Clusterbombs

[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...ng_green_bombs

[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...ng_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?

[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.

[cegorach]

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

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.

[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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

/me doubts it.

And very well said, Kukri.

CR