• 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is more for a show I guess, which is not to say they shouldn’t do it.

    Surely first step in invasion over the bridge would be to just hit that bridge with some rocket…?

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think it can be for two things at once. Definetly more for show, but increases annoyance/makes a possible invasion more annoying.

        Obviously I imagine they have a way to blow up the bridge too which sounds far more effective.

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Would make sense that main invasion would be from the east, but a second front may be opened to try and collapse the “enemy” who would likely be stretched thin.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              If Russia tries to go to war with NATO, Kaliningrad is instantly blockaded and defeated. Russia can hide nothing in Kaliningrad

              • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Unless Trump withdraws, Russian war would have to be won in a week. By the time american logistical supplies and reinforcements start coming in strong, Russia is fucked.

                • protist@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You don’t think Europe has the means to defend itself against Russia?! Lmao

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      100% for sending a message.

      That bridge is pre-sighted for artillery or has its own dedicated missile just waiting for someone to hit the proverbial button.

      If it’s not, then that’s just bad planning.

      The real question is “do they wait for someone to try crossing before blowing it up, or just do it the moment Russian forces twitch in that direction?”

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        if sappers can get to that bridge, then it can be just mined and if needed removed at milisecond notice. much more reliable, faster and more efficient than artillery

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t get the downvotes. Landmines are a huge issue. The balkan countries are still struggling with them 30 years after the wars. Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq… every “theater” of war, where landmines have been used are, still struggling with them decades and decades more after. Ukraine too will suffer for decades.

      If there is an inevitable military need for them, there is no alternative. But they should not be used lightly and i am fairly certain, that Lithuania is not doing so lightly either.

      The big problem is, that for now the only reliable technique to remove landmines from an area is to dig up the area step by step. This is extremely costly and still dangerous, despite all effort in using robots, animals detecting the explosives and so on. So i hope Lithuania triple counted the mines they put and keeps that record very well.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem doesn’t really come from small fields like this. It’s when you hand them out by the truckload and tell every unit to go wild. Russia has had numerous cases where they didn’t even tell their own friendly units where the mines were, so I’d say that’s a much bigger issue than this little where the whole world knows about it.

        • PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The problem is a little more deeper than that - the very nature of mines is that they are indiscriminate. Whether you’re one force, another force, a civilian, or an animal - it does it’s job and goes boom without any further intervention by a human.

          The remainder of your point is absolutely valid, but mines are a shit idea from the outset. Area denial is indeed a tactic, but alliances and boundaries change, and what was once a defensive line may be a suburban district in a hundred years time, until a future innocent party detonates one underfoot and is killed or severely maimed.

          I thought mines were prohibited under the Geneva Suggestions, but perhaps there’s a loophole somewhere.

          • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Well, if you don’t want a bridge to be used, you can either mine it, or tear it down. The latter is a lot more work, and you can’t exactly only tear down your half of it.

            The Geneva convention is fine with landmines. The Ottawa treaty band anti-personel mines, but it does not ban anti-vehicle or anti-armor mines. The logic being that if you don’t set it off by stepping it, it’s not that big a risk.

            Now, I’m not a mine expert, but these ones look WAY too big to be anything but antitank mines.

        • Wahots@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Unfortunately, landmines are a small part of a large problem: unexploded munitions last centuries. Artillery, rockets, grenades, mines, explosives, even large ammo dumps can stick around and explode decades later.

          Here’s an active one from WW1 that is still uninhabitable because of the danger:

          https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/red-zone/

          The intense fighting and shelling near the tiny town of Verdun has permanently altered the region surrounding the Meuse River in northeastern France. The environmental destruction left by the battle led to the creation of the Zone Rouge—the Red Zone. The Zone Rouge is a 42,000-acre territory that, nearly a century after the conflict, has no human residents and only allows limited access.

          • Drusas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh, I know. That’s why it would be great if we had at least the small step of landmines being considered a war crime. We’re obviously not going to get any country to totally give up on munitions.