Clusterbombs

[English assassin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7423714.stm

How ironic that when by some oversight Gordo does pay for the UK armed forces to have a weapon, he then bans it.

Really, what is the point in this sort of thing? Sure, I'd like them to pass a law outlawing war, harsh words, and husbands forgetting their wives birthdays, but alas that isn't going to happen. And if its not, and if the military say a weapon is effective and they want to have it available, by what right does a desk jockey like Brown say they should not? I bet if he was put under fire in a war zone he'd be in favour of M73 armed Apache helicopters coming to his rescue before you could say "I've **** my troosers"

Also, this is a final example of mission creep, and, therefore, sadly also a fine example of why you should never agree to give a campaigner anything at all. The ban on delayed action cluster bombs because of the risk of civilian casualties, well, maybe you can see that. But the UK cluster bombs aren't of that sort. Quite different weapons have all been lumped together in one treaty, just because the campaigners saw the chance to ban something, and piled in.

Its pork for peaceniks.

Total nonsense. Well done the Americans, Russians and Chinese for having nothing to do with this posturing claptrap.

[drone]

We'll be back to swords and bows soon, all these new-fangled modern weapons harm the environment, endanger native species, and contribute to global warming. ~;)

[FactionHeir]

He's right to ban cluster bombs though. They cause unnecessary risk to civilians in war zones as reported back when Israel attacked Lebanon a few years back.

[drone]

He's right to ban cluster bombs though. They cause unnecessary risk to civilians in war zones as reported back when Israel attacked Lebanon a few years back.
Any weapon is a risk to civilians in a war zone. The decision to use ordnance around civilians must always take this into account. The smartest bomb can go awry, or be targeted with poor intelligence. Instead of just outright banning a weapon with a real use when used away from population centers, military doctrine and common sense should dictate what weapons are acceptable where. An MLRS battery would be a poor choice for dealing with insurgents in Sadr City, that doesn't mean they should be banned outright.

[FactionHeir]

Of course any weapon bears a risk, even an arrow does, but those that bear the most risk may require mutual agreement to not use while those that bear fewer risks can be continued in usage.

Ottawa treaty mean anything? Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons

[drone]

Look at the list who have not signed the Ottawa Treaty. Look familiar? The CCW wiki entry says only 2 protocols need to be accepted by a nation to be a signatory. It's not on there, but I'm guessing the US signed off on blinding weapons and invisible fragments only.

Dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas is irresponsible, but that has it's own political ramifications. Dropping cluster bombs on an enemy airfield is an easy, quick way to gain air superiority. I guess the USAF is now NATO's one stop shop for anti-personnel strikes, runway destruction, front line carpet bombing, and the like. All the signatories better hope that all-out warfare is truly a thing of the past, and insurgencies are the only game in town.

[rory_20_uk]

There are enough get out clauses to ensure that they can be used when required.

I liked the part that said their best use is against airfields and tank battalions on the move...
Even Yugoslavia all those years ago the Serbs were smart enough not to move their tanks where they'd get destroyed by the USA. These days who has tank battalions to move around on the roads? If we're talking about another 3rd world tin-pot nation like Iraq the tanks are easy to destroy in many other ways, and most have learnt that far better to sponsor guerillas than fight the way the larger enemy wants to. Airfields is the same argument - who has decent aircraft except large powers?

So then we're talking about firing weapons at houses / groups of houses to try to kill the assailants - with the usual risk of others being around.

Israel illustrated how useless they are - evidence of a power flailing at the enemy hoping that they are somewhere within the large area that was filled with schrapnel.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

Once again the United States exempts itself from what can only be described as a humanitarian issue...

[Dâriûsh]

Israeli cluster bombs left in southern Lebanon are still killing and wounding (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iI6KOuDgUPMlfeqIxt99XRj69gvw) people almost two years after the war ended.

[Ja'chyra]

Anyone care to guess how much disposing of these things is costing us?

I'm not a fan of this at all, might as well send our boys to war with no weapons

[FactionHeir]

Anyone care to guess how much disposing of these things is costing us?

Probably less than to keep them stocked, which incurs storage cost, inventory loss, maintenance cost, administrative stuff etc in the mid-long run.

[CountArach]

Anyone care to guess how much disposing of these things is costing us?
Anyone care to tell me how many civilian lives this will save?

[Marshal Murat]

Anyone want to tell me the last time a cluster-bomb was used in a non-war-zone?

[CountArach]

Anyone want to tell me the last time a cluster-bomb was used in a non-war-zone?
Once peace is declared any unexploded cluster-bomblets act as land-mines. Also, the Zagreb Rocket Attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreb_rocket_attack)...

[Fragony]

Beautiful sight, terrible weapon. You must be completily nuts to throw it on a city.

[Tribesman]

if the military say a weapon is effective and they want to have it available, by what right does a desk jockey like Brown say they should not?
Is it because the military cannot be trusted ?
Leaving aside that the figures they put out over the reliabilty of the weapons was shown to be crap and then their revised study was also shown to be crap can you listen to them ?
So you have a nasty weapon , it is agreed that it is a nasty weapon and should be restriced , like for example saying that you cannot use a certain munition to incinerate people , but then use it to errrr....set people on fire as a target marker :idea2: Or as per this topic , you sell someone cluster bombs and make them promise that they will not use it on civilian areas , but then they use it on civilian areas anyway .
If the military cannot be trusted to use their toys within the agreed guidelines then the only option is to take their toys away .

[PBI]

If the military cannot be trusted to use their toys within the agreed guidelines then the only option is to take their toys away .

Seconded.

Sooner or later the military has to accept that using a weapon in a situation where civilians will probably be harmed is as bad as a direct attack on the civilians themselves.

[CBR]

Anyone care to tell me how many civilian lives this will save?
Yes but it's not American civilians so who cares...

Stocked weapons would be disposed of after a few decades anyway. Unless a new war can be found as that is a great way of getting rid of old stocks.

From the numbers I have seen there are most likely at least a couple of million unexploded submunitions in Iraq. Cluster bombs are a good military asset, but with the current dud rates they are turning the former battlefield into an unmarked minefield that hurts way too many civilians for it to be considered acceptable.

Also this treaty does not seem to ban future weapons so if the dud rate can be considerably lowered it's not a weapon that will go away anyway.

The trend is also going towards precision weapons that are much more suitable for builtup areas or for close support of ground troops.

I know the Brits stopped using the JP233 anti-runway clusterbomb but AFAIK the US does not have similar weapons, although Im sure regular clusterbombs can be used to limited suppression of airfields. The US have the specialized anti-runway bomb Durandal and the other BLU series of penetrators and all it takes are a few precision strikes with such weapons to smash up a runway.


CBR

[Ja'chyra]

To borrow a Tribsey term, bollox.

I could support your opinions if we weren't sending our troops into hostile areas and the were littering the training areas with bomblets, but as long as we are sending them off the foreign climes to wage war on other forces we should give them the tools they need to do the job. I doubt that anyone can honestly say that cluster bombs didn't get the job done, maybe not all of the bomblets explode but they still fufil their capability.

The problem isn't with the military and their toys it's with politicians sending them to places where they will come into contact with civilians.

Oh, and modern weapons actually have a small impact on the environment and the military as a whole can be argued to have a positive effect.

[FactionHeir]

So you are squarely stacking the blame on politicians eh? Well tell you what. Without politicians, I don't think there is a need for a military as there's no one to give them valid orders. Argue that an officer could? Well, who is he taking his orders from and how do we know he isn't going to be the next junta leader? What gives him the right to anyway without people elected leaders?

Anyway, so you are also saying that cluster bombs are "tools they need to do the job". So why cluster bombs and not some more precise weapon that does not leave a minefield in its wake that could potentially harm your own troops? Nowadays, wars are not about going in, bombing the place "back to the stone age" and go home and leave them to clear up the minefield you left behind. That's not what's called responsibility and if your military isn't cleaning up the mess it made, then the people need to intervene.

[CountArach]

I could support your opinions if we weren't sending our troops into hostile areas and the were littering the training areas with bomblets, but as long as we are sending them off the foreign climes to wage war on other forces we should give them the tools they need to do the job. I doubt that anyone can honestly say that cluster bombs didn't get the job done, maybe not all of the bomblets explode but they still fufil their capability.
Why do they need cluster bombs that are potentially harmful to civilians when they have plenty of other weapons that perform the same task WITHOUT the same direct effect? They can still "get the job done" with the same effectiveness AND with fewer casualties from innocents.

[Kagemusha]

Cluster bombs is such a umbrella word that it can mean lots of things. If cluster bomb is just a bomb with numerous small high explosive or antitank daughter munitions, which will detonate immediately when they hit the target and area around it, banning them would be same as banning artillery or air to ground munitions all together, which i dont think has any base in a humanitarian cause. In that case we might just as well ban assault rifles.
But if the cluster bomb contains lots of antipersonnel mines or "devices" as mine is a bad word novadays, which will stay in the ground and continue causing casualties until removed by engineers or removed at all. In that case i can understand the ban. If the antipersonnel mines were banned in Ottawa, there is a case against artillery and air to ground deployed anti personnel "devices" also if they in fact are mines. But when a whole range of weapons is classified under a single hazy word, i cant see any clause for such a ban.

[CBR]

I doubt that anyone can honestly say that cluster bombs didn't get the job done,
They certainly have shown how good a job they are doing.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/02/news/UN_GEN_UN_Cluster_Bombs.php


Civilians account for 98 percent of cluster bomb victims, with a third of the casualties being children — mostly boys ...

Battles are rarely fought in unhabitated areas so civilians will always be victims. The question is how much collateral damage is to be considered acceptable.


CBR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Cluster bombs is such a umbrella word that it can mean lots of things. If cluster bomb is just a bomb with numerous small high explosive or antitank daughter munitions, which will detonate immediately when they hit the target and area around it, banning them would be same as banning artillery or air to ground munitions all together, which i dont think has any base in a humanitarian cause. In that case we might just as well ban assault rifles.
But if the cluster bomb contains lots of antipersonnel mines or "devices" as mine is a bad word novadays, which will stay in the ground and continue causing casualties until removed by engineers or removed at all. In that case i can understand the ban. If the antipersonnel mines were banned in Ottawa, there is a case against artillery and air to ground deployed anti personnel "devices" also if they in fact are mines. But when a whole range of weapons is classified under a single hazy word, i cant see any clause for such a ban.

Cluster munitions don't have a single legal definition but they are much more closely defined (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/what-is/?id=107) than portrayed in your first paragraph.

Indeed, the thrust of the Dublin summit is to tighten the definition legally, because the characteristics of cluster munitions may well break existing Geneva Conventions (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/what-is/?id=108). Many commentators consider use of extant cluster munitions to be illegal already because of this. The work being done now is to make this explicit.

There's actually little advantage in these munitions and the new generation tend to be more precise and self-destructive - and thus allowable under the proposed treaty. We've outlawed much chemical and biological weaponry and recently land mines because of their indiscriminate nature.

It is no betrayal of our Armed Forces for us to always strive to minimise civilian casualties.

[Husar]

I find this whole "I want to club your head in and take over your country because I hate you so much but let's be civilized and only use the weapons allowed in this document" - attitude a bit weird I must say. Whether you gas someone, throw napalm on him, use a flamethrower to burn him, club his head in with a stick, shoot a hole through his head, make him look like a swiss cheese using a clusterbomb or use a sword to rip his body apart one piece at a time, the end result is usually the same, the guy is dead and you killed him. Trying to make that more "humane" seems a bit weird, it's not like a "normal" high-explosive bomb would not kill people or possibly burn them etc.

[Ja'chyra]

It is no betrayal of our Armed Forces for us to always strive to minimise civilian casualties.

This is true, but the big question should be whether anyone has analysed the capability gap that this legislation may cause.

I personally believe that our commanders would only use this munition if there was no alternative at the time, our military leaders do actually take into account civilian casualities, environmental impact and clean up measures needed.


So you are squarely stacking the blame on politicians eh? Well tell you what. Without politicians, I don't think there is a need for a military as there's no one to give them valid orders. Argue that an officer could? Well, who is he taking his orders from and how do we know he isn't going to be the next junta leader? What gives him the right to anyway without people elected leaders?

No I am squarely stacking the blame on sending our troops into warzones with insufficient equipment on politicians.


Anyway, so you are also saying that cluster bombs are "tools they need to do the job". So why cluster bombs and not some more precise weapon that does not leave a minefield in its wake that could potentially harm your own troops? Nowadays, wars are not about going in, bombing the place "back to the stone age" and go home and leave them to clear up the minefield you left behind. That's not what's called responsibility and if your military isn't cleaning up the mess it made, then the people need to intervene.

What other weapons? Where they available at the time? What was the risks to the troops in using both weapons? What was the risk of civilian casualties? Where was the operation? What was the target? What were the objectives?

Do you know because I don't.

I'm not saying cluster bombs are ideal weapons but unless someone has done all the investigations banning them may well be the wrong decision.

Maybe a timed detonation device that are already in use in other munitions is the way to go, but this will take time.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the problem Husar is not that cluster bombs kill thier target, but that they often kill non intended targets.

[FactionHeir]

I personally believe that our commanders would only use this munition if there was no alternative at the time, our military leaders do actually take into account civilian casualities, environmental impact and clean up measures needed.


Because one country's military institution does, doesn't mean every country does. Examples cited in this thread certainly seem to suggest more countries using them as toys (i.e. without much care and consideration for alternatives) rather than deadly weapons and are not involved in the clean up. A binding document ensures a greater conformity and also gives others moral incentive to follow.

[Kagemusha]

Cluster munitions don't have a single legal definition but they are much more closely defined (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/what-is/?id=107) than portrayed in your first paragraph.

Indeed, the thrust of the Dublin summit is to tighten the definition legally, because the characteristics of cluster munitions may well break existing Geneva Conventions (http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/what-is/?id=108). Many commentators consider use of extant cluster munitions to be illegal already because of this. The work being done now is to make this explicit.

There's actually little advantage in these munitions and the new generation tend to be more precise and self-destructive - and thus allowable under the proposed treaty. We've outlawed much chemical and biological weaponry and recently land mines because of their indiscriminate nature.

It is no betrayal of our Armed Forces for us to always strive to minimise civilian casualties.

Like i said before, there are cluster munitions that i agree should be banned according to to Ottawa treaty. This is the family of weapons im talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_denial_weapons

But then the most modern of these also self destruct in short time and thus apply less danger to civilians. I stress my point "less", because if modern area denial cluster munition is deployed in a urban area, you can just imagine what it does when suddenly out from nowhere hundreds of bomblets drop from the sky and once those hit the ground, launch multiple tripwires to many directions from each bomblet. Carnage is inevitable once something moves and i believe that Israeli forces deployed this kind of cluster bombs against the Palestinians and this is the type of Cluster causing most civilian casualties.

But for example i fail to see what reason there is to ban ICM artillery shells, because if artillery is aimed at populated area, it will kill people no matter what the munition is.
There are also anti electricity and even leaflet cluster bombs. Essentially Cluster munition is one munition carrying several smaller munitions inside, like a shotgun shell. I can understand banning some of them based on what the cluster is actually carrying, but cant comprehend what pro founding evil there is in a munition that carries other munitions inside itself. If a cluster artillery shell causes lot of small explosions in a certain area launching metal fragments from each explosion, then "normal" artillery shell carries just as much explosive material. while the only difference is that there is one large detonation which will spread shrapnel to area of same size. I cant see much of a difference between these two evils.
Is a shotgun shot less humane then a solid bullet?

[FactionHeir]

I think the point is banning cluster bombs that carry bombs within bombs rather than bombs that carry non-explosive secondary material which will not contaminate an area for decades to come.

[LittleGrizzly]

Is a shotgun shot less humane then a solid bullet?

Of course not, but imagine using it in a crowded shopping mall when your just trying to get one guy, compared to the handgun your alot more likely to injure innocent bystanders, not so much making the argument here just i think thats an applicable example.

Of course if there are no innocent bystanders the shotgun would kill the person just the same as the handgun (well the end result is the same)

[Kagemusha]

I think the point is banning cluster bombs that carry bombs within bombs rather than bombs that carry non-explosive secondary material which will not contaminate an area for decades to come.

You can see that there are still found undetonated WWII air to ground munitions and artillery shells from the areas that experienced war. With that logic, should we all together ban the use of ranged weapon systems, since there isnt absolute control of will the weapon hit where its supposed to hit or will it be a dummy and not explode?

[Kagemusha]

Is a shotgun shot less humane then a solid bullet?

Of course not, but imagine using it in a crowded shopping mall when your just trying to get one guy, compared to the handgun your alot more likely to injure innocent bystanders, not so much making the argument here just i think thats an applicable example.

Of course if there are no innocent bystanders the shotgun would kill the person just the same as the handgun (well the end result is the same)

Well if we think it like that, is a shotgun shot less humane then solid bullet with damage area which is the same as the shotguns shot? If someone drops a HE air to ground bomb of lets say 1000kg´s and a HE cluster bomb of the same size the damage area is the same, the difference between the two munitions is that , with cluster munition the number of the detonations in the area is multiple and the devastation inside the area is more terrible because the shrapnels are flying from several small detonations to different directions rather then from one big one.

[FactionHeir]

You can see that there are still found undetonated WWII air to ground munitions and artillery shells from the areas that experienced war. With that logic, should we all together ban the use of ranged weapon systems, since there isnt absolute control of will the weapon hit where its supposed to hit or will it be a dummy and not explode?

In today's world however those would be more acceptable because air dropped bomb explosions can be verified by the control regarding whether they detonated or not. However there is too little followup on cleaning up the duds afterwards of course.

Compare that with cluster bombs where you cannot check on secondary explosions.

[Husar]

Well, gas usually cleans up itself...

And dropping anything that goes boom into a crowded area is likely to hit unwanted targets as Kage said.

I also almost forgot to post this relevant link:
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/germans_making_green_bombs

[Kagemusha]

In today's world however those would be more acceptable because air dropped bomb explosions can be verified by the control regarding whether they detonated or not. However there is too little followup on cleaning up the duds afterwards of course.

Compare that with cluster bombs where you cannot check on secondary explosions.

I understand and agree that duds are something that creates unnecessary risks for people and that risk will continue for long time after the weapons have been deployed, but artillery, rocket launchers systems and mortars also leave large amounts of undetonated munitions to the ground and no artillery observer can determine how many detonated when he is observing the barrage. Should we ban these weapons next?
I completely understand that its the innocent that suffer many times because of weapons, but its not the fault of the cluster bomb or artillery shell or landmine that people die. Its the fault of the one who sets or aims those to populated areas and the one who orders and allows that to be done.
I think Ruanda for example showed us very well that you dont need more then assault rifles and machetes to murder millions of people.
It is the use of weapons that makes them unhuman and lack of use which makes them more humane. If the goal is to make killing of other people more human, i see that the only true option then is to stop killing humans, but unfortunately i dont see that happening in the foreseeable future.

[CBR]

I understand and agree that duds are something that creates unnecessary risks for people and that risk will continue for long time after the weapons have been deployed, but artillery, rocket launchers systems and mortars also leave large amounts of undetonated munitions to the ground and no artillery observer can determine how many detonated when he is observing the barrage. Should we ban these weapons next?

Now Im not familiar with dud rates of say artillery rounds but Im pretty sure its much lower. There are several differences though: artillery rounds tend to bury themselves into the ground, there are fewer of them both because of fewer numbers fired and less duds, craters or large size munitions are easier to locate and get rid off.

WW1 and WW2 munitions still cause casualties in our times so it certainly is a problem but submunitions is on a totally different scale. It is really no different than the issue with AP mines. Now a majority just finally acknowledges that submunitions and their horrible dud-rate pretty much makes them AP mines.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

Now Im not familiar with dud rates of say artillery rounds but Im pretty sure its much lower. There are several differences though: artillery rounds tend to bury themselves into the ground, there are fewer of them both because of fewer numbers fired and less duds, craters or large size munitions are easier to locate and get rid off.

WW1 and WW2 munitions still cause casualties in our times so it certainly is a problem but submunitions is on a totally different scale. It is really no different than the issue with AP mines. Now a majority just finally acknowledges that submunitions and their horrible dud-rate pretty much makes them AP mines.


CBR

It depends on how the fuse is set, you can set it to even ignite before the munition hits the ground, which causes the grenade to detonate in air, which is popular set for mortars for example. You are right about that there will be more duds in a cluster bomb, specially the older ones, but also artillery and mortars tend to concentrate their fire so the amount of munitions shot one time on one area can be very significant. But basically if the cause for banning clusters is duds, the same will apply to artillery and mortars in the long run. While the major powers seem to be ignoring these treaties all together.

[CBR]

But basically if the cause for banning clusters is duds, the same will apply to artillery and mortars in the long run. While the major powers seem to be ignoring these treaties all together.
It is not about duds really but about what effect it has on civilians after the soldiers have gone home. Look at what weapons that are causing bans and/or heated debates: AP mines, depleted uranium rounds and cluster bombs.

And AFAIK the major powers are not ignoring the ban on AP mines completely so overall banning weapons does have a positive effect even though not all sign the treaties.

Oh and even some of the newer systems like the M85 that was claimed to have less than 1 percent failrate still showed 5-10% in Lebanon. Older systems are most likely even worse and it doesnt get any better when one uses bombs that are out of date, but that of course is a cheap way of removing the old stuff from stocks heh.


CBR

[Samurai Waki]

I think we should ban all weapons, and revert to spoons. If you can kill a man with a spoon then damn it, you've deserved your kill.

[Fragony]

Spoons are great for popping eyes

[drone]

Some country will then just start stockpiling sporks, and we'll be back where we started. :yes:

[KukriKhan]

So, what is it gonna cost the UK and other signators of the treaty, to destroy your stockpiles?

Can you just sell them to a non-signatory nation/entity?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Beautiful sight, terrible weapon. You must be completily nuts to throw it on a city.


Why? If it gets the job done, sure. If Civlians die... Oh Well. They die all the time don't they? "Oh, you can't harm non combantents". But Wait... What the Sense of all these Rules and regluatrons if... No One Follows them?:wall:

[CountArach]

Why? If it gets the job done, sure. If Civlians die... Oh Well. They die all the time don't they? "Oh, you can't harm non combantents". But Wait... What the Sense of all these Rules and regluatrons if... No One Follows them?:wall:
Wait are actually saying we should kill civilians...? For the record it is only the 6 usual suspects who aren't following them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Once again the United States exempts itself from what can only be described as a humanitarian issue...


Yes but it's not American civilians so who cares...

Such antipathy is definitely not unnecessary, because these treaties have worked so well in the past. Battlefields are so much safer for soldiers and civilians. Americans just enjoy killing children, foreign children.

[CBR]

Who said anything about enjoying? I think I used the word "care". Just go two posts above your own post...

But ok I guess I was too specific with that statement so I'll rephrase it to "But they are foreign civilians so who cares"

Now I have really no idea if the statistics are right or not but if the 98% figure is right then clusterbombs would be by far the worst (conventional) weapon for civilians.

When it comes to how safe it is in modern wars. We have had some modern short limited wars but what to compare with? Weapons are more lethal now than ever before. The soldier's response is more dispersion and body armour. The civilians? Population density is going up and neither clothes nor walls are more bullet proof than earlier.

Civilian losses (combat related) compared to military losses have gone up, if I was to take a quick guess. But ok civilians dont have to fear mercenaries raping and pillaging through their province as in the really good old days...yeah ok we forget about Sudan and ex-Yugoslavia etc but cant win them all right.


CBR

[KarlXII]

Well, gas usually cleans up itself...

And dropping anything that goes boom into a crowded area is likely to hit unwanted targets as Kage said.

I also almost forgot to post this relevant link:
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/germans_making_green_bombs

Good point.

Lets start using gas.

[English assassin]

If the military cannot be trusted to use their toys within the agreed guidelines then the only option is to take their toys away

Lets just work this point up a touch. There is something in it, to a point.

"The military" are collectively under civilian control. No one thinks the army should be allowed to decide what country to invade (although, now I mention it, would this be such a bad thing?) So far so good.

Then there are some weapons that by general agreement need to be under civilian control, most obviously nukes. Also good. Thank god Curtis Le May never had nukes released to him.

But there comes a level of detail beyond which the civilians (ie politicians and lawyers) cannot reasonably expect to be able to go. Having set the objective (invade Afganistan) and specifed some very broad parameters (and no nukes, you naughty generals) you've got to let the military get on with it as they see fit.

I mean, where does this end? No shooting, unless you can see a solid backstop behind your target? No using helicopters at night in case it keeps civilians awake?

If you are going to tell the military that they can and can't use certain weapons which, broadly, seem perfectly sensible to me (eg the airfield denial thing), then, that's fine, but I think they should be allowed to refuse to go if they think your rules expose them to unnecessary risk. You can't have it both ways. The politican, can always decide to use military force, or not. Using force has consequences. I don't think you should be allowed to decide to use force, kid yourself its somehow been sanitised, and expose more of your own forces to harm than need be. That is having your cake and eating it.

[PBI]

I mean, where does this end? No shooting, unless you can see a solid backstop behind your target? No using helicopters at night in case it keeps civilians awake?


If this were the case, then banning the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would also have led to this outcome. To turn your argument on its head, if we are to permit a weapon which cause disproportionate civilian casualties on the grounds that it makes our forces more effective, then why not permit them to deploy nuclear weapons as they see fit?


The answer is that we are capable of appreciating that the situation is more complex than simply "victory at all costs". As civilised societies we must accept that there comes a point when the unnecessary suffering caused to civilians outweighs the benefits of victory or of minimizing our own casualties. In order to be able to claim we are fighting a just war, we must be willing to accept that we must fight without certain weapons or tactics. We do not authorize our forces to loot, rape, kill and burn at will, we do not allow them to carpet bomb a city to kill a single enemy fighter, we do not (or at least should not) allow our forces to torture captives for information, because doing so would make it impossible to justify our involvement and we would become little more than conquerors.


It does not have to always be cast in such stark terms, as either "let the military use whatever means they feel is necessary" or "don't let them have any weapons at all", it is entirely possible to find a middle ground. Of course war can never be sanitised (and our politicians would have done well to remember this five years ago), but unless we are willing to abandon the use of military force entirely as a barbaric practice which belongs to another age, we can and must do something to limit the harm we cause to civilians, even if it does mean increasing the risk to our own forces.

[cegorach]

Actually I am qute happy Poland didn't sign the agreement, our defensive capabilities would suffer for sure.

Besides it is always the question how do you use a weapon - even with forks and spoons you can commit genocide, pointed sticks would be fine too...

I am rather sure our industry doesn't supply regimes which could use the weaponry in anything but the right way and certainly our army doesn't employ the bombs in foreign missions ( Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo etc) and did not before.

IN my opinion my country should wait with discarting such an useful weapon untill it is safe to do so.

[CountArach]

IN my opinion my country should wait with discarting such an useful weapon untill it is safe to do so.
What 90% of the countries of the world getting rid of it is not good enough? :confused:

[LittleGrizzly]

What 90% of the countries of the world getting rid of it is not good enough?

I think the problem is some of this 10% won't get rid of them because some other people have got them and they won't get rid of them because the first country won't, then your left with the countrys that think clusterbombs are fine.

[English assassin]

banning the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons would also have led to this outcome.

Well, use of nuclear weapons isn't banned. Biological weapons I feel fairly comfortable with banning, on the basis that I cannot imagine they have any battlefield use, but mainly that they are too damn scary and uncontrollable. Chemical weapons I admit I feel less strongly about, I can't see any very obvious reason why its OK to blow someone's legs off with a bomb, but an act of criminal barbarity to gas them. Neither is what you would call nice. But my impression is that the military are not in any real hurry to ask for them anyway, I imagine because they feel their battlefield use is very limited.


The answer is that we are capable of appreciating that the situation is more complex than simply "victory at all costs".

Well, yeah, And I'm not saying that you wouldn't conduct a cost benefit analysis before using any weapon. But then again, if you don't win, no one cares what your view on the right way to conduct a war is, because you won't be in a position to make the rules anyway.

[KukriKhan]

What 90% of the countries of the world getting rid of it is not good enough?

I think the problem is some of this 10% won't get rid of them because some other people have got them and they won't get rid of them because the first country won't, then your left with the countrys that think clusterbombs are fine.

Cluterbombs are not fine. Nor are nukes, or missles, or ordinary bombs, or bullets, or bayonets, or bfr's or sticks or fists.

War is not fine.

We should never do it, because many people die unnecessarily before their natural time. And many of those people who die unnecessarily before their natural time die horribly, painfully, and are unintended targets to begin with.

This from a former warrior. I've seen it up close and personal.

I repeat: we should never do it.

Yet, sometimes we do. We the people and our leaders decide, decade after decade, that, horrible tho' it be, it is necessary because [...fill-in-the-blank...].

When all else has failed, and we resort to war, it is criminal IMO, to deny the actually war-fighters every possible tool to succeed quickly and totally. When force is to be applied, overwhelming force it must be.

Deciding ahead of time that one side will not use 'x' weapon, only sets up the political finger-pointing & war-crimes trials held after-the-fact... when the warriors get punished for waging their horrible craft, while the populace and leadership watch and say "tsk, tsk", and enjoy whayever benefit was gained from the stupid war.

:2cents:

[cegorach]

What 90% of the countries of the world getting rid of it is not good enough? :confused:


That is no reason to abandon them. The entire point is the weaponry causes massive losses when targeting civilian areas and I see no reason why should we stop using them if that is the case.

Cluster bombs have important use against massive enemy forces and it will not help my country if for example Russia abandons this weaponry - they can afford that, but we cannot. Not yet.

[Kralizec]

The military is under supervision of the civilian government, if casualties occur then the latter is ultimately responsible. It's obvious that the military shouldn't have carte blanche acces to nukes, and that to equip soldiers only with rubber bullet guns is idiotic. Clusterbombs are somewhere in between. Saying that they can't be used under any circumstances is likewise idiotic.

I think it's somewhat ironic that Israel manufactures clusterbombs wich are safer than all others because each bomblet has its own detonator wich will set it off after a fixed time, in case the bomblet doesn't explode on impact. Most of the clusterbombs they actually use are US-made, though.

[Fragony]

I think it's somewhat ironic that Israel manufactures clusterbombs wich are safer than all others because each bomblet has its own detonator wich will set it off after a fixed time, in case the bomblet doesn't explode on impact. Most of the clusterbombs they actually use are US-made, though.

Pretty damned sick to do that when you have an alternative at hand :thumbsdown:

[Crazed Rabbit]

What 90% of the countries of the world getting rid of it is not good enough? :confused:

Does those countries have 90% of the world's stocks of such weapons?

/me doubts it.

And very well said, Kukri.

CR

[CountArach]

That is no reason to abandon them. The entire point is the weaponry causes massive losses when targeting civilian areas and I see no reason why should we stop using them if that is the case.
That's just shocking. How could any human being say that? Civilians ARE NOT legitimate targets

[Husar]

Well, humans are not legitimate targets, too bad that includes soldiers. Now you say civilians don't want the conflict and elsewhere you will say civilians are responsible for the actions of their government and also keep in mind that soldiers can be drafted and forced to go to war so why is it okay to kill them in horrible ways but not those dirty parasites whose politics or lazyness to overthrow the government got the soldiers into that war in the first place? :inquisitive:

[CountArach]

Well, humans are not legitimate targets, too bad that includes soldiers. Now you say civilians don't want the conflict and elsewhere you will say civilians are responsible for the actions of their government and also keep in mind that soldiers can be drafted and forced to go to war so why is it okay to kill them in horrible ways but not those dirty parasites whose politics or lazyness to overthrow the government got the soldiers into that war in the first place? :inquisitive:
If it were up to me there would be no war, but seeing as that is not going to happen, we might as well not kill people who did not sign up for it as well...

[PBI]

Well, humans are not legitimate targets, too bad that includes soldiers. Now you say civilians don't want the conflict and elsewhere you will say civilians are responsible for the actions of their government and also keep in mind that soldiers can be drafted and forced to go to war so why is it okay to kill them in horrible ways but not those dirty parasites whose politics or lazyness to overthrow the government got the soldiers into that war in the first place? :inquisitive:

That is a very dangerous line of reasoning, it appears to me to justify genocide against a country's populace if their government starts a war. Is that really what you are suggesting? As a citizen of a country (the UK) with more than its fair share of aggressive wars to its name I would feel deeply uneasy if that were to become the norm.

Besides, usually the civilians who are killed in a war are not the ones from the country that started it. When a government decides to start a war, it's unlikely to be fighting on it's own territory, unless it goes badly wrong. Does simply being a citizen of a country which is easy to invade mean you deserve death?

As CountArach points out, it would be ideal if nobody would start a war in the first place, but since it doesn't look like we will be getting rid of it anytime soon, surely it is better to try to limit the harm caused to those who are merely unfortunate enough to be in the way when two governments decide they want to have a pissing contest?

Regarding conscription, it should be a war crime of the highest order in my book. Simple as that. Deliberate targeting of civilians in war already is a war crime. In my mind there should be no difference between a deliberate attack on civilians and an attack against a military target that you know will harm civilians.

[Husar]

If it were up to me there would be no war, but seeing as that is not going to happen, we might as well not kill people who did not sign up for it as well...
Not every soldier signed up for war, some are drafted, think of how movies and games portray Stalingrad, where russian kids were sent into machinegun fire and shot by their own officers if they refused, saying they signed up for that or wanted it sounds a bit off to me, similar with german schoolkids Hitler threw at the allies toward the end of the war, at least those often had the chance to run away or surrender. Or think of soldiers in Iraq, hard to say that they all want to be there, although they did the very least and signed up for the army because they wanted to.

On the other hand you have many civilians who are cheering a dictator and possibly supporting the war effort with money, saying they're completely innocent is wrong IMO. I wouldn't just make this a black and white or soldier and civilian issue, but somehow everyone else seems to do just that. :shrug:

And even then you don't usually drop clusterbombs on cities, if there are civilian cars voluntarily driving in a military convoy I'd say it's their own fault if they get shot, if they were forced to be there then strafing the convoy with any other weapon is unlikely to save them as well, but more dangerous to the pilot.

Now with the duds there is a bit of an argument and the fact that some of them have a timer that makes them explode after a while anyway is interesting but couldn't it being a dud also mean that the timer failed?

[FactionHeir]

And even then you don't usually drop clusterbombs on cities

Point is that some do, and iirc that's what happened in Lebanon and Zagreb

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the only time you can make a case for targetting civilians is in a democracy that starts a war, they chose the goverment that started the war, in a way they signed up to the war, that being said i think its a very weak case.

[rory_20_uk]

That may be the case in a true democracy. In the UK, we chose to elect members of a party possibly years before war occurred, and have had no say on the new findings; even when popular demonstrations are against the elected leaders are free to ignore them.

~:smoking:

[PBI]

Also, no democratically elected government has ever had 100% popularity.

But this is beside the point. Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime regardless of their political leanings. In a civilized democratic society annihilation is not an acceptable means to deal with those who disagree with us.

[Husar]

Point is that some do, and iirc that's what happened in Lebanon and Zagreb
And those who deliberately do also banned the weapon?
I mean flying planes into buildings is banned in America but apparently Al Queda doesn't really care about that so if Britain bans cluster bombs then why would some evil dictator not use them anymore? Banning them in a country that uses them responsibly except in accidents doesn't make a lot of sense, if you drop a normal bomb onto a city by accident it will kill people as well. But the ruthless nations/politicians/dictators will continue using them against whoever they want unless you drop a lot of clusterbombs onto their armies and force them to stop it. :dizzy2:

Banning them because of an accident is like falling off a horse and then saying all horses are devilish animals and that you will never ride again.


I think the only time you can make a case for targetting civilians is in a democracy that starts a war, they chose the goverment that started the war, in a way they signed up to the war, that being said i think its a very weak case.
The difference between a civilian and a drafted soldier is that the soldier was forced to wear a uniform and carry a gun, do you think a soldier's family won't cry if he dies? Isn't a soldier also a human being with feelings etc. and don't some of them also end up in warzones without wanting to be there? I think saying that killing soldiers is fine but killing civilians is some kind of major atrocity is a weak point in itself., it's entirely possible that both are innocent and don't want to stand in the line of fire or does wearing a uniform automatically make a person a devil on earth(except if he is from your own country of course in which case he's the greatest hero and deserves to have money thrown at him)?

[rory_20_uk]

But we are all oh so democratic and developed when we're not threatened. When our backs are to the wall most democracies become pretty totalitarian - the USA even suspended habeus corpus, and the bomber raids at the end of WW2 on Germany achieved little and killed many civilians.

~:smoking:

[FactionHeir]

And those who deliberately do also banned the weapon?
I mean flying planes into buildings is banned in America but apparently Al Queda doesn't really care about that so if Britain bans cluster bombs then why would some evil dictator not use them anymore? Banning them in a country that uses them responsibly except in accidents doesn't make a lot of sense, if you drop a normal bomb onto a city by accident it will kill people as well. But the ruthless nations/politicians/dictators will continue using them against whoever they want unless you drop a lot of clusterbombs onto their armies and force them to stop it. :dizzy2:

Banning them because of an accident is like falling off a horse and then saying all horses are devilish animals and that you will never ride again.



Similarly Tit for Tat will result in the planet becoming a wasteland with a fraction of today's population. Is that your preferred scenario?

[CBR]

Now with the duds there is a bit of an argument and the fact that some of them have a timer that makes them explode after a while anyway is interesting but couldn't it being a dud also mean that the timer failed?
That is the M85 I mentioned earlier. Experience from 2003 and 2006 suggests a dud rate 6-8% in Iraq and maybe around 10% in Lebanon.

M85-An analysis of reliability (http://www.npaid.org/filestore/M85.pdf)


CBR

[LittleGrizzly]

I realise the link between going to war and voters choosing a party is a bit of a long winded link, but it is a link none the less, we chose the party and they chose the war, so through a long winded process we chose the war.

Obviously there wasn't 100% support for the war, if i remember correctly it hovered around 45 for and against with 10% undecided, ironically those for the war was probably made up of more people that didn't vote Labour than those against.

To go into a terrorist analogy if our democratic goverments are the terrorists (im sure they seem that way to some) then through our voting these goverments in (whether by slim majoritys or landslides) we are providing material support to these terrorists.

That was more of a little side point than anything i don't want to detract too much from the subject at hand...

[KukriKhan]

That's the logic OBL has cited in his jihad fatwa: (paraphrasing) "You elected the warmaker, and pay taxes to support his efforts, therefore all taxpayers/voters are fair game." Hence 9-11.

For the record: If I were President of the United States (Ha!), I would sign a clusterbomb treaty that said: "We will not use these munitions first against any other signator of this treaty.", and "In the event such munitions were used, the war-loser (even if it's us) is responsible for clean-up, supervised by the other signators of this agreement."

[Redleg]

Cluster muntions - interesting topic that has mass emotional appeal.

I am with Kukrikhan on this subject.

[rory_20_uk]

First off, there would be the problem about who used which bombs where - does the looser have to clear the mess for both sides? If so America can be confident that it will win, and hence use them against all foes.
Secondly, who says the other side used them? Few witnesses except for the Army / Airforce who might want to use them and hence are hardly reliable.
Thirdly, the war loser (not the aggressor I note) not only looses, but then has to clear up the mess the other side caused - demolish and bankrupt the country, then make it pay for the victors to get people in to clear up their own mess... :whip:

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

Yes to all counts rory_20_uk. No problem at all, if:

1) Everyone signs the "no first use" treaty
2) No one declares war
3) If war is declared, fight it to win (who declares war with the intention of losing?). Lose a lawsuit, pay all the lawyer and court fees. Lose a war, clean up the mess.

[PBI]

But surely most wars end with a ceasefire in which both sides claim "victory"? Unless the losing side is utterly crushed and ceases to be a functioning state, a la Saddam's Iraq. If the losing side has essentially ceased to exist, how are they going to pay for the cleanup?

And what if the side which loses is the side which was attacked? Surely a better system would be to say that the side which started the war is responsible for the cleanup.

[FactionHeir]

Yes to all counts rory_20_uk. No problem at all, if:

1) Everyone signs the "no first use" treaty
2) No one declares war
3) If war is declared, fight it to win (who declares war with the intention of losing?). Lose a lawsuit, pay all the lawyer and court fees. Lose a war, clean up the mess.

So.... *drops a few nukes*
There, go clean up your mess?

[KukriKhan]

So.... *drops a few nukes*
There, go clean up your mess?

I thought we were speaking of clusterbombs, their restricted use, and how to remove them from civilian harm after a conflict.

[FactionHeir]

Just extrapolating really :wink:
But you can substitute nukes for cluster bombs covering the target country. After all, the loser cleans up, not the person who uses them first...

[KukriKhan]

But surely most wars end with a ceasefire in which both sides claim "victory"? Unless the losing side is utterly crushed and ceases to be a functioning state, a la Saddam's Iraq. If the losing side has essentially ceased to exist, how are they going to pay for the cleanup?

And what if the side which loses is the side which was attacked? Surely a better system would be to say that the side which started the war is responsible for the cleanup.

That does indeed sound like a more equitable system, untill we drill down to the details: who decides which side "started" the war? What constitutes an "attack" (bullets flying? suicide bombing? economic sanction?).

I'm not set-in-concrete on the war loser doing the clean-up, for the reasons cited; it just seems wrong to charge the victor with the cost of clean-up. Yet we all seem to agree that bombs and mines and bomblets shouldn't be left laying about to blow the legs off kids plowing fields 20-30 years after a conflict.

[PBI]

Agreed, neither system is really very good, since I suspect governments are generally very much unwilling to admit either to having started the war or to having lost it. But at least if the burden is on the aggressor, it is another incentive for countries not to start wars. If the burden is on the loser, it mostly seems like an incentive for countries to draw out the war for longer than is necessary and fight to the bitter end, when it would be better for everyone for them to negotiate a ceasefire.

Besides, it still doesn't explain who pays the cleaner's bill if both sides claim victory, or if the losing side has been totally defeated.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think another problem would be the loosers of the wars are usually poor even before the war, or in the case of Iraq it would be America that would have to clean it up as well, i can see most tinpot dictators happy to leave the clusterbombs there and keep spending any money on the finer things in life...

Victors are usually the ones with the finainces to clean up thier mess...