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/Convent...tional_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.