borderline borderline land o' mine

[California Tanker]

But in a modern battlefield, and especially the way NK would use them, aren’t infantry just squishy targets?

Never underestimate the humble footsoldier. In the right terrain, they're unbeatable. Lots of artillery deadspace in mountains, for example, and if the tanks can't get to them either, it's down to what aircraft can withstand the anti-air fire, and guys with machineguns behind fortifications, who are probably outnumbered heavily.

Landmines on the Korean DMZ, don’t seem to be much of a deterrent.

There's a difference between sneaking a couple of people through, and trying for a rapid movement of a brigade.

The intent of the treaty is surely to remove the capability of mining as well as just reducing the number of mines on the ground, or the number of areas mined. Relying purely on the good intentions of future US military policy doesn't do it for me.

There are a number of treaties in force which are followed simply by good intentions, and not capability. I can go down to my local store and buy expanding ammunition for my rifles and pistols, for example, but they are not on general issue to any santioned military that I am aware of due to the requirements of the Hague Declarations. The fact that the US (and most other countries) can at very short notice violate the treaty should it have a mind to hasn't caused any particular consternation on the matter.

Similarly, I was issued several very high-intensity lasers which are destructive to eyesight if used against personnel, though that's not what they're supposed to be used for (Usually marking and aiming). Current Chinese tanks come equipped with a laser dazzler on the turret to deal with optical tracking and guidance systems. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons has very clear things to say about going about trying to blind the enemy on the battlefield. But again, nobody has gone complaining about the capability given that the prohibition on use blinding personnel appears to be followed.

The intent of the treaty is surely to remove the capability of mining as well as just reducing the number of mines on the ground, or the number of areas mined.

My understanding is that the impetus behind the treaty was to try to prevent cases of people having their legs blown off years after a war is over.

NTM