Everything has a cost. Usually of the same type as what you are buying.
You can usually reword security/stability as a type of freedom. The freedom to have a guaranteed income usually costs some of the freedom to choose where/when/how you work. For example.
You might say that you will pay for the freedom to not have school shootings with the freedom to have free access to guns. You lose one freedom to gain another.
You are correct that to some degree they are antonyms, but I would say that it’s freedom vs stability. It’s just that security is a type of stability.
If you break them down more mathematically freedom is represented as infinite possible trajectories, which is in other words a very unstable position. In order to increase stability you must reduce the possible trajectories.
I think it’s a good point. The hypocrisy and double standards have really come to the fore in the past 3 years.
However, I think it’s partially due to a lack of empathy/inability to understand the desperation that drives some parts of the war machine, survive at any cost.
Land mines are a horror of war that bite long after the conflict ends. They are also one of the most cost effective ways of slowing/containing a large scale enemy assault.
Personally, I don’t know where I stand on this news, existential threats shift viewpoints drastically.
I think it’s fair to say: we should not use landmines, we should wish for other countries to not use them. However, I don’t think that they should be demonised. And they should be used as “reasonably” as possible. (E.g. securing a border or military base, not near a residential area). Of course when survival comes into play, soldiers will do what they feel they need to at the end of the day, and who are we to judge from the comfort of our screens?