Well they are effective and we do use them/need them or we would have signed the treaty.
Erm, I think you're missing the point of the treaty. They're not being banned because no-one wants them.
I understand that, but that's not what some people are arguing here. Some people are saying they are worthless as weapons and that's not true. They are very valuable weapons. I wont argue against the argument that goes "they leave many unexploded ordinance on the battlefield and kids get hurt post war, we should ban them for that". I don't think we should ban them in the US, but there is no argument I could give that could beat that line of thought.
But saying they aren't needed anymore because we aren't looking directly at a war with a major power is a crap argument. They are still needed. They are still effective.