Banning cluster munitions.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by VOR
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?

None is ok really, but i think we can agree that will never happen and that is one of the reasons why so many are behind the ban in the first place.

They leave massive ammounts of small explosives behind.

Unlike conventional single warhead shells and bombs they are harder to clean up and easyer for kids and others to mistake for rubble. Just imagine what all these little buggers can do when left around in a city or field. Even soldiers dont like to advance thru an area were they themselves have used cluster munitions to take out their enemy. Why should then civilians be left to deal with them after the conflict?

There are plenty of options out there today. The name of the game for all of the military (atleast in the western world) over the last few decades have been PGMs and reducing collateral damage, yet these kinds of weapons are the oposite of that.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Nilsen
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?

My experiance was in launching and then watching munitions used on artillery ranges. Even prior to the advent of submunitions the range was off limits to all personnel on the ground save those from EOD folks due to the UXO's from regular artillery shells.

One range covered weapons from small mortars to 105mm howitzers. Another covered larger munitions up to 155 mm and yet a 3rd covered smaller munitions such as M203 rounds. All of them had UXO on them and all of them were considered hazardous with munitions in many cases clearly visible on the ground. In the case of one small mortar range I was able to see the results very easily from a viewers gallery next to the call for fire training location.

Training in calling for, planning for and use of those munitions was part of the education I was given in the Army and that also included use of off shore artillery as well as air delivered munitions.

The point of it is that all of it is deadly, it was designed to be deadly from the beginning. None of it is 100% safe later and I doubt ever will be. Combat is rather a dangerous situation and when avoidable should be by the govt's. responsible for innitiating it if there are other viable options.

Merely calling for a blanket banning of a particular weapon because you don't like what it does is rather silly. All weapons are lethal and the explosive ones tend to be so after impact due to design in some cases as well as simple failures in others. There is no such thing as 100% reliability or safety in much of anything in either the military or civilian world.

[Nilsen]

I know all other weapons laves duds, but not this many.... not even close.
Does it become pointless to ban one weapon just because all the other weapons are not perfect? If so we would still be using nasty stuff that at the time was natural but now is not even considered.



BTW...Do you support the use of anti-personel mines and / or ammunition with DU?

[zorstorer]

Just start raining these down.

nice write up of them

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Nilsen
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?

OK, just taking the Vietnam/Cambodia example. In Cambodia they mentioned a 120-140 odd casualties IIRC.

Would you agree that cluster munitions were responsible for 1000's of casualties, if not tens of thousands against the North Vietnamese military (remembering casualties could infer a minor wound, not necessarily a death).

If we said there were tens of thousands NVA wounded or killed by cluster munitions during the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail, and then took a figure of say 20,000 casaulties. Then the 140 odd civilians killed becomes a  LESS THAN ONE PERCENT casaulty rate. Somewhat at odds with the 98% this organisation claims.

Now, my figures are pure conjecture. But I would doubt the civilian versus military casualty rate would climb above 1 or 2%.

BTW, nilsen, I'm not pro-cluster bomb. I'm not pro-any-munitions really. My wife is cambodian, I got married in cambodia (no I am not cambodian nor asian). When she first came to New Zealand it took a long time for her to accept there were no dangers in going for a simple walk or bike ride. So I am quite aware of the issues.

What annoys me the most is people who lie, and this report uses a lot of lies. There are better, honest, ways to get the message across.

and IMHO cluster munitions and mines are like the pollution problem. Sure you may sign up the US and some other leaders to a no-use policy, but the 3rd world countries are going to keep using them and thats where the real problem lies.

[Squire]

Well, Javelin, Hellfire and tank guns are not what strike a/c are armed with, you are talking about CBUs which are air dropped cluster munitions. You can drop regular bombs (smart or dumb), napalm, FAE (fuel air explosion), or CBUs generally.

CBUs replaced napalm btw. Perhaps we should go back? I can only imagine the outcry then.

Like I said, there can be sensible guidelines for the use and design of CBUs. Make them inert if they dont explode on contact, ect. I beleive some newer designs do just that, if they dont explode they go inert.

[zorstorer]

Not sure why FAE's are not more popular, you would think that even if the case didn't spit as it is supposed to and the ignition system didn't work the fuel would just blow away, then all you would be left with is the initial case splitting device and the ignition system.  Doubt those two things would be all that harmful.

**edited for speeeling**

[Bodhi]

I am all for using cluster munitions.  I am also all for the use of White Phosphorous, Napalm, bunker busting nukes, notched shot gun rounds, black talon ammunition, land mines, fuel air explosives, and any other weapon we can come up with to kill enemies.

Unfortunately, civilians die in war.  It sucks, but, maybe people will eventually realise that the toll to wage war is expensive, be it conventional, or non conventional.  War sucks for the losers, and the winners suffer too.

[VOR]

Originally posted by Bodhi
It sucks, but, maybe people will eventually realise that the toll to wage war is expensive, be it conventional, or non conventional.

Thousands of years of human history don't seem to indicate that anyone's catching on yet.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I know all other weapons laves duds, but not this many.... not even close.
Does it become pointless to ban one weapon just because all the other weapons are not perfect? If so we would still be using nasty stuff that at the time was natural but now is not even considered.



BTW...Do you support the use of anti-personel mines and / or ammunition with DU?

Nice side step and evasion. Please understand that many more conventional rounds are fired than cluster weapons.

To answer your specific questions yes and yes. Being that my primary branch was armor the main tank killing round was called sabot and equiped with a DU penetrator. Frankly given the performance of our equipment in the ME, I rather like that round. Also given that we are the ones who own and use A-10's I rather like the GAU30 firing DU rounds. But then again that comes from my training and background.

I also like the limited use of mines as well as claymores and other force multipliers used in the battlefield. But then again that's because of my background and understanding how they work.

Now you were petulant enough to ask what my qualifications to speak on the matter were, so lets hear yours.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Squire
Well, Javelin, Hellfire and tank guns are not what strike a/c are armed with, you are talking about CBUs which are air dropped cluster munitions. You can drop regular bombs (smart or dumb), napalm, FAE (fuel air explosion), or CBUs generally.

CBUs replaced napalm btw. Perhaps we should go back? I can only imagine the outcry then.

Like I said, there can be sensible guidelines for the use and design of CBUs. Make them inert if they dont explode on contact, ect. I beleive some newer designs do just that, if they dont explode they go inert.

Aircarft has alot of weapons to choose from that are guided. They wont be as effecte as area weapons so you have to aim them individually at targets. And that is the point really.

Im NOT in the favor of bringing back our old friend Mr. Napalm ofcourse.

You are correct. Some newer cluster bomblets are designed to either go inert or blow up after awhile. It sounds good on paper, but the problem is that those "backup" system also has a failiure rate just like all other mechanical electronic gadgets.

Then you have the fact that most armies around the world really wont have the cash to replace their huge stockpiles of the older and really bad cluster munitions. Ive heard that even Rockeyes are in use. Imagine all the crappy russian stuff that is stockpiled.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Vulcan

What annoys me the most is people who lie, and this report uses a lot of lies. There are better, honest, ways to get the message across.

I agree 100% so we can dismiss the 98% report as it is prolly up in the doubtful end of the scale.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Nilsen

Im NOT in the favor of bringing back our old friend Mr. Napalm ofcourse.

Ahem...

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Maverick
Nice side step and evasion. Please understand that many more conventional rounds are fired than cluster weapons.

To answer your specific questions yes and yes. Being that my primary branch was armor the main tank killing round was called sabot and equiped with a DU penetrator. Frankly given the performance of our equipment in the ME, I rather like that round. Also given that we are the ones who own and use A-10's I rather like the GAU30 firing DU rounds. But then again that comes from my training and background.

I also like the limited use of mines as well as claymores and other force multipliers used in the battlefield. But then again that's because of my background and understanding how they work.

Now you were petulant enough to ask what my qualifications to speak on the matter were, so lets hear yours.

No step, and no eveasion... the question i asked about DU and landmines was asked to see what you feel in general about weapons that litter battlefields and cause casualties after the war is over.

I have answered many times already. I know that many more rounds will be fired but not as many left on the ground EVEN if the % would be the same.

How come so many countries can find alternatives to these weapons but the US can not? It must be the will to do so and the fact that you know very well that the junk after these wars will never be left on your doorstep, but in other nations far from were your own kids and family lives.

My qualifications? I read the news as well as anyone and i have fired a variety of weapons during my time in the navy.

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Well.  If you see it like that then city busting is also legitemate as it pales in comparison to using nukes or chemical weapons. Many things pales in comparison to the worst or best scenario.

The point of evolving as a race is to constantly strive to do the best you can, not only abit better than before when there are superior options available. Not everyone aims for mediocracy.

I would like to agree with you, but I have heard the arguments before and they don’t wash. You can’t ban war by banning weapons. You can’t even civilise war by banning individual weapons, that only alters the way war is fought. And the weapons that are banned, or their use of discouraged, will only stay that way until someone thinks they have a justifiable reason to use them or some nutter gets hold of them. And if man has evolved for the better post WW2 you would need a microscope to detect it. The weapons have changed though, they are a lot more lethal.

All I am saying is that conflicts should be contained on a battlefield geographically as small as possible using conventional weapons that can quickly eliminate an enemy.  
The massive fire power of modern conventional weapons, has up until now at least, all but eliminated the need to get medieval and bomb a country back to the stone age in order to defeat it militarily. GW1 + 2 are good examples. Even though there is inappropriate use of weapons like cluster and WP munitions at times, imo that scenario is preferable to the all out war scenario that the proliferation of  nukes or the neutering of effective conventional forces is likely to lead to.