Absolutely. They are unecessary and brutal. Just another black mark on this country's foreign and military policy.
111 nations signed the agreement. The U.S., China and Russia did not. Ridiculous. It's not like the Chinese and Russians have Gatling Guns and we are left with muzzleloaders.
Hmm
CBUs were extensively used in Viet Nam to clear landing field for choppers in the jungle (ever hear of daisy cutters).
I thought daisy cutters were used primarily on conventional bombs, rather than cluster bombs...no? (genuine question, btw)
Cluster bombs are "conventional" bombs in the nomenclature as "nuclear," bombs are "non-conventional."
Now, the daisy cuters have been both the simple and "clustery" types.
Generally, they have not been used in about thirty years.
using cluster bombs to clear a landing site would, i'd imagine, be very dangerous to one's own troops. Very large daisy cutter bombs, or fuel air bombs once they became available, are more effective.
Cluster bombs do work however. they were used in the Gulf War against Iraqi runways and in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
With regard to the question at hand, we should not give up cluster bombs as long as Russia and China have them.
Poll
