Banning cluster munitions.

[Debonair]

its cause he doesn't get out of bed before noon

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Excel1
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.

Ofcourse you cant completly civlise a war as war itself is un-civilised.

Using weapons like the MLRS (or any russian or whatever) round is like using a shotgun at a huge area with the big difference beeing that the bomblets keeps on delivering decades later. This seperates this weapon from all others on the battlefield except landmines that have been banned by most civilised countries.

[Debonair]

its bad marketing
"land mine" sounds lame, like its an obvious ripoff of some other kinda mine:noid
im surprised the army put up with it for so long
how about "freedom IEDs" or "security pies"?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Debonair
"freedom IEDs" or "security pies"?

[Nude]

Originally posted by 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.

Some were also using fertilizers, trucks and even Boeing jets to kill their enemies but like you said, \"Unfortunately, civilians die in war\". Nice to see at least You agree with me

[Debonair]

zOMG that guys not wearing anything!!!!11

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Nude
Some were also using fertilizers, trucks and even Boeing jets to kill their enemies but like you said, \"Unfortunately, civilians die in war\". Nice to see at least You agree with me

put some clothes on Mr. Shady

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Ofcourse you cant completly civlise a war as war itself is un-civilised.

Using weapons like the MLRS (or any russian or whatever) round is like using a shotgun at a huge area with the big difference beeing that the bomblets keeps on delivering decades later. This seperates this weapon from all others on the battlefield except landmines that have been banned by most civilised countries.

Warfare is a product of  the darker side of man’s nature. It can’t be civilized, and it’s a trait that can’t be turned off like a faucet. And I don’t think it’s going to be bred out of us any time soon. I think the most that can be done is to try and minimize the frequency, size and damage done by wars. If banning cluster munitions is an aid to that end, then so be it. I wont be sorry to see them go. But I’m  not convinced that  banning the use of  the more nastier, effective dumb conventional weapons  wont turn out to be an own goal.

[Nilsen]

The convetional dumb bombs are beeing gradualy removed, or upgraded with GPS packs by most airforces anyway. They are dumb just like coventional dumb bomblets but they are far easyer to find as well as used in far smaller numbers than bomblets. Same goes for convetnional artillery shells.

The normal failiure rate in one round of MLRS rocket would equal that of several houndred larger conventional and/or guided munitions.

The object of war should not be the war itself, but what the result of the war is. If the result is a battlefield (country) littered with dangerous munitions then the point would be gone.. You will have saved or occupied useless ground that will kill the inhabitants for decades.

[soda72]

IMO, the attempt to ban cluster bombs is nothing more than feel good legislation.  "Do it for the children" has been used so many times now it's become a political Cliché that people become wary of when it's used.  The US has already been hammered for other feel good agreements it has signed.  Anyone remember all the fuss when WP was used?  Or during the battle of Fallujah when the army wanted to use plain old tear gas.   Now people want the good ole USA to sign another agreement to ban cluster bombs..   LOL fat chance.   If someone wants to make head way gathering support here in the US I suggest taking a different route.  Like requesting the army improve the munition to make sure the failure rate is very low when it used or have a fail safe device placed in that will ensure the bomblet is detonated.   This would receive much more support then trying to implement a ban.   Further more the military would most likely be on board because unexploded bomblets is a hazard for troops who are advancing towards areas in which cluster bombs may have been used..

[Simaril]

Nils--

There's a real point here that's been turned into jokes....why do cluster munitions get to you in a way that roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and sectarian murderers don't?

You're obviously very concerned by clusters' harm to civilians, but truthfully -- dont the sectarian/ethnic murderers in Darfour, and Kosovo, and Africa,  and Iraq cause WAY more pain and suffering than all the clusters put together?

The fact that those killers ARE worse, but don't generate this kind of anti-land mine/anti-cluster passion, says something very important about the "civilized warfare" ethic.

It isnt really about changing world suffering, its about perceived national morality.

Frankly, it's easy to rant about something that seems to have a moral solution, especially when there is a superpower to provide the security that can be taken for granted. Woudl you stil be against cluster munitions if the USSR hadnt fallen? If there were massive armies pointed at Scandinavia?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Simaril
Nils--

There's a real point here that's been turned into jokes....why do cluster munitions get to you in a way that roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and sectarian murderers don't?

You're obviously very concerned by clusters' harm to civilians, but truthfully -- dont the sectarian/ethnic murderers in Darfour, and Kosovo, and Africa,  and Iraq cause WAY more pain and suffering than all the clusters put together?

The fact that those killers ARE worse, but don't generate this kind of anti-land mine/anti-cluster passion, says something very important about the "civilized warfare" ethic.

It isnt really about changing world suffering, its about perceived national morality.

Frankly, it's easy to rant about something that seems to have a moral solution, especially when there is a superpower to provide the security that can be taken for granted. Woudl you stil be against cluster munitions if the USSR hadnt fallen? If there were massive armies pointed at Scandinavia?

its the fact that the people at the think tanks that sit around and and think crap up trying to get their nobel peace prize can't go after suicide bombers and those that intentionally target civilians.  Cluster munitions however, are droped by big evil nations who actually sign and follow treaties so it's entirly possible that just their efforts alone in sudgesting this can bring them some kind of accolade or "peace" award.  

IMHO it's not really about the casualties of war but war itself.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Simaril
Nils--

There's a real point here that's been turned into jokes....why do cluster munitions get to you in a way that roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and sectarian murderers don't?

You're obviously very concerned by clusters' harm to civilians, but truthfully -- dont the sectarian/ethnic murderers in Darfour, and Kosovo, and Africa,  and Iraq cause WAY more pain and suffering than all the clusters put together?

The fact that those killers ARE worse, but don't generate this kind of anti-land mine/anti-cluster passion, says something very important about the "civilized warfare" ethic.

It isnt really about changing world suffering, its about perceived national morality.

Frankly, it's easy to rant about something that seems to have a moral solution, especially when there is a superpower to provide the security that can be taken for granted. Woudl you stil be against cluster munitions if the USSR hadnt fallen? If there were massive armies pointed at Scandinavia?

Actually you will see that im quite active in debates about africa, Iraq and darfour. THIS thread is about clusters.

I would think it would be possible to have a thread about a bad thing even if there are worse things around.. dont you too? Just like one can discuss burgalries even if murders obvilously is worse.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
its the fact that the people at the think tanks that sit around and and think crap up trying to get their nobel peace prize can't go after suicide bombers and those that intentionally target civilians.  Cluster munitions however, are droped by big evil nations who actually sign and follow treaties so it's entirly possible that just their efforts alone in sudgesting this can bring them some kind of accolade or "peace" award.  

IMHO it's not really about the casualties of war but war itself.

Stop acting up Gunslinger and mix apples and oranges. Just because i have not mentioned IEDs in this thread you go WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaAA!

THIS thread is about clusters munitions so stop wiggeling to get it over on something else If you want to debate IED then start a thread about it and i can guarantee that we will be on the same page. It would be a thread looking like the biggest circle jerk in oclub history.

[zorstorer]

Well based on lessons in Vietnam it makes sense for the more technologically advanced side to make sure their weapons are as dud proof as possible.  The VC and NVA got quite a bit of their explosives for IED's and such from our UXO's.  So it would follow that you don't want alot of UXO's for that reason.