Is use of Cluster Bombs a War Crime???

[SIG220]

_____________________________ _________________

The latest international controversy regarding the ethics of war is over the use of cluster bomb technology.   As we all know, this technology was originally developed by the USA, and has created bombs that are far more destructive and effective than conventional bombs.   Cluster bombs were used widely by the USA in both Iraq wars, and in on-going operations in Afghanistan.   Israel also made wide use of them in their recent war against Hezbollah's army in Lebanon.   

Opponents argue that use of such weapons must either be outright banned entirely, or limits put on their use.   82 nations just signed a total ban treaty in New Zealand last month, promising to never use cluster bomb technology. 

For reference, here is a video of cluster munitions at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYnWTd8v8M


Even the United States Senate recently tried to pass a bill limiting the use of these weapons by the US Military.   The bill would have forbidden our military from using them near concentrated civilian populations.   There was widespread criticism of Israel after the recent Lebanon war, as they used Cluster Weaponry on rocket launcher sites that were attacking Israel.   The problem, though, was that Hezbollah was firing these rockets at Israel from right in the middle of populated neighborhoods.   

So was Israel's use of Cluster munitions against Hezbollah's rocket launchers a war crime?    Should the US military be prevented from ever using them in a similar scenario?

It turns out that Barrack Obama was one of the few US Senators to vote in favor of putting such a limitation on our military.   In contrast, Clinton and McCain both voted against the bill, which the Senate overwhelming defeated.

Here is a news story all about this subject, especially regarding Obama's support for restricting the use of Cluster munitions:


http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/get_your_cluster_on/6718/


So is Obama right on this issue??

_____________________________ ___________________

[DiabloTX]

Nilsen is our resident cluster bomb expert.  He'll be along shortly.

[LePaul]

I swear I'll be alive the day they outlaw the use of NERF munitions.

We'll be down to only non-feather pillows for future wars.

[Holden McGroin]

Ah, I long for the good ole days... when you could kill somebody any way you wanted and the immorality was in the killin itself, not just in the technique.

[Elfie]

Cluster bombs are to effective against the enemy to ban them.

If they were to ban cluster bombs, what's next? Artillery?

[Nilsen]

The problem with them is not their effectiveness when they are used. If they could make sure that 100% of the bomblets are destroyed if they dont work then the weapon is ok.

The problem is the millions of leftover bomblets that basicly functions as landmined decades after the conflict is over, and the majortiy of victims are curious kids and farmers. Even if they could make 99% of them go off then due to the large ammounts of them that 1% is a very large number of duds.

This has been debated over and over again though.

[Lumpy]

______________________________________________

As we all know, this technology was originally developed by the USA, and has created bombs that are far more destructive and effective than conventional bombs.
_____________________________ ___________________

As some of us know the first cluster bomb used operationally was the German SD-2 or Sprengbombe Dickwandig 2 kg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Bomb

The problem with cluster munition is not that they are destructive or "evil", but that they tend to leave a lot of undetonated bomblets around the battle field that are difficult to spot. In turn this tends to leave a lot of children and other civilians around the battlefield without limbs or lives long after the war is over.

[AWMac]

Depends on what you set your salvo and the delay to.

All in all Napalm Rules!

 

Mac

[B@tfinkV]

bombs are not supposed to be safe

[Lumpy]

The problem is that since they leave a lot of duds that later kill people; they kill indiscriminately, which is outlawed by the Geneva Conversions.

[SIG220]

The problem with them is not their effectiveness when they are used. If they could make sure that 100% of the bomblets are destroyed if they dont work then the weapon is ok.

The problem is the millions of leftover bomblets that basicly functions as landmined decades after the conflict is over, and the majortiy of victims are curious kids and farmers. Even if they could make 99% of them go off then due to the large ammounts of them that 1% is a very large number of duds.

This has been debated over and over again though.

But if you then ban them, is not the bomb that will replace them going to be less effective???  What if you then discover that your enemy is using them?

And what about the Hezbollah type scenario, where a civilian neighborhood is being used as a base for attack?   Would dropping a conventional bomb on the missile launcher be more humane?  What if the bomb misses, and instead hits an innocent family's home?

I don't believe that there is any weapons system in the world that is perfect, and never malfunctions when it is used.

There does appear to be a new push from many nations, to fight for some type of ban or limitations.

Here are some more details about this meeting that was held in New Zealand a few weeks ago:

http://news.theage.com.au/australia-supports-cluster-bomb-ban/20080222-1ttj.html


_____________________________ ______________________

[Lumpy]

Nerve gas bombs would be even more effective.

[Wayout]

______________________________________________

The latest international controversy regarding the ethics of war... 

_____________________________ ___________________

There are no ethics in war. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things and the better you are at these two things the sooner the war will end.

[Lumpy]

There are no ethics in war. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things and the better you are at these two things the sooner the war will end.

Then why are you so outraged when the enemy combatants cut the heads of your soldiers? If there are no ethics in war and all. Specially with that sig of yours.

[Nilsen]

There are no ethics in war. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things and the better you are at these two things the sooner the war will end.

Yes there are ethics in war. Some break them over and over again, but they are still there.

What about when the war is over. That is the key issue here. If cluster munitions were ever used in the country you live in i bet you would change your mind very quickly.

This topic has beed discussed here before and people are either pro or against them. Doesnt matter anyway since its out of our hands.