If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Forum seeks to ban cluster bombs
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
These things are like flying landmines ... hope they get banned!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7407631.stm
Diplomats from around the world are gathering in Dublin for a conference that aims to secure a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs.
The proposed ban has the support of more than 100 countries.
Humanitarian organisations say a binding treaty is now urgent because these weapons cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
But some of the biggest producers of cluster weapons, including the US, China and Russia, are against the move.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7407631.stm
Diplomats from around the world are gathering in Dublin for a conference that aims to secure a treaty banning the use of cluster bombs.
The proposed ban has the support of more than 100 countries.
Humanitarian organisations say a binding treaty is now urgent because these weapons cause unacceptable harm to civilians.
But some of the biggest producers of cluster weapons, including the US, China and Russia, are against the move.
0
Comments
And how would we enforce it...
The forum needs to look at addressing the route cause of planes flying overhead and dropping explosives on people. More blue berets are needed.
This just seems like a gimmick
(sorry couldn't resist
There might have been others but the three main users of cluster bombs that come to mind recently are the US, Britain and Israel. I don't know of hand but I suspect the Russians might have used them liberally over Chechnya as well.
And I'm sure we're all aware how responsibly they have used cluster bombs in Iraq or Lebanon.
What angers me the most is the bullshit excuses the likes of US and Britain use to justify their use. Apparently they're "useful". So that's alright then! Is the most powerful army the world has ever known really suggesting that it could not fight a war effectively against armies hundreds of times less powerful unless it's allowed the use of cluster bombs? I wish they'd would at least come clean about it.
Even more appalling and grave is the use of DU ammunition. We certainly need an action forum for that horrendous abomination of a weapon.
It was tongue in cheek - I thought the 'sorry couldn't resist and
Though less powerful armies can still kill the squaddies on the ground of the powerful armies - they might lose but there's still killing work done in the meantime
the standard cluster munition is a detonate on impact device and thus does not sit around being used as a football.
I do agree with the Oslo process on some points, however I dont think every cluster munition should be banned. certain types are benificial.
As an alternative, there are many different things airforces can use instead for removing large areas in one pass. example Jdam can be quite effective, specially if used with a blanket bombing process of using 20/30 of these.
anyway, I guess cluster bombs will be heading in the same way as Anti personel landmines (soon to be banned/obsloete) and I do agree, there are safer ways of removing the enermy with minimal harm to civilian life
There were up to 1 million unexploded such devices littering Lebanon at the end of the short war waged by Israel. Despite the best efforts of clean-up teams some of them will have invariably been missed, posing a lethal danger to civilians for decades to come.
The potential for civilian casualties during and after the conflict has ended is far too high a price to pay. Because of that cluster bombs should be banned, along with landmines and DU ammunition.
Especially with landmines since the fact there are alternatives now (check out an episode of Future Weapons) they've got a portable defence station which acts like landmines (but due to it being remote operated) cannot harm civilians unless ordered so, things like this are brilliant
I do not know alot about Cluster munitions and would need to look into it alot more than what I currently know, I know both Iraq, Afgahnistan and Lebanon have a high rate of uncleared landmines/cluster munitions.
I guess obviously as there are multiple explosions it is harder to keep track on if you've got a dud or not.
Even the high tech alternatives will only be used by a fraction of the world because they are so expensive. So you may see the remote control ones being used by the UK, France, US, but you won't see them being used in Sudan or Congo anytime soon.
They're useful in the respect that they deny vast swathes of land to the enemy. Bad guys got an airfield giving you problems? Buildings and planes underground? Drop some cluster bombs, destroy the runway and when they try and fix it kill the engineers who are doing the work. It's an immensely important military tactic, made easier using cluster bombs.
As for depleted uranium, nothing turns tanks and fortifications into mincemeat faster, and as it's been in use since the 1950's our boffins haven't developed an alternative.
Yes, cluster bombing of civilian areas is morally and criminally wrong, but the alternative for such large areas is nuclear weaponry......
The use of such weaponry is unjustifiable. It's as simple as that.
You're right, easier is the keyword, but like I said it's about land denial. Cluster bombs will keep an airfield out of action longer than just trying to blow up the control tower, which is the point of them.
Was about to say the same thing.
Something like this for example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6990815.stm
Cluster bombs are not used for airfields, or buildings, or installations. They are primarly an anti-personnel weapon and their power is largely useless against anything with even a moderate armour.
the FOAB which is the Russian Equivilent, is distructive however not in the same way as cluster bombs (makes one bigish cratre and the rest is just blast waves (no good on a runway)
Use instead of Cluster bombs, easy, Smaller 250lb bunker busters, easily take out a runway, drives into the soil and detonating destroying the runway,
in terms on anti personel, nothing is better than napalm, but again legalily and morals come into question. same with WP but then again if its not harming civilians whats wrong with it? war is war imo, people join the army they know what to expect, heck if there a solider, a valid enermy, anything should go, at the end of the day is them or you
With the exception of nukes, no there isn't. Reinforced buildings can quite easily survive the effects of a MOAB, and 1 crater is a lot easier to patch up than 10,000 smaller ones, plus cluster bombs are designed to prevent that airfield's use for a considerable amount of time by not exploding until trodden on. It's a lot harder to replace a brand new Mig-29 than it is the hangar that was housing it whilst the aircraft was on a mission. If said Mig-29 lands and runs over a bomb, or the pilot jumps out and lands on one, boom. One less aircraft or trained pilot to worry about.
yes it's shit that they are used in civilian areas, but when used correctly they are an extremely potent weapon.
Make no mistake, the immense majority of cluster bombs as used are targetting personnel over vast public areas, not buildings in confined military areas. That's why their use repugnant and unjustifiable.
And in that respect I agree with you completely. When used indiscriminately over large areas they are in the same league as land mines. My point is that when used sensibly, tactically and strategically against unarmoured military targets, such as airfields, power stations and oil refineries they are an excellent weapon.
Do they?
Most soldier's realise what they're doing. Its the civvies who don't (journos and lawyers especially seem to be in a different world)
No use for buildings (which is why the claims that the US is dropping them in cities deliberately is far fetched). However there are some designed for airfield cratering - lots of little holes are more irritating to deal with than one big hole.
Quite a few ex ones appear to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/military.humanrights
Fair enough
But, if the scenario was a air field like you are saying then there are about 20 different types of 'Dumb' general purpose bombs you could use in mass carried by a large capacity Bomber like the '52 or bear.
All of those of great for buildings. Not so good when dealing with runways.....