Author Topic: Banning cluster munitions. (Read 4764 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #120 on:** November 21, 2006, 01:34:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
Banning them? no, beacuse they are a usefull anti armor and anti personnel weapons. That doesn't mean you cant have sensible guidelines on their use in conflicts other than all out war, which is my understanding exist already.

...and you would be just as dead as a civialin who got hit by an errant 1000lb GP bomb that missed by a few hundred yards, or a mortar shell.

Yeah but there isnt tens of thousands of the 1000lb GPS bombs left were people go either is it? If there are some left behind they are more easy to find and get rid of.

In 2006 there are very many better soulutions to both killing men and armor too youknow. Hellfires, Javelins, tank rounds and maverick missiles just to name four.

zorstorer · « **Reply #121 on:** November 21, 2006, 02:32:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
No, I have not said that.

I am asking you to show me a link to the correct number, or any other number. I have not done the 98% calculations myself but even if it sounds like alot then im not so sure its that wrong. Im sure landmines produce comparable number of civilian vs military casualties... atleast after ww2. Military forces are often equipped and trained to clear or avoid minefields (witch is the point of them in the first place... slowing or halting advances). Civilians do not have this advantage and keeps on stepping on them decades later.

No need for a link just use the numbers they provide....if 98% of the cluster munution caused deaths are civilian then the number of military deaths caused by cluster munitions are just 2040....make sense?

You can stand by that VERY low number if you want to, but it sounds a tad low.

Vulcan · « **Reply #122 on:** November 21, 2006, 02:34:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
No, I have not said that.

I am asking you to show me a link to the correct number, or any other number. I have not done the 98% calculations myself but even if it sounds like alot then im not so sure its that wrong. Im sure landmines produce comparable number of civilian vs military casualties... atleast after ww2. Military forces are often equipped and trained to clear or avoid minefields (witch is the point of them in the first place... slowing or halting advances). Civilians do not have this advantage and keeps on stepping on them decades later.

Well that studies stastics attributes no, zero, NIL military casualties in thw war itself to cluster bombs.

I don't know what the correct number is nilsen. But I read that report (the pdf) and immediately saw some significant dishonesty in the war it represents it figures.

When they claim 98% of civilians are the casualties yet take zero figures from the actual war period itself doesn't that raise your eyebrow just a little?

Are you saying yuu'd accept that statistic which is obviously flawed and misrepresented simply because there is not a report out with accurate statistics?

Maverick · « **Reply #123 on:** November 21, 2006, 03:14:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes and no.

All those undetonated bomblets that once were aimed at an enemy but now lie on or in the ground can blow up when anyone picks it up.... that is what they mean by indiscriminate. No different from a land mine. So the only discrimenating factor is not _who_ launches it or what it is launched at, but who may pick it up at some point in time.

You really ought to go look at an area where mortars have been used as well as other artillery launched munitions of all types.

Be that as it may, you are fully imbued with "rightous anger" at the nasty bad booms and nothing anyone says is going to sway you. Using the stats you do and the manner you defend them is more than sufficient to put you in the same category as fishu, all "expert" with no real experiance or first hand knowledge in any part of what you disdain. I really have a respect for a civilian monitored or commanded military but not for a civilian micromanagement exercise.

If you wish to discuss running boats over obstacles in the water while under the influence I can concur you have actual expertise there.

Nilsen · « **Reply #124 on:** November 21, 2006, 03:33:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
You really ought to go look at an area where mortars have been used as well as other artillery launched munitions of all types.

Be that as it may, you are fully imbued with "rightous anger" at the nasty bad booms and nothing anyone says is going to sway you. Using the stats you do and the manner you defend them is more than sufficient to put you in the same category as fishu, all "expert" with no real experiance or first hand knowledge in any part of what you disdain. I really have a respect for a civilian monitored or commanded military but not for a civilian micromanagement exercise.

If you wish to discuss running boats over obstacles in the water while under the influence I can concur you have actual expertise there.

And in the same manner i can say that you are set firm on your side of the matter and whatever i say will not sway you. I have no anger at anyone or anything.

May I ask what your real experience and first hand knowledge of walking around in an area were clusters have been used?

Nilsen · « **Reply #125 on:** November 21, 2006, 03:35:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by zorstorer
No need for a link just use the numbers they provide....if 98% of the cluster munution caused deaths are civilian then the number of military deaths caused by cluster munitions are just 2040....make sense?

You can stand by that VERY low number if you want to, but it sounds a tad low.

It sounds low yes, but i seriously doubt that aid organistaions and governments are pushing for a ban based on bogus reports.

Nilsen · « **Reply #126 on:** November 21, 2006, 03:40:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Well that studies stastics attributes no, zero, NIL military casualties in thw war itself to cluster bombs.

I don't know what the correct number is nilsen. But I read that report (the pdf) and immediately saw some significant dishonesty in the war it represents it figures.

When they claim 98% of civilians are the casualties yet take zero figures from the actual war period itself doesn't that raise your eyebrow just a little?

Are you saying yuu'd accept that statistic which is obviously flawed and misrepresented simply because there is not a report out with accurate statistics?

Ok... I will give the report the benefit of the doubt and try and find another number.

As a side question, what number would you say would be the point were you would say that cluster munitions civilian vs military casualties is "acceptable".

Are you and any of you other cluster munition supporters arguing that they kill and maim alot of innocent civilians decades after the conflicts are over?

VOR · « **Reply #127 on:** November 21, 2006, 04:21:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
It sounds low yes, but i seriously doubt that aid organistaions and governments are pushing for a ban based on bogus reports.

As a side question, what number would you say would be the point were you would say that cluster munitions civilian vs military casualties is "acceptable".

Governmants and NGOs never act on false information.

But seriously, there's no doubt submunitions kill civilians just like there's no doubt other more conventional munitions kill civilians, either when they're employed or afterwards as a uxo. I don't see the difference. Dead is dead.

The 98% number implies knowledge of the total number of deaths caused by every single munition dropped. It's not unreasonable for someone to have doubts about the accuracy of that number, and it's not unheard of for a person whose heart is in the right place to produce numbers to bolser support for their campaigns. Before I could get behind a cause that will remove a useful and effective tool from the military toolbox, I'd need to know I had my ducks in a row and that my information was substantiated.

Asking what percentage of civilian vs. military casualties would be acceptable is a pretty loaded question. When is a single civilian death ever considered acceptable? There are times when civilian lives are intentionally placed at risk because of the proximity of a high-value legitimate target. That's the way it is and the way it's always been. I can't put a number out there that I'd say it acceptable, but I can certainly say 98% would be wholly unacceptable.

Nilsen · « **Reply #128 on:** November 21, 2006, 04:29:24 PM »

I guess it was my mistake for bringing wikipedia into the discussion. When I did bring it into the discussion, I did not mention the 98% figure and if you look closely to what I have written in this thread I have _never_ used that number as a referance, except when copied a piece to show that I could also edit wikipedia after someone edited wiki and put my name infront of that figure. The figures I have used have been mostly the 0,5-1%.

Lets go back then to using 0,5-1% figures. Is that percentage and the number of bomblets that would mean and acceptable number of unexploded munitions beeing left on a battlefield?

zorstorer · « **Reply #129 on:** November 21, 2006, 04:29:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
It sounds low yes, but i seriously doubt that aid organistaions and governments are pushing for a ban based on bogus reports.

The problem with that number is not just that the number is bogus, but that when folks need to "massage" statistics to prove their point, where does the creative manipulation end? Once a statistic like this is massaged it throws into doubt the entire premise of the argument.

Nilsen · « **Reply #130 on:** November 21, 2006, 04:35:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by zorstorer
The problem with that number is not just that the number is bogus, but that when folks need to "massage" statistics to prove their point, where does the creative manipulation end? Once a statistic like this is massaged it throws into doubt the entire premise of the argument.

Good point, so lets put that number aside and we can also remove the entre organisation that used that number aside. I am game for that if it makes everyone more comfortable.

VOR · « **Reply #131 on:** November 21, 2006, 04:38:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Lets go back then to using 0,5-1% figures. Is that percentage and the number of bomblets that would mean and acceptable number of unexploded munitions beeing left on a battlefield?

Ok. I'l throw it out there: 0.5-1.0 percent would be acceptable in my mind IF it's no higher than other types of munitions. (I don't know the failure rates of bombs, artillery shells, direct fire explosive projectiles, etc).

Nilsen · « **Reply #132 on:** November 21, 2006, 04:48:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Ok. I'l throw it out there: 0.5-1.0 percent would be acceptable in my mind IF it's no higher than other types of munitions. (I don't know the failure rates of bombs, artillery shells, direct fire explosive projectiles, etc).

That would leave about 10 bomblets for every MLRS rocket fired in a conflict. Do you still think that is an acceptable number beeing left behind? about 0,5 or 1% doesnt sound much if it was conventional bombs or shells, but we are talking many bomblets per "round" when talking cluster weapons.

This is also the very best and most modern weapons. Older systems have alot higher rates. Take a look at the number of bomblets left in Lebanon.

P.S. This site sais 5-23% in testing conditions for the MLRS.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/18/global14050.htm

Nilsen · « **Reply #133 on:** November 21, 2006, 05:01:20 PM »

I have now emailed Human Rights Watch to see if they can actually come up with links to official US testing as im sure that source will be reliable for you fellas.

VOR · « **Reply #134 on:** November 21, 2006, 05:07:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
That would leave about 10 bomblets for every MLRS rocket fired in a conflict. Do you still think that is an acceptable number beeing left behind? about 0,5 or 1% doesnt sound much if it was conventional bombs or shells, but we are talking many bomblets per "round" when talking cluster weapons.

Yeah, but I think as each submunition as a weapon in and of itself and not the delivery vehicle (the rocket in this case). Again, yer asking to say how many dangerous duds left behind is acceptable, and again I would have to say I dunno. How many do you think is ok?