine Action Standards
1. International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) IMAS aim to improve safety, efficiency and effectiveness in mine action by promoting a consistent approach across ...
[67]
5 Pillars of Mine Action - UNMAS
The aim of humanitarian demining is to restore peace and security at the community level. Mine Risk Education. Mine Risk Education (MRE) refers to educational ...
[68]
Mine Action Standards - GICHD
IMAS are designed to improve safety, efficiency and quality in mine action, and to promote consistency across mine action operations. IMAS. National Mine Action ...
[69]
Home - International Mine Action Standards: IMAS
IMAS provide clear, authoritative guidance for all areas of mine action, from land release and clearance to risk education and victim assistance. Regularly ...
[70]
[PDF] CROATIA - Mine Action Review
In 2020, Croatia cleared almost 50km2 of mined area, an increase of more than 25% on the output in 2019, despite operations being halted for nearly two ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[71]
[PDF] A Review of External Post-clearance Inspection: How Cost-effective ...
In early 2012, the Geneva Interna- tional Centre for Humanitarian De- mining completed a study that exam- ined the cost and benefits of this process.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[72]
[PDF] Economics of Landmines and Demining - DTIC
This study attempts to identify and evaluate alternative approaches to demining in order to provide recommendations on the most cost-effective options for a ...
[73]
[PDF] The Cost Capture Issue in Humanitarian Mine Action
One issue that has been found in the observation of mine action programs is that of incomplete cost capture in assessing the cost of units of output.
[74]
[PDF] Land Mine Warfare: Detection and Clearance - DTIC
Current Technology. Currently, hand-held probes, metal detectors, trained dogs, and mechanical breaching equipment are considered the most effective tools to ...
[75]
[PDF] Issues in Performance Evaluation of Metal Detectors
This results in a large number of \False Alarms", determined mainly by the extent of metallic contamination of a particular location and the smallest target ...<|separator|>
[76]
[PDF] Anti-Personnel Landmine (APL) Detection Technology Survey and ...
• Dogs: Dogs are extremely reliable landmine detectors, though inclement weather, poor terrain, ... "readily achieve" an 80% detection rate in dry sand for all ...
[77]
[PDF] Mine Detection Dogs - GICHD
Hand-held metal detectors and prodding sticks were clearing to around 100 millimetres depth, and anti-tank mines are often placed at greater depths. After ...
[78]
[PDF] OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY IN MINE ACTION - GICHD
For a team of 8 deminers, 40 deminer days equals 5 team days. ... The most common productivity rate was between 20 and 25 square metres per deminer per day.Missing: m²/ | Show results with:m²/
[79]
[PDF] Alternatives for Landmine Detection - RAND
This report assesses the potential for innovative mine detection technologies to speed clearance of the 45–50 million landmines around the world.
[80]
[PDF] Guidebook on Detection Technologies and Systems for ... - GICHD
This guidebook covers metal detectors, ground penetrating radar, radiometer, trace explosive, bulk explosive, acoustic/seismic, vehicle-based, and remote ...
[81]
[PDF] Redalyc.LANDMINE DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES TO FACE THE ...
This paper reviews landmine detection techniques, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses for Antioquia, which has the most landmine victims in Colombia.
[82]
[PDF] DETECTION OF EXPLOSIVES (IN PARTICULAR LANDMINES) BY ...
The discussions included nuclear, acoustic, radar, infrared, x-ray, and nuclear quadrupole resonance methods for localizing and characterizing landmines. Many ...
[83]
[PDF] Landmine Detection by Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance (NQR) - DTIC
NQR is used to detect landmines by verifying their presence and discriminating explosives, reducing false alarms from GPR.<|separator|>
[84]
[PDF] Perspectives on the Development and Use of Nuclear Methods for ...
Sep 29, 2025 · Both NQR and neutron techniques are quite promising and offer powerful advantages in detecting landmines and minefields, although they have ...
[85]
(PDF) Advances in Acoustic Landmine Detection - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · The promising methods used so far include RF bombardment, NQR, ground-penetrating radars, types of neutron energy bombardment, acoustic ...
[86]
Performance Analysis of Techniques Used for Determining Land ...
The methods such as acoustic seismic, GPR, EMI, IR and MAD are used mainly for detecting mine cover, on the other hand the neutron based methods such as NQR ...
[87]
[PDF] Detecting Explosive Material via Optical Systems Observing the ...
... rat at the APOPO Visitor's Center in. Siem Reap, Cambodia. The first trained rats were accredited in 2004 according to the International Mine Action.
[88]
How Can Technology Help Humanitarian Demining? | Stability
Developing devices and technologies to help human deminers successfully and safely carry out their work is a major challenge.Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[89]
[PDF] ITEP Evaluation of Metal Detectors and Dual-sensor Detectors
False-alarm rate reduction of 100% means that GPR use successfully discriminates and rejects all false alarms, and 0% means that no false alarms are rejected.
[90]
Development of Dual Sensors and Deployment in Mine Affected ...
In order to reduce the false alarm rate of metal detectors, dual sensors have been developed. In this chapter, we introduce one of the dual sensors, ...<|separator|>
[91]
Unmanned Ariel Vehicle (UAV) Path Planning for Area ... - MDPI
This study presents a framework for autonomous UAV-based landmine detection to determine the coverage route for scanning the target area.
[92]
[PDF] 3. Operational Systems in Manual Mine Clearance - GICHD
During the trials of different manual clearance systems, the rates achieved by the deminers varied from 1.6 square metres to 17.4 square metres in four working ...Missing: m² | Show results with:m²
[93]
[PDF] PART 1 DEMINING - UNMAS
Oct 1, 2015 · A normal working day for a manual mine clearance deminer shall not exceed 6 hours actual mine clearance work a day. In excessive climatic ...
[94]
[PDF] Metal detector handbook for humanitarian demining
Manual demining with a metal detector and excavation tools is still the most common way of clearing ground. This is the case because it results in the ...
[95]
[PDF] Completion of the - AP Mine Ban Convention
Jun 4, 2025 · ii That manual BAC teams will clear 1,000m2 per day (not applicable to. AP threat). iii That mechanical clearance teams will clear 2,000m2 per ...Missing: m²/ | Show results with:m²/
[96]
[PDF] Landmine Contamination: A Development Imperative
• The most common landmines are priced from. $3 to $40;. • A typical 10-person manual clearance team can demine no more than 500 square meters a day;. • For ...Missing: m² | Show results with:m²
[97]
[PDF] A Study of Mechanical Application in Demining - GICHD
Box 1 but the clearance rate increased to 200 square metres per six-hour workday. This represents a 200 per cent increase in the manual demining rate. An ...Missing: plow m²
[98]
[PDF] Mechanical Demining Equipment Catalogue 2008
The Armtrac 75t can clear flat areas at a rate of 1,600 m2 per hour and can operate on ... > The unique double flail system ensures a high clearance rate (test ...Missing: m² | Show results with:m²
[99]
Demining - Wikipedia
Mechanical devices such as flails and excavators are sometimes used to clear mines. South Korean soldiers searching for land mines in Iraq A US soldier clears a ...
[100]
Humanitarian Demining: Reality and the Challenge of Technology
Cost effective and efficient clearance techniques for clearing both landmines and vegetation have been identified as a significant need by the demining ...<|separator|>
[101]
Obstacle-Reduction Techniques - GlobalSecurity.org
The neutralization of mines by blast depends on the peak pressure and the impulse. For the MICLIC, the impulse is at a maximum of 3 meters from the line charge ...
[102]
[PDF] a brief survey of mine breaching capabilities - The Dupuy Institute
Aug 23, 2000 · The US Army Full-Width Mine Rake (FWMR) can be attached to a bulldozer and gives the ability to clear antitank mines from a 15-foot wide lane, ...
[103]
Joint Program Executive Office for Armaments & Ammunition
The M1A3 Bangalore Torpedo Demolition Kit is a man-portable device used to ... MICLIC is a mine clearing device used to clear a path for tanks ...<|separator|>
[104]
Appendix H - Reduce a Minefield
The Bangalore torpedo generates one short impulse. It is not effective against pronged, double-impulse, or pressure-resistant antipersonnel or antitank mines.Missing: MICLIC | Show results with:MICLIC
[105]
Rhyno EOD trusted mine clearance robot - Shark Robotics
The Rhyno EOD by Shark Robotics offers unmatched performance in demining, EOD, and C-IED tasks, ensuring safety and operational efficiency.Missing: detonation | Show results with:detonation
[106]
[PDF] IMAS 10.30 - International Mine Action Standards
Apr 1, 2009 · The employer shall provide training on the proper use, maintenance and storage of all PPE provided and in use in the demining organization. The ...
[107]
Personal protective equipment (PPE) in humanitarian demining
The proven design made of 5 mm thick, untreated polycarbonate meets STANAG 2920 and IMAS 10.30 standards.
[108]
Demining Suits - Military Systems and Technology
It protects to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) IIIA level. The Kejo™ US PASGT is a jacket style vest ideally suited for use by military or riot police.<|control11|><|separator|>
[109]
Lightweight Demining Helmet - Med-Eng
The helmet has ventilation holes to help reduce physiological heat stress. The full-face visor provides protection against Fragmentation, Overpressure, Blast- ...Missing: modern kevlar
[110]
"PPE Development and Needs in HMA" by Andy Smith
As written in the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) 10.30 on personal protective equipment (PPE), “the primary means of preventing explosive injury ...
[111]
Demining Helmet With Visor STANAG 2920 - ASP
Level of protection: Steel fragment 1.1 g – V50 x 280 m / s; Damage to the visor, even slight, requires the visor to be changed. Related Products.Missing: modern kevlar
[112]
Protection needs paper - Humanitarian Mine Action
While I do not have all the relevant data, I believe that severe accidents occur at the rate of one per 25-30 man-years of actual demining.Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics<|separator|>
[113]
Database of Demining Accidents 2011
Safer working procedures were more likely to prevent severe injury than the use of more PPE;; Traumatic injury was increasingly rare and could usually be ...
[114]
Accreditation of mine action organisations
The purpose of organisational accreditation is to confirm that the organisation has competence and ability to operate as a mine action organisation. Where the ...
[115]
Risk management in mine action - International Mine Action Standards
The principles and processes described in this IMAS are applicable to any situation in which mine action managers must take decisions about achieving objectives ...Foreword · Risk management system · Risk management process · Responsibilities
[116]
[PDF] NMAS 07.12 Quality Management in Mine Action
This NMAS also provides a set of standards required and recommended guidelines for internal QA/QC conducted by IAs while they are conducting demining operations ...
[117]
[PDF] Taking a Proactive Approach to Support Staff in Mine Action - GICHD
Within mine action there are many risks to consider when address- ing the duty of care obligation: to promote mental and physical health, and avoid long-term ...Missing: screening | Show results with:screening
[118]
We will present our experience in demining at the international ESG ...
Sep 10, 2024 · Financially, international support is crucial: farmers cannot afford to demine their land with costs estimated at USD 3-5 per square meter. This ...
[119]
The U.S. Humanitarian Demining Program in Afghanistan - state.gov
Dec 1, 2001 · The average cost to clear a square meter of land in Afghanistan is less than $.65 (U.S.); this compares to the average cost of $2-$3 per square ...
[120]
[PDF] Mine Action Funding: Trends, Modalities and Future Prospects
According to the Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor (LCMM), total funding for mine action amounted to $626.5 million US in 2008. Of this amount, $517.8 ...
[121]
$$89 Million in New U.S. Humanitarian Demining Assistance for ...
Aug 9, 2022 · Since 1993, the United States has invested more than $4.2 billion for the safe clearance of landmines and explosive weapons of war (ERW) as well ...<|separator|>
[122]
As landmines return to Europe, Ukraine struggles to clear 30 per ...
Apr 10, 2025 · The total cost of clearing Ukraine is now estimated at $31 billion, down from an earlier World Bank estimate of $36bn – a reduction made ...
[123]
Demining Ukraine's Farmland: Progress, Adaptation, and Needs
Dec 5, 2024 · In total as of October 2024, more than USD 1 billion has been pledged by Ukraine's allies to humanitarian demining work. Notably, Japan's ...<|separator|>
[124]
[PDF] An Evaluation of the Mine Action Programme of Afghanistan - UNMAS
Cost per square metre cleared under MAPA decreased from $3 in the 1990s to below $1 in the 2020s. Improved capacity and equipment enhanced the programme's ...
[125]
What are the economic effects of landmine clearance? - VoxDev
Aug 17, 2018 · Demining in Mozambique had a significant impact on the economy due to large positive spillovers.<|separator|>
[126]
[PDF] Landmines: the local effects of demining - Collegio Carlo Alberto
Sep 22, 2021 · ... cost-benefit analysis in which we compare the median mu- nicipal value-added to the cost of humanitarian demining per square meter and the size ...
[127]
[PDF] Landmines: the Local Effects of Demining
Feb 9, 2022 · We find that the deforestation surge after military demining is more pronounced in areas that are suitable for extractive agricultural.Missing: reclaimed | Show results with:reclaimed
[128]
[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 ...
[129]
The Ottawa Treaty: Why the Global South Signed While ... - Catalyst
Apr 3, 2025 · However, the speed of the Treaty's adoption came at a cost—its enforcement mechanisms remained weak, allowing non-signatory states to continue ...Missing: trade- offs
[130]
Landmines proposed as solution for Israel's border protection - Globes
Dec 12, 2023 · Although Israel has not signed the UN Ottawa Convention, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines, ...
[131]
[PDF] The Exploitation of Landmines in the Falkland Islands
Sep 7, 2021 · The vulnerability of internal components also varies substantially. ... tion of mines recovered in and around coastal areas in the Falkland.
[132]
(PDF) A cost-benefit analysis of landmine clearance in Mozambique
Aug 6, 2025 · The main benefits of clearance are saved lives, injuries and medical costs and the agricultural output that is not lost if landmines are cleared ...
[133]
Comparative Analysis of Modern Robotic Demining Complexes and ...
Aug 29, 2025 · This paper presents a comparative analysis of ten state-of-the-art robotic de-mining systems, grouped into (i) sensor-centric platforms for ...
[134]
Husky Highlights: Mines, Mars, Farms, and Beyond
Oct 8, 2024 · ... demining robot for a group project. ... The group then concentrates on developing algorithms that will allow robotic systems to operate in harsh ...
[135]
Safer Demining through Technology: Japanese Robotics Boosts a ...
Mar 28, 2025 · A Japanese startup has developed a mine-clearing support robot that uses proprietary compressed-air excavation technology to make landmine removal safer and ...
[136]
Ground Robots to Proliferate on Ukraine Battlefields Following ...
Sep 2, 2025 · One robot, the Zmiy, manufactured by Rovertech, had flails to destroy mines. Several other models by other companies were built to lay mines.
[137]
Ukraine Takes Delivery of First Mine-Clearing Machine Costing ...
Oct 31, 2022 · Ukraine has taken delivery of its first mine-clearing machine, which was made by a British company and cost almost $500,000 · Ukraine received ...
[138]
[PDF] Disarmadillo: an open source, sustainable, robotic platform for ...
In 2021, Disarmadillo+ project has been approved assuring a push forward thanks to the collaboration between researchers of the Italian Institute of Technology ...
[139]
Donate to fuel innovation that saves lives | The HALO Trust USA
HALO uses advanced detectors, AI mapping, and robots like Spot to save lives and clear land faster. Learn how your donation can transform mine clearance today.Missing: trials casualty reduction
[140]
Demining Robots 2025 Trends and Forecasts 2033
Rating 4.8 (1,980) May 3, 2025 · The global demining robots market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for efficient and safe mine clearance solutions ...
[141]
Ukraine Is Riddled With Land Mines. Drones and AI Can Help
A startup called Safe Pro AI is using drones and AI to detect land mines and other explosive remnants of war in Ukraine. The startup's software is already ...
[142]
AI Drone Technology Detects 27,450 Landmines in Ukraine Forest ...
Jun 12, 2025 · Safe Pro's AI-powered drones analyze 1.6M+ images to protect Ukraine's forests from landmine-triggered fires.
[143]
Safe Pro Strengthens IP Portfolio with Filing of Provisional Patent for ...
Dec 10, 2024 · New Patent to Secure Protection for Methods, Tools and Systems Designed to Reduce “False Positive” Detection of Objects Including Explosives ...
[144]
Joint Fusion and Detection via Deep Learning in UAV-Borne ... - NIH
Jun 18, 2023 · A multispectral fusion strategy based on a deep learning model is proposed to facilitate mine detection.
[145]
Review of approaches to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles ...
Apr 15, 2024 · To increase the probability of detecting mines, it is recommended to install a magnetometer in a pendulum manner under a UAV [50] to minimize ...
[146]
Draganfly and Autonome Labs Announce Teaming Agreement to ...
May 1, 2025 · The collaboration will pair Draganfly's Heavy Lift drone platform with Autonome's MAGIC system to safely and efficiently deploy demining mesh.
[147]
Draganfly and Autonome Labs Launch Demining Drone Solution
May 4, 2025 · Field Testing Planned for 2025. Draganfly and Autonome Labs will begin integration and testing of the system in 2025. The partners plan to ...
[148]
AI-powered drone system for mine detection tested in Ukraine
Jul 9, 2025 · The “Postup” Foundation has developed a remote humanitarian demining platform called MinesEye and successfully tested it in real-world conditions.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[149]
https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/industries/mining-resources/sensing/mread
[150]
MRead technology for detecting landmines and explosives - CSIRO
Apr 3, 2023 · Based on decades of magnetic resonance research, Australian company MRead is developing sensors to detect explosives used in landmines to ...Missing: sniffers | Show results with:sniffers
[151]
Innovation and technology in mine action | The HALO Trust
Dec 10, 2024 · By leveraging the latest innovations, we can make mine clearance safer, faster, and more efficient, reducing the human toll of conflict and ...Missing: casualty | Show results with:casualty
[152]
[PDF] Evaluating a Pattern-Based Visual Support Approach for ...
Unexploded land- mines can persist for decades after a conflict's end, indis- criminately killing and maiming innocent civilians. As of. 2010, 66 ...Missing: lifespan | Show results with:lifespan
[153]
PROGRESS IN HUMANITARIAN DEMINING: TECHNICAL AND ...
1) Improving communication and coordination among those doing demining R&D. · 2) Assuring communication between demining R&D and those doing R&D in potentially ...
[154]
[PDF] Soil characterisation and performance of demining sensors - LIAG
A field trial for the evaluation of detection performances of demining sensors including metal detectors and dual sensors was carried out in September 2009.
[155]
Soil information requirements for humanitarian demining: the case ...
A database comprising these properties for soils of landmine-affected countries would assist in predicting local detector performance, planning demining ...Missing: efficiency | Show results with:efficiency
[156]
Soil Information Requirements for Humanitarian Demining
Aug 9, 2025 · Landmines are buried typically in the top 30 cm of soil. A number of physical, chemical and electromagnetic. properties of this near-surface ...
[157]
A Survey of Research on Sensor Technology for Landmine Detection
Military demining usually requires mine destruction rates of 80%. The goal of humanitarian demining, in contrast, is to clear enough mines to permit normal ...
[158]
Importance of landmine detection: Assuring safety for civilians
NQR is effective at detecting plastic landmines, which are often difficult to detect using other methods.Missing: accidents | Show results with:accidents
[159]
Literature Review on Landmines and Detection Methods
Mar 1, 2013 · However, antipersonnel mines are the most common type of mine, yet the most difficult to find because they are small and often made of plastic.Missing: accidents | Show results with:accidents
[160]
Landmines Cover 139000 km² of Ukraine—An Area Larger Than ...
Aug 26, 2025 · By June 2025, the territory of Ukraine contaminated with landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) had reached 139,000 square ...Missing: extent | Show results with:extent
[161]
The Detection Problem: An Eight-Decade Challenge. - JMU
Mar 27, 2024 · Reliably detecting and discriminating mines, booby traps, and victim operated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) remains a stubborn problem.
[162]
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 ...
[163]
FAQ: Anti-personnel mine ban convention - ICRC
Apr 3, 2025 · The APMBC, or Ottawa Treaty, is an international agreement banning the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.
[164]
Mine Ban Policy - Israel - Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) described Israel's use of antipersonnel mines to prevent border crossings as “unlawful as it is an ...
[165]
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.
[166]
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 ...
[167]
A Long, Hard Year: Russia-Ukraine War Lessons Learned 2023
Aug 29, 2024 · Russia's use of mass when employing thousands of antipersonnel and anti-tank land mines to reinforce well-constructed defensive obstacles ...
[168]
Landmines: 22% more victims in one year - World - ReliefWeb
Nov 20, 2024 · In 2023, some 5,757 people were either killed or injured by landmines or explosive remnants of war. This represents an increase of more than a ...