Clusterbombs

[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...ng_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.

[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?

[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?

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...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.

[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

[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

[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