Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nilsen on November 18, 2006, 04:34:09 PM
-
I say its about time they go the same way as anti-personel landmines..
What do the rest of you think?. They are without a doubt a very good type of weapon in conventional warfare such as was predicted for a WW3 but the problems they cause now go far above their usefullness.
Im sure many here will not agree with this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6158806.stm
-
"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee.
-
^^^^^
Wise man he was. And Sandman has posted something I agree with him on.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." - General Robert E. Lee.
So you support the use of cluster munitions then because they make war more terrible?
-
they should ban clusterf***s
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So you support the use of cluster munitions then because they make war more terrible?
I'm sure if it were kids in their backyard getting maimed or worse by unexploded cluster munitions they would feel differently.
for some it seems out of sight, out of mind.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
they should ban clusterf***s
But then where would the Oclub be.
Bronk
-
Collateral damage is one of the more terrible aspects of war. Cluster munitions seem to have a lot of that. I'm don't know whether or not these are being dropped in the "wrong" area, such as near and in heavily populated residential areas. I can see where they would be very usefull in reducing the enemies ability to wage war were they dropped in a heavy concentration of fighting personel and equipment.
Considering the fact that the lines of demarcation outlining areas of combat from areas of high civilian concentration are severly blurred in the way war seems to be waged now days, I would be inclined to use this type of weapon very little if at all.
I am no expert on waging a war nor do I know all the circumstances involved in the decision on what type of weapon to use but it would be nice to reduce collateral damage as much as possible and if banning these weapons acheived that I may support it.
What I would not like to see is tying the hands of our military and making them fight by rules that the enemy refuses to follow. I believe our military should take every advantage it can and get the job done as quickly as possible with a minimum of loss of life for our service men and women and secondly be concerned with collateral dammage.
-
cluster bombs should be used only on open battlefields.
-
I read the article. Long on allegsations and claims but short of anything resmbling confirmation of the claims. Particularly the bit about 98% of the casualties from cluster minitions being civilians.
I also noted a reference to the recent arab isreali conflict and not a single mention about the use of the civilian areas as points to launch the arab artillery from.
Frankly I would rather see oslo get concerned with reducing radical muslim fundamentalism and terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I say its about time they go the same way as anti-personel landmines..
When exactly have the landmines gone?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
cluster bombs should be used only on open battlefields.
If so then every single shell fired into an area should be recorded and recordings submitted to whoever rules/uses or lives/farms/plays on the ground that the shell lands on so it can be restricted or cleaned by either those that fired it or holds the land.
Kinda hard to enforce tho.
Making the user of that weapon a criminal of war would make it easyer to pass the blame and responsibilty of cleaning up easier.
You cant fight without weapons, but just like with landmines that litteraly kills and maimes for decades its a weapons that has nothing to do in the 21st century.
-
Clusterbombs should only be used in other countries, not mine. ;)
-
Originally posted by mora
When exactly have the landmines gone?
They are no longer put in the ground by the nations that have signed the treaty. Your country has signed, and i would guess there are no minefields surrounding Finland that you have put there any more.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I say its about time they go the same way as anti-personel landmines..
What do the rest of you think?. They are without a doubt a very good type of weapon in conventional warfare such as was predicted for a WW3 but the problems they cause now go far above their usefullness.
Im sure many here will not agree with this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6158806.stm
Can't agree. In my mind its the misuse (rules of so-called civilized warfare) that makes them objectionable to so many people including me when they are misused. There will at times still be terrible collateral damage to unintended targets even when used "properly" but that is the nature of war. There will always be the danger of some collateral damage even if we were to go back to using clubs.
EDIT: Use of cluster munitions to target combatants concealed within a concentrated civilian population would be a "misuse" IMO.
-
To think that the ONLY type of war we will ever fight ever again is going to be an insurgancy like Iraq is idiotic to say the least.
"Cluster munitions are very accurate, they allways hit the ground"
They are also effective at two things 1. causing mass amount of casualties and equipment destruction 2. creating absolute fear on the targets they are used on.
With this being said the newer type of cluster munitions (can't remember the designator) have better failsafes to prevent UXO as well as guidence to put them on the correct targets.
Nils what scares me more than cluster munitions is some euro saying we should have a kindler gentler type of warfare. Wars arent faught with rubber band guns.
-
Originally posted by Irwink!
Can't agree. In my mind its the misuse (rules of so-called civilized warfare) that makes them objectionable to so many people including me when they are misused. There will at times still be terrible collateral damage to unintended targets even when used "properly" but that is the nature of war. There will always be the danger of some collateral damage even if we were to go back to using clubs.
So who will decide when and were they can be used, and should they be made responsible for removing the duds later?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
They are no longer put in the ground by the nations that have signed the treaty. Your country has signed, and i would guess there are no minefields surrounding Finland that you have put there any more.
AFAIK we haven't signed it yet, and hopefully after regime change we won't.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So who will decide when and were they can be used, and should they be made responsible for removing the duds later?
The generals fighting the war should decide.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nils what scares me more than cluster munitions is some euro saying we should have a kindler gentler type of warfare. Wars arent faught with rubber band guns.
Yeah.. its sooooooo much less scary that thousands of them are left and kills decades after they have been used.
I bet the attitude would be slightly different if your kids went out into the yard, on a school trip or played on a field tomorrow and got blown up by one. But they are not used against you on your soil are they? They are used over there ----> somewere were they bad guys live
;)
Sure they have gotten better in recent years and they are now at about the 1% fail mark. That leaves fewer. Btw how many duds is 1% of the total when you talk about cluster munitions? If it was 1% of regular shells and bombs it would not be that hard to clean up, but 1% of a few 10s of thousands still is ALOT
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The generals fighting the war should decide.
mhm.. and what could be done to them if things went fubar? A bit of yelling and some finger pointing?
-
I nominate Nilsen as the primary dud finder and disposal technician.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yeah.. its sooooooo much less scary that thousands of them are left and kills decades after they have been used.
I bet the attitude would be slightly different if your kids went out into the yard, on a school trip or played on a field tomorrow and got blown up by one. But they are not used against you on your soil are they? They are used over there ----> somewere were they bad guys live
;)
Yup that's right....where bad guys live.....and usually that isn't a largly populated area. Cluster munitions as a rule are 1. Ineffective in an urban environment and 2. Not allowed to be used due to collateral damage.
They are used on vehicles and people out in the open. As I said before the newest generation have better failsafes and guidence systems.
http://www.systems.textron.com/videos/530.1-SFW-in-OIF.wmv
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
mhm.. and what could be done to them if things went fubar? A bit of yelling and some finger pointing?
Nilsen,
There are no guarantees in life especially in war. No matter who was responsible to clean up an area of munitions, there would still be oversights.
Are you advocating that whoever that person or group of persons is be held accountable for every item ever used in an area where there was a war? Are you wanting them sued, shot, hung or beheaded for the failure of getting the area cleaned up perfectly? What exactly are you looking for with your question?
Mark
-
If children being wounded or killed is what we're worried about... Banning cluster munitions is like cutting down a branch when the entire tree is about to drop on your house.
I agree that people should be more concerned with stopping Islamic extremists.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I nominate Nilsen as the primary dud finder and disposal technician.
Thank you for the nomination :D
Train me and pay me with the promise of not using them again and I may actually go
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
mhm.. and what could be done to them if things went fubar? A bit of yelling and some finger pointing?
You say this as if we have monsters in our military operating with impunity from any type of responsibilitys at all.
Did you know that for every General fighting there's a JAG lawyer right next to him telling him what's legal and not.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
Nilsen,
There are no guarantees in life especially in war. No matter who was responsible to clean up an area of munitions, there would still be oversights.
Are you advocating that whoever that person or group of persons is be held accountable for every item ever used in an area where there was a war? Are you wanting them sued, shot, hung or beheaded for the failure of getting the area cleaned up perfectly? What exactly are you looking for with your question?
Mark
So as long as there is no guaratnees its pointless to do your best?
Yes im advocating that a person or group is to be held accountable. They are already. If some guy from here sprayes a residential area with a machine gun going for that one dude in the window and kills many innocent folks he will be promptly prosecuted. I bet that applies for US soldier using excessive force too.
-
I think we should cluster bomb any Euro Nation that trys to tell us we shouldn't cluster bomb anymore.
-
Nils before this gets burried in the post
http://www.systems.textron.com/videos/530.1-SFW-in-OIF.wmv
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You say this as if we have monsters in our military operating with impunity from any type of responsibilitys at all.
Did you know that for every General fighting there's a JAG lawyer right next to him telling him what's legal and not.
nono.. im not saying you are monsters... FAR from it.
There are options to using the cluster munitions. You know that aswell as me. It will take afew more convetional shells to take out a group of infantry men (example) and it will cost more and be less conveniant, but as a marine you know very well that there is an option.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I think we should cluster bomb any Euro Nation that trys to tell us we shouldn't cluster bomb anymore.
I know you want to. We know how much you hate Europe. Sais alot about your as a person.
-
Any type of ordinance is cabable of leaving a dud on the battlefield. Is it practical to hold someone responsible for every single one? It would be the next logical step.
In my mind it makes sense to design better fail-safes into the munitions themselves if they are indeed as big a problem as the article suggests vs an outright ban.
Collateral damage in general is something that has to be carefully considered by both sides in a conflict. It can be avoided...if both sides want it to be.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Thank you for the nomination :D
Train me and pay me with the promise of not using them again and I may actually go
No problem. Training is simple, fortunately for you. Lace up your boots and go out looking for the submunitions. When you find one. place your boot on it with a downward velocity of about 50 fps. After you've done that with both feet I'll be happy to pay you $.25. I guarantee you won't be using any more cluster munitions after that.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So as long as there is no guaratnees its pointless to do your best?
Yes im advocating that a person or group is to be held accountable. They are already. If some guy from here sprayes a residential area with a machine gun going for that one dude in the window and kills many innocent folks he will be promptly prosecuted. I bet that applies for US soldier using excessive force too.
As far as the first statement is concerned: Nothing in life is guaranteed but I would never advocate that efforts in any endeaver are pointless. I don't believe I even implied that.
There is what would be considered reasonable care and caution on a field of battle but you know as well as I that when events on the battlefield get out of hand and one is fighting for one's life, caution is generaly thrown to the wind. I would not want to see every serviceperson, regardless of nationality, personaly responsible for any possible collateral damage regardless of situation. No one can fight a war that way.
We could make life simpler for everyone if we just banned war completely. Of course you and I both know that would be impossible. It would require restructuring of the human DNA.
Mark
-
Nils if it makes you feel better the USAF trains every single member extensivly on UXO. There's many teams in Iraq right now as we speak who's sole job is to take care of UXO.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I say its about time they go the same way as anti-personel landmines..
What do the rest of you think?.
I think you must be a really, really good person to want this...superior to
just about everyone... my hat
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nils if it makes you feel better the USAF trains every single member extensivly on UXO. There's many teams in Iraq right now as we speak who's sole job is to take care of UXO.
Gun,
What is UXO?
Mark
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So who will decide when and were they can be used, and should they be made responsible for removing the duds later?
I have no short and sweet answers to your questions to offer. I will however go back to the rules of so-called civilized warfare that I referred to. That is a collosal contradiction in terms. War is insanity on a massive scale. Do I sometimes condone it myself? Yes, I'm a human living in the 21st century living amongst others of the same kind who still resort to force of arms to advance their agenda or to defend it from a like-minded aggressor advancing his own. It'll sure be swell when we advance as a society enough that warfare is only something written about in history books. Too bad that's a utopian vision that if it ever materializes will do so long, long after we are all dust. Look at the forum in which we're posting - the Aces High BB. A lot, probably most of us including myself originally came here to play a war game. If we can't be engaged in a real war we'll do so vicariously through a game by choice. We still celebrate war. That is the current state of human "civilization".
I'm starting to digress....
War is messy, people die - they always have, they always will for as long as armed conflict persists. The purpose of any type of avanced weaponry is to shorten a conflict by hastening victory and in so doing REDUCE casualties - when all is said and done to REDUCE CASUALTIES. I don't like the way it works. Maybe it would "seem" better if all the casualties happened at once ala Hiroshima or the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburgh, and Tokyo. Then we can just quickly get it over with and start to collectively forget about it till the next one comes along. Its a little more tidy and easier to live with than seeing casualties that come in dribs and drabs here and there after the cessation of immediate hostilities no matter that TOTAL CASUALTIES are reduced. Its an established fact that people rapidly become desensitized to mass casualities. They don't have to think about individual names, faces, combatant or civilian, man, woman or child. I don't see how we can sanely debate how to kill each other in a more "civilized" fashion.
I think I need some of that Johnnie Walker now. I'm getting depressed. Then maybe I'll pop into one of the game arenas and see how many kills I can get...
-
How about the civilians use a little COMMON SENSE and get out of the way when the insurgents and terrorist start setting up in their backyard and make their homes a target. The way I look at this is if the civilians are still there then they are supporting the bad guys and that makes them bad guys. Kill them all. Children getting killed?? Maybe their parents should be responsible for the safety of their kids and get them away from the fighting.
Use all the cluster bombs we can. Hell yeah drop them suckers.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
Gun,
What is UXO?
Mark
UneXploded Ordinance. In other words the duds mentioned earlier.
-
Thank you Maverick.:)
-
Depends. AP clusters onto civilian areas is a bad thing.
A CBU-97 with BLU-108/B's is a great thing to have if you ever plan to fight tanks again though. No reason to ban that weapon.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You say this as if we have monsters in our military operating with impunity from any type of responsibilitys at all.
Did you know that for every General fighting there's a JAG lawyer right next to him telling him what's legal and not.
A military that needs lawyers to keep it from going ape watermelon has got serious self restraint problems.
Lawyers only give legal interpretations, which may be at odds with the moral values the military is supposedly trying to uphold.
As an example, the justification for the roasting of civilians along with enemy combatants by using white phosphorus in an urban environment (Falluja 2004) is ok as long as it's legal. It may have been legal, but the initial US denial of using WP spoke volumes.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
A military that needs lawyers to keep it from going ape watermelon has got serious self restraint problems.
Lawyers only give legal interpretations, which may be at odds with the moral values the military is supposedly trying to uphold.
As an example, the justification for the roasting of civilians along with enemy combatants by using white phosphorus in an urban environment (Falluja 2004) is ok as long as it's legal. It may have been legal, but the initial US denial of using WP spoke volumes.
WP usage is nothing new in the military.
of course WP and cluster munitions are apples and oranges.
-
Gotta be some give and take. If you want civilized nations to give up cluster bombs how about getting the less civilized terrorists to give up suicide bombings? Deal?
-
Maybe we should work on a "hug bomb" filled with puppies, love, Kush weed cookies, and free range spirit animals to fill the evil doers hearts with happiness and joy... or better yet, the "12 Virgin Improved Conventional Munitions" (12VICM), package that upon exploding over the enemies head drops 12 virgins, a manly un-wed goat, and the deed to 40 acres of prime desert real estate.
Whats next? no rifles, just Nerf batons and silly string?... oh wait, a child might slip on the silly string, nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
What I would not like to see is tying the hands of our military and making them fight by rules that the enemy refuses to follow. I believe our military should take every advantage it can and get the job done as quickly as possible with a minimum of loss of life for our service men and women and secondly be concerned with collateral dammage.
And there ya go.
My sentiments exactly
Combine that withthe R.E. Lee quote and you have my answer too
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Maybe we should work on a "hug bomb" filled with puppies, love, Kush weed cookies, and free range spirit animals to fill the evil doers hearts with happiness and joy
No man. Yah fill em with Flowers.
Beautiful beautiful flowers man.
Can ya dig it?
OR Paint.
So "when they explode. they make pretty pictures"
-
hug would have to be some sorta acronym
Highly
Unexpected
Gheyness?
-
Ok.. i guess we can conclude that the majority here likes cluster munitions and thinks the huge civilian causalties are unfortionate but hey.. thats war.
Is it about time we bring back the anti-personel landmine? I like those that jump up and explode.
-
Only if they're the ones that make a springy sound when they jump and explode at eye level to a 4th grader. Those are great for New Year's, too.
-
Yeah they are the best! :aok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munitions#Threats_to_civilians
-
Try looking up the wepon family for the MLRS this is one of the US's and outher Euro, Country's leading Artillery pecies. I carrys 12 rockets or 2 misiles they bouth use the cluster munition's. It had the army of Iraq running scared in Desert Storm And in O.I.F This wepon can take out a square mile in 3 min's the Army of Iraq called it STEEL RAIN!! for a reason.
I have had the hounor of working on the MLRS I was a crew chief loved it.
Oh and if you think we stoped using the boucing betty's you wroung the US still produces them and still uses them.
I know this because of the 4 yrs I served the first two I was a SAPPER with the 577th corps of engineer's And the last two yrs, I was with the 1st ID 1/33rd FA Out of Bamberg Germany.
info on SAPPER's (http://www.wood.army.mil/sapper/sapper.htm)
Info on the MLRS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/)
The combat-proven Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a rocket artillery system manufactured by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. The system is operational in the US Army, and fourteen countries have fielded or ordered MLRS: Bahrain, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and United Kingdom. The system has also been built in Europe by an international consortium of companies from France, Germany, Italy and the UK.
:t :aok
to many country's support this Artty pice.
more MLRS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CusWD7LO7ig&mode=related&search=)
A little fire POWER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fj97-UckI&mode=related&search=)
-
lol someone edited that wikipedia link
-
Originally posted by red26
Try looking up the wepon family for the MLRS this is one of the US's and outher Euro, Country's leading Artillery pecies. I carrys 12 rockets or 2 misiles they bouth use the cluster munition's. It had the army of Iraq running scared in Desert Storm And in O.I.F This wepon can take out a square mile in 3 min's the Army of Iraq called it STEEL RAIN!! for a reason.
I have had the hounor of working on the MLRS I was a crew chief loved it.
Oh and if you think we stoped using the boucing betty's you wroung the US still produces them and still uses them.
I know this because of the 4 yrs I served the first two I was a SAPPER with the 577th corps of engineer's And the last two yrs, I was with the 1st ID 1/33rd FA Out of Bamberg Germany.
info on SAPPER's (http://www.wood.army.mil/sapper/sapper.htm)
Info on the MLRS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/)
The combat-proven Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a rocket artillery system manufactured by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. The system is operational in the US Army, and fourteen countries have fielded or ordered MLRS: Bahrain, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and United Kingdom. The system has also been built in Europe by an international consortium of companies from France, Germany, Italy and the UK.
:t :aok
to many country's support this Artty pice.
more MLRS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CusWD7LO7ig&mode=related&search=)
A little fire POWER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7fj97-UckI&mode=related&search=)
Norway mothballed the MLRS system a year or two ago. It may become operational again when GPS guided rockets with single warheads becomes available (not the ATACMS type), or they may be traded with the Dutch For pzh2000 systems.
It is a great and extremly effective weapon system that all the users of it loves. I started to wonder wtf was wrong with the army for mothballing them. The reason for doing it here was two fold. Firstly the bomblets had a large failure rate (% wise) and got this ball started. Secondly it was supposed to be used up here as a delivery system for anti-tank mines to stop or slow a russian invasion, and to carpet bomb the incomming russian army. With the end of the cold war and international operation beeing the flavor of the year they decided to stick with and upgrade M109 "paladins".
And its true that the US never signed anything to ban anti-personel mines either, and they wont sign this either by the looks of it here anyway.
Oh and very funny that some of you have actually gone in and edited wikipedia. :D And its abit sad too...
-
Looks like it was edited abit again. :D
Here is a quote I found interesting on the same page:
"According to Nilsen of Handicap International, 98% of cluster bomb victims are civilians.[1] The use of cluster bombs is hotly opposed by many individuals and groups, such as the Red Cross, the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high proportion of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. Since February 2005, Handicap International called for cluster munitions to be prohibited and collected hundreds of thousands signatures to support its call.
Gunslinger a close friend of Badgdad Bob claims: "There never is no such things as duds ever, cluster eggs rule"
Cluster bombs pose a threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a very wide area of effect, and they almost always leave behind unexploded bomblets."
-
we will stop using cluster bombs when the enemy stops using suicide bombers and roadside IED's.
a roadside IED is a anti-personel mine. The terrorists must not have heard that they were baned.
-
So its ok for you to kill and injure innocent children and others that plays with or steps on the duds just because the insurgants, terrorists and criminals targets your troops and eachother?
BRILLIANT! :lol
Punish the innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Good way to "win the hearts and minds" of your enemies and stay on the christian high-ground.
-
we need to improve cluster bombs to eliminate the duds. it's a QC issue, not a morality issue.
-
And while they are perfected, distributed to all countries using them they should still be used? It is prolly not even possible to make 100% of them detonate. Even with normal bombs and shells there are duds, but the cluster munitions delivers 10-100 and upwards of them so even a very low failiure rate leaves alot of them behind.
Here in Norway and i would guess all over were there have been fighting there is still found tons of unexploded munitions from the ww2, and the cleanup will go on for decades. I cant even imagine how it would be here if they had used them in mass back in ww2.
The focus of most of the development in weapons and munitions over the last couple of decades has been to make them more accurate to get the collatteral damage down to a minimum, but the cluster munitions go the opposite way even if they do hit the area with greater accuracy.
-
How do you define a "Cluster Bomb" in a meaningful way so that it can be bombed? "Any weapon carrying more than one explosive submunition?" Or only certain ones?
No country is going to adopt the definition above. But if you break it down, how do you do it? "Those with Point-Detonating Fuzes"? Okay, but our DPICM uses Superquick. By failure rates? One of the reasons why the US military is moving away from extensive ICM-family usage is because the published failure rates were far from what they were getting on the field. By size? You gonna ban hand grenades?
Rules about what weapons are "legitimate" and which ones aren't are often arbitrary and rather silly. Still, some you can define fairly well -- like land mines -- others, like cluster munitions, are not.
Cluster Munitions are on their way out anyway. Militaries like the US are recognizing the dud rate causes serious problems for friendly troops, let alone civilians. The Israelis may use them in Lebanon, but it doesn't do their cause any good. Soon Cluster Munitions will be alongside Napalm in world usage, ban or no ban. Heck, napalm's been banned, but the US has a napalm-like bomb it uses in its inventory; it's just not employed as widely as before, because it's not as effective as once believed.
(Napalm first saw heavy use in Korea. American pilots thought it great because it struck fear in the hearts of the Chinese and North Koreans, who would run away, whereas with iron bombs, they would keep moving. Prisoner interviews revealed the opposite: they were running because they knew they had a chance to escape the lethal zone).
-
Oh and Red 26 -- dang that's a lot of launchers: what is that, a battalion fire mission? I count two firing platoons visible in that last shot. 3x2x12x644 = 46,368 bomblets in forty seconds to a minute (depending on model). The brits called it the "Grid Square Eliminator" or some such.
-
That last video was a Battery of MLRS. To be specific it was A Brty 1/158FA Oklahoma National Guard out of Lawton OK. I know because I was there when that video was filmed during Desert Storm. Not all our launchers fired on that mission. I believe we kept 2 on standby in case we needed to hit a target again or for counter battery fire. A battery of MLRS consists of:
9 M270 SPLL, Self Propelled Loader Launchers (1st platoon, 3 squads of 3 launchers)
27 M985 HEMTT, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (2nd platoon, 3 squads of 9 trucks)
5 M577 and assorted light vehichles for the FDC group and survey section (3rd platoon)
HQ platoon with the TOC, commo, maintence groups.
Standard rocket for the MLRS is the M26. 644 submunitions per rocket.
Artillery is the King of Battle.
-
I would say that unexploded munitions are a bad thing.
I would ban cluster munitions if they are being used as land mines. If they explode as much as any other munition (percent wise) then there is no problem.
lazs
-
"I'll give up my cluster munitions when they pry them from my cold dead hands"
:D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So its ok for you to kill and injure innocent children and others that plays with or steps on the duds just because the insurgants, terrorists and criminals targets your troops and eachother?
BRILLIANT! :lol
Punish the innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Good way to "win the hearts and minds" of your enemies and stay on the christian high-ground.
Nils you know it's not OK but civilians arent the targets. Again newer generation of submunitions have far less dud rates and better fail safes.
-
War is not civilized. Many have tried to make it that way but all have failed.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
That last video was a Battery of MLRS. To be specific it was A Brty 1/158FA Oklahoma National Guard out of Lawton OK.
Sweet. and a 155mm DPICM round carries about 1/9th of an M26 load of subs, so the hate being put downrange in one minute by an MLRS launcher is equivalent to something like 36 M109 paladins. Of course, the MLRS then has to reload, while the Paladin can keep going (at a lower sustained ROF). So the other side of that video is receiving the equivalent of a 200-tube 155mm barrage.
Although these days I suppose HIMARS is all the rage.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nils you know it's not OK but civilians arent the targets. Again newer generation of submunitions have far less dud rates and better fail safes.
I know civilians are not the target, but that doesnt count for much when the soldiers are gone and the munitions keep claiming causualties decades later does it?
By all means... making better self destruct systems on them or making them better at exploding when they are supposed to helps, but I seriously doubt they can make them as good as regular munitions simply because there are so many of them released in one go. Even at that magical 1% limit that some has set as a benchmark then that still leaves 6-7 duds for every rocket. Multiply that by 12 and the number of launchers in a battery and you are not far from 1000 duds. At 0,5% (sounds very good) you still have 500.
-
The idea of getting a JAG Officer anywhere near a combat zone and front lines.....:rofl
I think at least half of the Jag folks should be mine detectors using the foot pressure detection method. They should be followed by 3/4 of the civilian lawyers. At least we'd get something constructive out of them. :t
-
Now that is a good suggestion Mav :D
-
Again newer generation of submunitions have far less dud rates and better fail safes.
Are you sure? The US has removed (or helped remove) about 50,000 unexploded bomblets from Lebanon left over from the war this summer, and the UN estimates up to 1 million remain in total. So far, they've been finding that about 40% of all the submunitions used didn't detonate.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Are you sure? The US has removed (or helped remove) about 50,000 unexploded bomblets from Lebanon left over from the war this summer, and the UN estimates up to 1 million remain in total. So far, they've been finding that about 40% of all the submunitions used didn't detonate.
Where they using the new MK82s or SFWs? If not I rest my case.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I say its about time they go the same way as anti-personel landmines..
What do the rest of you think?. They are without a doubt a very good type of weapon in conventional warfare such as was predicted for a WW3 but the problems they cause now go far above their usefullness.
Im sure many here will not agree with this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6158806.stm
I had a quick look at the report.
Its pretty much BS. They claim 98% of casualties are civilians but this is a blatant lie. As an example their data includes post war casualties on civilians in cambodia and vietnam. But gives virtually no casualties against the military as the report was conducted post war.
So, for example, the cambodian report says 121 civilians hurt or killed by cluster munitions, 0 military casualties. Wherein truth the cluster munitions were used on the Ho Chi Minh trail probably killed thousands of NVA.
So according to that report the stat is 100% of casualties are civilians, where as the truth is more like less than 1% are civilians if you took into account military casualties pre-2006.
So in summary its statistical lies.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
That last video was a Battery of MLRS. To be specific it was A Brty 1/158FA Oklahoma National Guard out of Lawton OK. I know because I was there when that video was filmed during Desert Storm. Not all our launchers fired on that mission. I believe we kept 2 on standby in case we needed to hit a target again or for counter battery fire. A battery of MLRS consists of:
9 M270 SPLL, Self Propelled Loader Launchers (1st platoon, 3 squads of 3 launchers)
27 M985 HEMTT, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (2nd platoon, 3 squads of 9 trucks)
5 M577 and assorted light vehichles for the FDC group and survey section (3rd platoon)
HQ platoon with the TOC, commo, maintence groups.
Standard rocket for the MLRS is the M26. 644 submunitions per rocket.
Artillery is the King of Battle.
Hornet in that last clip right at the end the camera pans up and you can just see sparks, do the missiles hit eachother very often? Or was it something else?
-
Hornet in that last clip right at the end the camera pans up and you can just see sparks, do the missiles hit eachother very often? Or was it something else?
Hello sir I think that was just the light reflecting on the lence of the cammera. I have been on a lot of live fire opp's and I have never seen the rockets make contact.
How about you Hornet.
Oh and Hornet to your Brty, for the Video for it just goes to show that the Artillery is the King of Battle.
Hornet from a fellow 13M HOOOAAAHHHH!!!!!:aok
-
Why you guys call yourselves the King of Battle while you're 30k behind the lines I'll never know.
:p
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So you support the use of cluster munitions then because they make war more terrible?
I support the use of cluster munitions because they are effective.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Where they using the new MK82s or SFWs? If not I rest my case.
AFAIK, the MK-82 is not a cluster munition. It's a 500 lb. bomb.
-
Why you guys call yourselves the King of Battle while you're 30k behind the lines I'll never know.
by,VOR
Because everyone calls on us when there in a JAM!!! EVERYONE!!
Remember I was a SAPPER too so I know who the King of battle is and it is the Artillery.:aok
-
Originally posted by VOR
Why you guys call yourselves the King of Battle while you're 30k behind the lines I'll never know.
:p
Ah yes, Artillery the King of battle. Infantry the Queen of battle. Why? Because the Queen tells the King where to put the balls.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
AFAIK, the MK-82 is not a cluster munition. It's a 500 lb. bomb.
oops....was thinking the old Mk20 and the new CBU97...don't know why I typed 82
-
Originally posted by red26
Hello sir I think that was just the light reflecting on the lence of the cammera. I have been on a lot of live fire opp's and I have never seen the rockets make contact.
How about you Hornet.
Oh and Hornet to your Brty, for the Video for it just goes to show that the Artillery is the King of Battle.
Hornet from a fellow 13M HOOOAAAHHHH!!!!!:aok
back at ya. Class 40-90 1/31st
No I have never seen a midair collision from the rockets. They aren't fired on the same trajectory so they will not hit each other. IIRC we were firing on 5 different targets on that one mission. Now I have seen a fin failure on a rocket. That was during DS and it was a night shoot. The rocket came out of the tube and then spiraled straight up in the air. Never found out where that one landed but it scared the crap out of everyone. The sparks in the video were from the rocket motors buring out. You end up with some burning debries coming out of them since they are solid fuel motors. Makes for a kickprettythang light show at night.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Ah yes, Artillery the King of battle. Infantry the Queen of battle. Why? Because the Queen tells the King where to put the balls.
The Genesis of the Field Artillery
1. In the beginning there was chaos and the chaos was the
infantry, for the infantry was alone.
2. And fear was with the infantry and they cried unto the
Lord saying, "Lord, save us for we are afraid."
3. And the Lord heard their grunts and set some of the
infantry on beasts of burden and these he called
cavalry, and the cavalry became armor.
4. And when the lord had seen what he had done, he laughed
saying, "Well, you can't win them all."
5. The infantry and the armor again cried out to the Lord
saying, "Lord, save us for we are afraid." And the Lord
heard their cries and decided to end their weepings.
6. And the Lord said unto them, "Lo and behold, I send you
a race of men noble in heart and spirit," and the Lord
created the Gunners.
7. And the Lord said unto the infantry and armor, "When
it gets dark, the Gunners shall light your way."
8. "And when you need smoke, there shall be smoke, and
when you need HE, WP, H & I and counter battery fire,
all this ye shall have."
9. And the Lord gave the Gunners big guns, and field guns,
and the infantry and armor were jealous for they had
naught.
1O. And the infantry cried out saying, "Lord, thou hast
created the infantry as Queen of Battles, and now thou
has made the Gunners King of Battles and well knowest
thou what the King does to the Queen."
11. And the Lord replied, "Right On!"
12. And the Lord gave unto the Artillery rockets and
missiles and, best of all, nukes. And when the infantry
and armor saw this they fell to their knees in wonder
saying, "Surely God is on the side of the greatest
-The Gunners."
13. And the Lord sayeth, "You got that right."
14. Now abideth infantry, armor and Artillery but the
greatest of these is Artillery.
- Author Unknown
-
Here's anouther one I love.
I Am the Field Artillery
by John J. McMahon and Patricia S. Hollis
I am the United States Field Artillery. I fly the skies with my light forces, sail the sea with my Marines and pound the ground with my heavy forces. I see with satellites, touch with my terrible thunder and taste the sweet glory of victory. I am everywhere-mobile, agile and lethal. I Deal in Steel.
I was born of necessity in 1775 when the British fired upon our militia at Lexington and Concord. My six-pounder cannons were captured field pieces, drawn by oxen from battlefield to battlefield. I crossed the Delaware River with Washington on Durham boats and wintered at Valley Forge. At the moment of victory at Yorktown, it was I who fired the decisive rounds. I am Firepower for Freedom.
I was called to defeat the British again in 1812. I fired for the charge at Chippewa, out-dueling the Royal Artillery and carrying the day. I was there at the Battle of New Orleans with my lethal lanyards pulling devastation down on our enemy. Then in 1846, I stood fast against the superior forces of Santa Anna. The Mexicans came close enough to smell the smoke of my cannons and feel the deadly sting of my "grape" as my Flying Artillery bombarded the battlefield. I Rule with Thundering Steel.
And then in 1861, with my muzzle-loaded guns and my observers positioned by my side, I saw us torn apart by the War Between the States. I was there on both sides with the Blue and the Gray. My fires decided victory at Malvern Hill, Antietam, Shiloh, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. I am Mind-Numbing, Bone-Shattering Savagery.
I was part of the American Expeditionary Force that, under General Black Jack Pershing, helped defeat the Kaiser and the German Army in 1918. I had larger cannons, but my main arm was the French 75-mm gun drawn into battle position by horses. As World War II approached and the forces I fired for became more mobile, I moved by trucks and became armored Field Artillery. With my Priest 105-mm self-propelled howitzer and my observers forward with the tankers and infantrymen, I adjusted my ferocious fires for our forces. I massed fires by battery, battalion, Div Arty and even dealt my death by corps artillery. I am the Greatest Killer on the Battlefield.
I was there in the mountains of Korea and jungles of Vietnam. From Pusan and Inchon north to the Yalu, the pounding of my 155-mm towed guns helped bring about the Peace Accord at Panmunjom in 1953. In fire bases in Vietnam and with my airmobile firepower, it was I who brought howitzer hell to the enemy for our maneuver forces, using my multiple field pieces-105, 155, 175 and 203. I am Death on Call.
I was there for the Cold War as America stood her ground for international democracy. I gave her my Lance and then the mighty Pershing missile, which forced our opponents to the negotiating table. Though I never fired a missile in anger, my Pershing Peacemaker was strategic. I am Persuasive Power for Peace.
And I'll be there when you need me. I am ubiquitous on the battlefield. I can focus my firepower like a flashlight beam, raining death and destruction down upon our foe. My "rockets red glare" is now white-hot from six-packs of steel-rapid, far-reaching and awesome. The autonomous actions of my howitzers can shell out hell to bring our enemy to his knees. And when I'm done, he'll bow before me because -- I am and always will be The King of Battle.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I support the use of cluster munitions because they are effective.
Nobody doubts they are effective. The sad thing is that they are a type of weapon that remains effective long after the battle is over and the troops have left the area. A nuke would also be effective on sertain targets but that does not mean they should be allowed on the battlefield does it?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
back at ya. Class 40-90 1/31st
No I have never seen a midair collision from the rockets. They aren't fired on the same trajectory so they will not hit each other. IIRC we were firing on 5 different targets on that one mission. Now I have seen a fin failure on a rocket. That was during DS and it was a night shoot. The rocket came out of the tube and then spiraled straight up in the air. Never found out where that one landed but it scared the crap out of everyone. The sparks in the video were from the rocket motors buring out. You end up with some burning debries coming out of them since they are solid fuel motors. Makes for a kickprettythang light show at night.
Ahh makes sense because he wasnt looking that far up until later in the video.
-
nelson... so you would be content if we banned cluster munitions but had a way to send just as many munitions into an area delivered one at a time?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Nobody doubts they are effective. The sad thing is that they are a type of weapon that remains effective long after the battle is over and the troops have left the area. A nuke would also be effective on sertain targets but that does not mean they should be allowed on the battlefield does it?
I think that there are refinements in cluster munitions that reduce significantly the number of duds, if any. This is particularly true if you want to have your forces occupy the same ground once the previous tenents stop objecting.
FWIW there are also duds with conventional artillery and air dropped munitions as well. They are just much bigger booms than a cluster submunition.
As to the nuke statement. If you don't think a nuke belongs on a battlefield, where exactly would you expect to use one? Oh and BTW there are contingency plans for that very thing. I hope as fervently as you, that it never comes to that situation.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nelson... so you would be content if we banned cluster munitions but had a way to send just as many munitions into an area delivered one at a time?
lazs
The bomblets in most of them are dumb and lands within a sertain "grid". If something is there to hit or not is irrelevant to the bomblet.
One would never randomly throw a gps guided shell/bomb at an area. Guided rounds are by design made to hit the target they are aimed at. Lets say you now use an MLRS rocket to take out a number of soft or hard APCs, jeeps or whatever over there somewere, you could just as easy send 7 gps/infrared or whatever (you get the point) rounds at those 7 specific targets. Oh yes.. it will cost you alot more $$$ to do so but who cares about that really.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I think that there are refinements in cluster munitions that reduce significantly the number of duds, if any. This is particularly true if you want to have your forces occupy the same ground once the previous tenents stop objecting.
FWIW there are also duds with conventional artillery and air dropped munitions as well. They are just much bigger booms than a cluster submunition.
As to the nuke statement. If you don't think a nuke belongs on a battlefield, where exactly would you expect to use one? Oh and BTW there are contingency plans for that very thing. I hope as fervently as you, that it never comes to that situation.
They are doing what they can to reduce the number of duds, but it will still be at about 0,5-1% duds.
Yes there is duds with "conventional" bombs and shells, but they are alot bigger as you said and they are alot easyer to find and clean up later... the numbers left on a battlefield is not even close the number of small bomblets. The bomblets often are found and played with by kids.
I dont expect nukes to be used anywere at all.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I think that there are refinements in cluster munitions that reduce significantly the number of duds, if any. This is particularly true if you want to have your forces occupy the same ground once the previous tenents stop
Here are some interesting quotes from US personel on the use of clusters
http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/info.asp?c=14&id=36
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
They are doing what they can to reduce the number of duds, but it will still be at about 0,5-1% duds.
Yes there is duds with "conventional" bombs and shells, but they are alot bigger as you said and they are alot easyer to find and clean up later... the numbers left on a battlefield is not even close the number of small bomblets. The bomblets often are found and played with by kids.
I dont expect nukes to be used anywere at all.
For things that are so easy to find, they still seem to pop up on occasion in places like London and in Europe from over a half century ago. They had metal detectors back then too but didn't catch all of the big booms in all that time, did they.
As to the dud percentage you mentioned, please let me know where you got it from.
As to your expectations, I doubt you are in any position now or in the future to have your expectations carry much weight.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
For things that are so easy to find, they still seem to pop up on occasion in places like London and in Europe from over a half century ago. They had metal detectors back then too but didn't catch all of the big booms in all that time, did they.
As to the dud percentage you mentioned, please let me know where you got it from.
As to your expectations, I doubt you are in any position now or in the future to have your expectations carry much weight.
The % I get from the most modern systems available today and the fact that if you can find any product that has a failure rate lower than this you will be good.
No matter how high tech things ever get, there will always be things that makes some of them fail.
I know that they find bombs from ww2 still and they do it here too, but so what?
0,5% of 100000 rounds of "normal" shells is still a heck of alot less than 0,5% of 100000000. I bet that folks are much less drawn to tinkering with a large shell than they are to fiddeling with a smaller object.
-
Where they using the new MK82s or SFWs? If not I rest my case.
No idea. They were a mix of MLRS rockets, artillery shells and cluster bombs.
I know that they find bombs from ww2 still and they do it here too, but so what?
0,5% of 100000 rounds of "normal" shells is still a heck of alot less than 0,5% of 100000000.
That's one of the main points. Israel fired over 4 million submunitions into Lebanon in a matter of days towards the end of the fighting.
For things that are so easy to find, they still seem to pop up on occasion in places like London and in Europe from over a half century ago.
Larger shells and bombs are likely to bury themselves if they don't explode. Left underground they rarely trouble anyone.
-
instead of removing cluster munitions they should simply fix them.
take 50% of them and replace the explosive warheads with napalm warheads.
the other 50% are filled with s'mores.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Here are some interesting quotes from US personel on the use of clusters
http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/info.asp?c=14&id=36
What in the world are Mennonites doing with a Army FM?
**edit**
Why not just bring back WP, dud rate of 0, expose it to air and there you go.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Here are some interesting quotes from US personel on the use of clusters
http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/info.asp?c=14&id=36
Nilsen did you look into the stats on the report of the first link you posted?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
back at ya. Class 40-90 1/31st
Now I have seen a fin failure on a rocket. That was during DS and it was a night shoot. The rocket came out of the tube and then spiraled straight up in the air. Never found out where that one landed
When I was at Ft. Sill, 88-89ish, a Guard unit put an arty round into town (Lawton, OK) and blew the snot out of a parking lot. For you cannon cockers, my Marine MOS 0847 = 93Fox.. without us your rounds would'nt know what to do..lol
To save you the time of looking it up; USMC MOS 0847 Artillery Meteorological Man.. which I might add is the best job in artellery.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Nilsen did you look into the stats on the report of the first link you posted?
You mean the 98% thing?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
You mean the 98% thing?
Yeah, when someone has to tweak the stats to suit their point of view doesn't that cast some doubt with you?
-
I'm not a redleg, but people assume I am.
Years ago, a marine asked if I could implement a "series 101" SEAD mission (Basically, a SEAD interrupted, IIRC -2 to -1 and +1 to +2) in a game. For some reason I was crazy enough to do it, complete with the appropriate STANAG voice transmissions to call it in (or any variant thereof). But he was crazy enough to volunteer for a second tour of Iraq. IED wired to a 152mm round got him and seven other guys.
Dunno, just kinda bums me out.
-
Originally posted by Tac
instead of removing cluster munitions they should simply fix them.
take 50% of them and replace the explosive warheads with napalm warheads.
the other 50% are filled with s'mores.
True genius!
:aok
-
This is the way I look at it and yes its cold hearted but , If a country attacks or starts trouble and we have to bring our troops that many miles to fight then what ever happens to that country's people after we move out happens. The other country should have never messed or pi$@ed us off. And the rest is just war people get killed long after its over thats just the way it is.
Hey how about we use the old BEE HIVE rounds like my father taked about?A Artty round with a bunch of sharp dart like things in it insted of cluster? I dont think that would be any safe'er at all.
BEEHIVE: An anti-personnel, direct-fire shell carrying several thousand small steel darts or 'fleshettes'. Each fleshette is about one inch long and has the appearance of a 1" finishing nail with the nailhead stamped into the form of 4 fins, similar to an arrow. A typical 105mm BEEHIVE has 6000 darts, 3000 of which are loaded pointing forward, 3000 pointing backward. The shell is fired directly at advancing enemy formations similar to an aimed shotgun. At about 50 meters from the muzzle, the round ejects the darts toward the enemy with a medium hard ejecting charge. The forward loaded darts spread into a 45 degree fan traveling forward, while the rear facing darts are forced by their fins to flip around in flight. As the darts flip, they loop away from the GT line, forming a fan of about 60 degrees. Thus 6000 darts fly in a 60 degree fan at about 2000 feet per second toward the enemy. The effect on troops in the open is devastating. Enemy troops about 100 meters from the firing cannon may be pierced by 10-20 darts, those closer may receive 100 or more penetrating stab wounds similar to those inflicted by an icepick.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Yeah, when someone has to tweak the stats to suit their point of view doesn't that cast some doubt with you?
Can you show me the link that proves this is false and then show me the real number?
-
Originally posted by red26
This is the way I look at it and yes its cold hearted but , If a country attacks or starts trouble and we have to bring our troops that many miles to fight then what ever happens to that country's people after we move out happens. The other country should have never messed or pi$@ed us off. And the rest is just war people get killed long after its over thats just the way it is.
Hey how about we use the old BEE HIVE rounds like my father taked about?A Artty round with a bunch of sharp dart like things in it insted of cluster? I dont think that would be any safe'er at all.
BEEHIVE: An anti-personnel, direct-fire shell carrying several thousand small steel darts or 'fleshettes'. Each fleshette is about one inch long and has the appearance of a 1" finishing nail with the nailhead stamped into the form of 4 fins, similar to an arrow. A typical 105mm BEEHIVE has 6000 darts, 3000 of which are loaded pointing forward, 3000 pointing backward. The shell is fired directly at advancing enemy formations similar to an aimed shotgun. At about 50 meters from the muzzle, the round ejects the darts toward the enemy with a medium hard ejecting charge. The forward loaded darts spread into a 45 degree fan traveling forward, while the rear facing darts are forced by their fins to flip around in flight. As the darts flip, they loop away from the GT line, forming a fan of about 60 degrees. Thus 6000 darts fly in a 60 degree fan at about 2000 feet per second toward the enemy. The effect on troops in the open is devastating. Enemy troops about 100 meters from the firing cannon may be pierced by 10-20 darts, those closer may receive 100 or more penetrating stab wounds similar to those inflicted by an icepick.
Its amazing how humans invent things that can cause so many deaths at once.
-
I'll wager the grunts hunkering down in their bunkers at a firebase in Vietnam that was about to be swamped by hoards of attacking NVA weren’t overly concerned about the morality of the impending mass shredding when the arty gunners lowered their barrels and let rip at point blank with fleshette rounds... just had to remember to keep their heads down.
Take away the modern dumb conventional weapons like cluster munitions that help to give the ability to win a relatively quick and decisive victory on the battlefield and you run the risk of changing the way modern wars are fought, and it would probably be for the worse. It wasn't too many years ago when about the only way to defeat an enemy and their ability to wage war was to pretty much destroy their country, which caused massive civilian casualties. The negative aspects of cluster munitions, WP or any other modern conventional weapon used on the battlefield in modern conflicts pales in comparison.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Can you show me the link that proves this is false and then show me the real number?
Are you saying no North Vietnamese military died to cluster munitions during the vietnam war? Not even a single one?
-
BEEHIVE
I talked to my father last night and he said that he would rather use cluster weppons any day the use the BEEHIVE rounds. He tould me a story over the phone about when he was on the DMZ and there was a lightning storm going on he said that he rememberd that the lightning flashed and there was nouthing out there. Then it flashed about 10min's later and the wole area was full of VC. He said that he rememberd firing his 60 cal. until the barrel was red hot then putting anouther barrel on it just to do the same thing to that one. He said that he herd a order from the fire base he was at to get down as close to the ground as they could because the artty was going to let off a couple of these things. Well he said that he didnt here any US weppons for a little wile then all the sudden he herd the massive sound of the artty and right after that he herd the sound of the BEEHIVE round as it poped open and he said that the sound of the darts made the same sound as it says like millons of bee's flying around. he said they must have fired around 50 or 60 rounds of that. Then he went back to fighting agin. He did say that the fighting wassnt as massive as before after that. He went on to say that the next morning when it was light enough to see across the DMZ they went out to do a intel check. He said if there was a tree there before it wasnt there after the BEEHIVE rounds got done.
My father served 3 yrs with the 3rd Marines 3rd Force Recon from 67 to 69
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Are you saying no North Vietnamese military died to cluster munitions during the vietnam war? Not even a single one?
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.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
The negative aspects of cluster munitions, WP or any other modern conventional weapon used on the battlefield in modern conflicts pales in comparison.
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.
-
"A cluster bomb is a small explosive submunition or bomblet that is delivered to its target in a large canister or shell.
Cluster bombs are indiscriminate. They cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. Their wide-area coverage and poor targeting mechanisms nearly guarantee that unintended victims will die or be injured, even when the weapons function as designed.
Cluster munitions continue to kill long after a war ends because these weapons often fail to explode on contact as designed."
http://www.mcc.org/clusterbombs/
-
I'm for making more cluster bombs.
:D
-
Its the weapon that keeps on giving.. they are uber cool :D
-
I guess making them look like little furbie dolls was a little over the top.
lazs
-
Could you atleast put an "eject" or "press here" button on the the bomblets so folks who find them can remove the energy within them? :D
Civilian numbnut: "hmm.. this sais "eject".. lemme try...
*bang* WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeee e
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
"A cluster bomb is a small explosive submunition or bomblet that is delivered to its target in a large canister or shell.
Cluster bombs are indiscriminate. They cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. Their wide-area coverage and poor targeting mechanisms nearly guarantee that unintended victims will die or be injured, even when the weapons function as designed.
Cluster munitions continue to kill long after a war ends because these weapons often fail to explode on contact as designed."
http://www.mcc.org/clusterbombs/
Just a point of fact here. ALL weapons are indiscriminate when it comes to doing damage to either civilian or military targets. The only discriminating factor is the one who launches it and the force it is launched against. If one side uses civilians as human shields they are responsible for the results as well.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Just a point of fact here. ALL weapons are indiscriminate when it comes to doing damage to either civilian or military targets. The only discriminating factor is the one who launches it and the force it is launched against. If one side uses civilians as human shields they are responsible for the results as well.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Just start raining these down.
nice write up of them (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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** :aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Im NOT in the favor of bringing back our old friend Mr. Napalm ofcourse.
Ahem... (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm)
-
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.
-
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.
-
its cause he doesn't get out of bed before noon
-
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.
-
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"?
-
Originally posted by Debonair
"freedom IEDs" or "security pies"?
:D
-
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 :)
-
zOMG that guys not wearing anything!!!!11
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
The normal failiure rate in one round of MLRS rocket would equal that of several houndred larger conventional and/or guided munitions.
By,Nilsen
I would like to see where ya got this at?
-
Originally posted by Debonair
its cause he doesn't get out of bed before noon
If that was suppose to be a clue, I didnt get it
worked it out from my end. tards cant keep their mouths shut
I didnt see it, didnt have a clue
no matter now. payback time gixer and ya mate bell
-
Originally posted by red26
By,Nilsen
I would like to see where ya got this at?
Math.
1 MLRS rocket = 600+ submunitions.
Faliure rate in one MLRS rocket 25% (rounded off) = 150 failed submunitions
Lets _assume_ that "regular" arty shells also has 25% (and they dont... its closer to 1%)
You end up with having to aim 600 normal arty shells to get the same 150 failed arty shells
-
The way I see it, assuming a full 25% actually fail... That's 450 bomblets that put the smackdown on our enemy... and later the others may have bagged a few more... I say keep em and use them often... If they were not effective, our enemies would not protest them.
-
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.
Add bombs, Arty rounds, 40MMs, RPGs, grenades.. to your list of things that are supposed to go boom, but don't always. 1 gets banned, they'll use more of the others..
Kids get all jacked up, people explode... a million sad stories emanate from the ashes just like it always has after war... thats just the way it goes.
-
I do not favor a ban on cluster munitions.
Thank you.
-
considering the old cliche
if you've ended up in a fair fight, you did something stupid (or something like that)
i say they should be banned:noid :noid :noid :t :t :t :t :noid :noid :eek:
-
(http://www.orlyowl.com/owlmedley.gif)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
This seperates this weapon from all others on the battlefield except landmines that have been banned by most civilised countries.
You norwegians have been too long untouched by the wars! (almost instantly surrendering in WWII doesn't count)
There's nothing wrong with mines that are used approriately and not thrown around randomly, which is the main problem with mines. Minefields should be marked on a map.
Finns used mines in the second world war and the mines haven't caused much problems for civilians afterwards. The mines weren't laid randomly around with the very purpose of going off on civilians, like in Africa. The western world can ban mines all they want but it isn't going to make the mines dissapear over there where the actual problem persists. Mines are too cheap to go away. I'm sure they can manufacture their own mines if they can already build Kalashnikovs in a cramped hut. What exactly would we, in Europe, win by banning mines? Nothing.
Finland is in the process of banning mines, against the opinion of the majority - and guess what we're going to replace the mines with? With cluster munition! Are we supposed to ban the cluster munition too in the next 20 years? Why not just go straight back to the sticks and stones.
We also agree that cluster munitions aren't exactly the perfect solution and are, in fact, worse than mines. Exactly because of the clusters dropping down randomly in a targeted area and many of those will fail to explode - Effectively creating the very same situation that is caused by mines laid around randomly.
Instead of making things better by banning mines we've only made it worse.
We could just as well ban all the guns - that'd be the only working humane solution. Due to obvious reason it doesn't work any better than banning mines and cluster munitions without further thinking.
Btw. Soldiers will begin to use improvised mines if mines are banned. There'll be grenades attached to tripwires all around - and you can be sure those will not be mapped anywhere. There's also a wide variety of other explosive devices that can be used to set up an improvised mine.
From bad to worse. FTW!
-
Though your arguments are from your heart Nilsen, there are some morons spouting the same thing. Only I am not sure what planet they are from....
Wack job... (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Weapons/ClusterBombs_AmerTerror.html)
count the times he says "mafia" and "corporate" on just one page ;)
-
Well... there are good and bad ways of promoting your point of view. I always take away the the most hardcore fundamentalists on _both_ sides of a debate. As soon as someone starts talking terrorism and use other extremes i tend to fileter them out. :)
-
After reading his little write up on the fuel and air explosives...we need to use more of them.
:D
-
This is all I have eft to say about this subject.
B-52 doing its thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqV9in6TcEQ&mode=related&search=) :aok :t :t
-
Here's a suggestion:
Instead of us banning cluster munitions, why don't our perspective enemies come up with a method do defeat them, either on the ground, in the air, or later, when they've falled and imbedded themselves in the earth. That way, you see, adversaries in armed conflict won't have to worry about making provisions so that the process of war will be less burdensome to their enemy.... I think that would be more appropriate in keeping with the spirit of war, don't you agree?
Otherwise, we might as well just resolve to throwing water balloons and yelling strongly-worded yet ethnically-neutral insults.
Or, as Debonair might put it:
ZOmg!!!!!!!1look at teh black waterbaloons from Al-queda!!!!!1:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :O :O :O :O
-
Hugging is a term used to describe an enemy staying in close quarters with non-combatants.... or supposed non-combatants. It is my thought that anyone not pointing out a known combatant should also be thought of as a combatant.
Many muslims rant about supposed innocents being hit.... yet will not point out other muslims they know to be combatants. They never say anything about muslims common tactic attacking non-combatants either.
Go in and get it done.... no hand tieing..... to do so is only committing suicide for our soldiers (have we already forgotten nam).
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yeah.. its sooooooo much less scary that thousands of them are left and kills decades after they have been used.
I bet the attitude would be slightly different if your kids went out into the yard, on a school trip or played on a field tomorrow and got blown up by one. But they are not used against you on your soil are they? They are used over there ----> somewere were they bad guys live
;)
Sure they have gotten better in recent years and they are now at about the 1% fail mark. That leaves fewer. Btw how many duds is 1% of the total when you talk about cluster munitions? If it was 1% of regular shells and bombs it would not be that hard to clean up, but 1% of a few 10s of thousands still is ALOT
Where are you getting this data that thousands of unexploded cluster munitions from decades past are killing people? Where are they doing it and whose cluster munitions were they, and what decade were they dropped?
Do you have data ,or is this just more of your black turtleneck wearing Sandanavian Librule wussfest.
-
You don't like cluster munitions, do everything you can to avoid a war with those that use them. If you're not afraid, or your cause is important enough, be ready to live with the consequences, long-lived and hard as they may be.
There is a burden to any policy or decision. If that burden is too high, don't make the decision. The iraqi 'freedom fighters' are practicing this very calculus on the US army right now--trying to win by making an extended occupation too costly to maintain.
When war, in general, becomes too burdensome, then the decision to engage in it will become obsolete. The fact that we never engaged in a nuclear exchange with the USSR speaks pretty well for that.
The day when war is universaly deemed as unreasonably burdensome, it too will become obsolete. Until then, load those submunitions up with rusty nails, bits of broken glass and pig's blood. Do anything you can to make your enemy suffer more than you, and by the greatest possible margin. Otherwise, stick to making greeting cards.