Falklands minefields: de facto nature reserves for penguins
bbc.com
bbc.com
> "Unfortunately," Elsby adds, "the British government have signed up to the Ottawa convention, which puts a duty on them to do this."
> The 1997 Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty compels signatories - which include the UK - to clear minefields in territory under their control.
> Since 2009 the British government has spent tens of millions of pounds on mine-clearance in the Falklands.
It's quotes like this that make me despair most for human civilisation. Our inability to design systems - or empower people - with the ability to act within a loose framework and avoid institutional insanity.
Michael Poole, Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly said:
"Falkland Islanders are grateful for the mine clearance work carried out by the UK Government in recent years. This work has opened up historically and valuable tracts of land which has been out of bounds since 1982."
This further commitment by the UK to clearing more of the Falkland Islands of mines is a welcome move and we remain willing to assist practically and logistically where we can."
The Korean DMZ has a similar thing going on:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone#Natu...
"This natural isolation along the 250 km (160 mi) length of the DMZ has created an involuntary park which is now recognized as one of the most well-preserved areas of temperate habitat in the world.
Several endangered animal and plant species now exist among the heavily fortified fences, landmines and listening posts. These include the extremely rare red-crowned crane (a staple of Asian art), and the white-naped crane as well as, potentially, the extremely rare Siberian tiger, Amur leopard and Asiatic black bear."
Everytime I see the adaptive capabilities of life forms I have to laugh and cry at the same time. It is certainly worth an internet meme...
[1] http://time.com/4660247/planet-earth-ii-clip-penguins/I wish I could up- and downvote at the same time; I feel like discussions belong at the top and memes at the bottom, but I also enjoy the bits of humor and less information-dense posts at HN, because they help me to humanize the community and they make the rest of the discussions easier to process.
Perhaps a "funny" flag could work?
Kind of like on Slashdot, but with a corresponding "showfun" setting, for the gravely serious user.
A rate or ratio limit for funny posts is needed to not let it spread and dominate the comments, so maybe a heuristic comment identifier that says "I'm glad you're having fun, but this post has reached its meme quotum for today. Have a nice day!" if a threshold is passed would be a solution. That's so much work to implement though...
I'm conflicted re: what to do with these meta thoughts. Perhaps I should set up a blog with essays regarding this, and put it there? I do feel it is on topic as in, "in the HN spirit" and relevant to what I'm responding to re: form, but not the content.
When I arrived an army officer in camo fatigues got up on the (tiny) baggage claim carousel before it started running and gave us a brief introduction to how to spot landmines, and instructed us how to obtain ordinance maps of the known existing fields if we wanted to go for a walk one day. I got one and gave it to a friend as a present. I believe he has it framed in his home.
That beach they are discussing looks astonishing and there is little doubt if it's reopened it will not remain "wild" for a long time. That said, ozone depletion is still a thing, and whilst the climate is like Northern Scotland, there are sunny days but sun-bathing is not encouraged. Young military personnel are rumoured to occasionally try it, have to get treatment for quite skin burns, and because it's a self-inflicted injury will get court marshalled.
Sometimes a penguin or other animal will actually set off a mine on that beach, or at least did in my time there - you'd hear a distant boom, and it was just assumed one had been triggered. However, it's a huge area to clear. Strangely, I seem to recall there had been an offer from a foreign government to run mad cows or unwanted apes along it to try and trigger the mines. Thankfully, it was never taken up.
There is a lot of ordinance in the islands. After the war, some of the locals picked up discarded Argentinian weaponry and ammunition and stored it for use in case of another future attack. I sincerely hope that most of it is now discarded.
More tech information for this crowd: back then, all phone and data ran over a microwave network rated to 9600 baud but some could get 56kbps modems running well over it. There is a small machine room, and we were running Solaris 7 on Sun kit back then. I got the gig as I was familiar with Zeus which was their preferred web server at the time.
Connectivity was via a (very large) satellite dish back to the UK via a geostationary satellite. 1Mbps was the max transfer rate, and ping times back to the UK were > 500ms. They had investigated running fibre optic into the islands, but they (naturally) wanted to avoid that coming in via Argentina, so they'd costed running it up to the US straight up the Atlantic. It was doable, but would cost 10x the then national GDP of the islands, so, yeah, noooo…
It's a very beautiful place with lovely people, and I imagine the connectivity is much better than it was 15 years ago - if you ever have the chance to visit or work there, I'd definitely consider it, but the routes in are limited: MoD flight from RAF Brize Norton, via Santiago, or cruise ships sometimes stop by.
They actually suggested I might want a full time gig down there. Being in my early 20s and single it wasn't for me, but I could see for the right person, it's a pretty amazing place.
The problem in the Falklands is that demining machines are very destructive of habitat. A demining machine effectively ploughs the land - a useful side-effect if you're clearing agricultural land, but a serious problem if you're clearing a nature reserve.
http://www.gichd.org/resources/publications/detail/publicati...
Another thing that makes demining really tedious is the amount of scrap metal in the earth - and if it's former farm land that's been mined it's bound to have loads of metal in it, mostly remains of agricultural equipment, and on the minestrips of former Yugoslavia you often enough hit archeological artifacts during mine-clearing.
If you wanted to do automated demining, you'd need:
1) scanner technology that can differentiate between scrap metal and mines, as well as penetrate at least 1-2m into the ground
2) robots on 2 legs and with 2 arms - basically, humanoid robots. Anything other is only usable on flat fields.
3) robots must be able to conquer vast amounts of vegetation. For example, the Yugoslavian wars were 2 decades ago - many of the minestrips that are still not cleared up are in the backside of the country and heavily overgrown by everything from grass to massive trees now. (Source: am half Croatian, seen some minefields)
4) robots with high-quality visual processing. The most devious mines are those that have been hidden in / masqueraded as stuff like old cans, soccer balls or other stuff that children pick up, play with it and boooom. Any robot which has to do demining in such areas must be able to detect and avoid these.
5) cheap robots. A single robot with above capabilities will run well into the 8-figures at the moment (esp. due to #2), a human is cheaper (especially as there's protective armor available that helps to prevent or soften severe injuries).
We see 4 legged animals in forests and on mountains, seeming to donjust fine navigating the terrain (and often doing better than humans).
Hm. Could you use light bots to search out and mark the mines, and send in diggers only once the area has been thoroughly inspected? Of course that just makes everything even more complicated...
How much of normal mine clearance is searching vs. removing? Is there any advantage to robots that mark mines for manual removal, or is that already the "easy" part?
> 1) scanner technology that can differentiate between scrap metal and mines, as well as penetrate at least 1-2m into the ground
Forgive me if this is naive, but do mines actually get buried 2m deep? I would think that would be unfeasibly difficult. Or are we thinking of shallower mines that were buried by natural soil movement?
> 2) robots on 2 legs and with 2 arms - basically, humanoid robots. Anything other is only usable on flat fields.
It could conceivably be helpful to use a robot that can cover moderately rugged terrain. You'd still need to use manual methods on the rougher patches, but it might at least reduce the size of the problem.
I realize it's probably unfeasibly expensive no matter what, but it's interesting to think about the problem.
While a tank or an AK47 might work in this environment as intended, a robot with fine gears and other relatively delicate moving parts will have trouble with the sand... and the corrosive sea water environment. It will require an extensive amount of maintenance.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/05/email_scammers_hit_...
I doubt the UK is about to invade Argentina over the issue, or the UN to vote for sanctions.
Obvious troll is obvious but for the sake of facts:
a) The Islands were uninhabited when the British settled there.
b) Argentina didn't even exist as an independent country when the British claimed the Falklands.
> It's not like they're anywhere close to London, are they?
It's not like Argentina is anywhere close to Madrid, but there seems to be a lot of people of Spanish descent living there.
- Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands.
- During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government.
- If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence.
- 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it
- 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.
- 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands.
- 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands
- 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands.
Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2]
So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands?
[1] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM
[2] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.J...
They claimed the Falkland Islands before Argentina even existed as an independent country, as I said in my post. They didn't have to make a new claim every time they recognized a new country.
a) anyone can claim any territory they like; that doesn't automatically make the claim legitimate or credible
b) claiming a territory is academic unless you can actually enforce your claim
c) Britain claimed the Falklands (decades) before "Argentina" even existed in any form as an independent country
d) if a "British" claim and presence on islands with no native population is illegitimate, what does that make a "Spanish" claim and presence on land taken from the native population that is now called "Argentina"?
Maybe the people of the Falklands are going home when the people of Argentina do.
> No, they did not claim it before that year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=1765+falklands+claim
https://www.google.com/search?q=argentine+independence
Even after so-called "Argentine independence" - half a century after Britain claimed the Falklands - "Argentina" didn't exist even remotely like the country we know today.
In fact even by 1865 - 100 YEARS after the British claimed the Falklands, and 15 years after "Argentina" relinquished claims in the treaty of Arana Southern - this is what "Argentina" looked like:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~21...
So who do the British owe the Falklands to again? Buenos Aires? United Provinces of the River Plate? Argentine Confederation? Chile? Uruguay? Araucania and Patagonia? Spain?
Tell me again the one about returning stolen land.
Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that.
The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN. That little organization where all the countries are represented. I understand from what you say that you favor the rule of the strongest instead of the actual law and common sense, but it's something real and concrete: the Argentinean sea surrounds the islands, and it's been proved to be a part of the country. The UK has absolutely NOTHING to do there, as their country is on the other hemisphere.
I'll reply to the rest of the "arguments" as you so call them, about the "claims" they did. I need to retrieve some information from the library first, so I can give you some proper references, instead of Google, as you did. Maybe that way you can learn something.
> The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN.
Do you not even understand what's written in the link you posted as "evidence" or something?
The very first sentences state (emphasis/capitalization mine):
"The Argentine Foreign Ministry announced on 28 March 2016 that it
had gained international recognition of a claim to an exceptionally
large continental shelf.
BUT THEY WERE MISTAKEN.
[...]
On 23 May 2016, the [UN] Commission made public its recommendations
and ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE ARGENTINE CLAIM WAS ENDORSED.
This paper explains the legal regime and the political process
that led the Commission to REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE ARGENTINE CLAIM
TO THE SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM,
AND TO A PART OF ANTARCTICA.
the Argentine Foreign Ministry knew NO PART OF THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS UNDER BRITISH CONTROL WOULD BE CONSIDERED
by the sub-commission.
[...]
Indeed, the legal situation was so unambiguous that THE ARGENTINE
DELEGATION DID NOT EVEN ASK FOR THE FULL SUBMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED.
It's almost as if you didn't post this (in the 21st century) as an argument for an Argentine take over of the Falklands:
"Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that."
Besides, it is kind of difficult to decide who really owns any land when you look back through the long and complicated history of just about any modern country. Who should own Argentina? It used force to separate itself from Spain, so should Spain still have a claim over it? Should they demand it back again? How did Spain get it in the first place? By conquering the place, which means it was stolen from the natives. Should the descendants of the natives claim it back? But then the natives no doubt were made up of tribes/groups that used force to change ownership. So are you going to work that out backwards to the first tribe to arrive in the area many thousands of years ago? Where do you draw the line? Given the complexity you pretty much end up with the fairest method being to ask the actual inhabitants who they want to govern them. They said they want the British.
- Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands.
- During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government.
- If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence.
- 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it
- 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.
- 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands.
- 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands
- 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands.
Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2]
So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands?
[1] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM
[2] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.J...
> So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN
> all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the
> islands, BUT the islands?
Aside from that I think you're misunderstanding what this map means. There's an international convention on continental shelves but national sovereignty supersedes it. There's no rule that if your continental shelf intersects territory intersects some island you own that island.
If it did then China would own Taiwan, France / Belgium / The Netherlands & Norway would own the British isles, South Korea would own Japan etc.
</sarcasm>
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r...
Ultimately, the important part is that there are no living people, whether on the islands or elsewhere, who are harmed by British control of the island, and there are plenty of living people who would be harmed by it being ceded to Argentine.
In any case, I was definitely talking about people, not countries - this is clearly spelled out in the comment that started this thread. I don't care about countries. They only exist to serve the people, and any such rights they claim above and beyond that are illegitimate.
TL;DR: Penguins are not heavy enough to set off landmines left by Argentinians in Falklands War. Plenty are left, now the British government has to clear them due to Ottawa convention, and this will disrupt penguins and the ecosystem.
I think it's more sad-larious that we can't just not despoil an area unless it's protected by landmines.
"Falkland Islanders weren't enthused by the idea, to put it bluntly," says Barry Elsby, a member of the Falklands Legislative Assembly. "We would rather have left the minefields as they were. They are all clearly marked, clearly fenced. No civilian has ever been injured. We said to the British government, 'Don't spend the money here, go to some other country where they have a much greater need to free up farming land.'" "Unfortunately," Elsby adds, "the British government have signed up to the Ottawa convention, which puts a duty on them to do this."
It looks a somewhat similar nature reserve to the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, which also acts as a superb nature reserve (also a BBC story):
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclus...
My opinions are probably coloured by growing up with Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees as childhood friends. Their families had strong, and uniformly negative, opinions about landmines. Sounds like the circumstances were very different.
Landmines can be used properly or improperly. If you lay them properly, map them, and clear them when not needed, they're not any more risky than the typical remains of war (unexploded bombs and shells); less so in fact (considering Molotov breadbaskets scattered by artillery or air).
The Ottawa convention will be observed by those parties who anyway would have used mines responsibly (and thereby would have had a cheap, domestic defensive weapon, instead of paying big bucks to high-tech munition makers).
And those parties who we can expect to behave irresponsibly didn't join the convention in the first place.
2. Gets declared off-topic.
3. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Either way, the DMZ is 400 sq miles largely forested, with about 0 human population density. Maybe its got some leopards, maybe maybe a tiger.
South Korea 507
North Korea 201
New Jersey 470 (densest amont US states)
New York 162
California 97
US average 33
(For comparison, the Yosemite national park is 1,169 square miles, larger than DMZ. Somehow people are sure that it harbors no grizzly bears.)
A tiger isn't a bigfoot. It is an apex predator that roams around huge areas and is scared at nothing. I stand by my assertion: if there's a tiger in DMZ, we'd know.
Yosemite national park has loads of grizzly bears. Also a few million visitors per year to spot the grizzlies and sometimes get killed by them. [http://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/bears/]
I wouldn't bet money on a tiger living there either, but there really aren't many humans walking around most of the DMZ.
There hasn't been a grizzly bear in Yosemite since the 1920s.