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.

[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.

[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 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...

[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 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/...ster_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 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. 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 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. 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.