Talk Elections

An international conference, hosted in Dublin over the past two weeks, has resulted in an agreement (http://www.clustermunitionsdublin.ie/pdf/ENGLISHfinaltext.pdf) by 111 countries to ban cluster bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb). (News pieces on the Agreement: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL3089157720080530), BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7423714.stm#graphic), Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i73RTx_Xp2evaqhA-mIfFKizQQVQD90VVF100).)

Major producers and holders of cluster bombs (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel) refused to take part in the process, though during the conference official British policy was changed to now support a ban.

Should the US sign up to the Agreement?

While civilian casualties are certainly something to be avoided, I see that as more of a reason for caution in the use of cluster bombs rather than an outright ban on them.

States which are not warmongering aggressor empires have no problem banning these.

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. 

The US, China, and Russia do not plan to use these things against each other.  Your Gatling gun comment is apropos, as the purpose of cluster bombs is not unlike that of the Gatling gun - used by viciously exploitative empires to slaughter essentially unarmed victims ('fuzzy wuzzy' to the British, Chechans to the Russians, Tibetans to the Chinese, and of course the list for america would go on and on).

Hmm.

CBUs were extensively used in Viet Nam to clear landing field for choppers in the jungle (ever hear of daisy cutters).

I'm savoring this rare moment of agreement with Carl.

Not until every other nation does as well.

Thankfully no politician that could ever get elected here would be able (or willing) to sign such an agreement.

And opebo's perfectly correct here.

Yes, I have.  In fact, our church sponsored a medical missionary who treated a number of children who'd lost limbs because of unexploded daisy cutters. 

If you understand that I am correct, I don't see why you say 'thankfully' about the prospect of the status quo being continued.  The aggressive, brutalizing activities of the Empire are highly damaging to your interests as a working class american - they only benefit a tiny elite, while harming the rest of us.

Hmm.

You previously said "unneccessary," and implied their only use was killing.  If you have an alternate, quick, and effective means of clearing landing fields for helicopters, I (and the armed forces) would like to hear of them.

Here's one - stop attacking third world countries.

How about cleaning up your messes when you leave?  Oh but wait, that's okay.  It's just little brown people who lose their legs and arms. 

I'd be willing to allow the use of such ordnance, if those responsible for clean up and remediation could be tried and punished justly for failing to removing it when we decide we have no further use for the brown peoples' land.  In other words -- the hypocrisy of the worlds' superpowers is showing once again.

That's a great philosophy, now, isn't it?

Until China, Russia, and Pakistan do so, we cannot afford to give up anything.

And this was the thought process that led to WWI.

Maybe so, but we cannot be too careful.

Absolute nonsensical paranoia, but typical of american foreign policy.  Of course said paranoia provides the perfect cover for said policy's real motivation.

Why can't we give up cluster bombs?  Because they might use them on us?  Don't we have other weapons that easily trump cluster bombs? 

What? The Cold War is over. Anyway, if the US were to go to war with any of those countries, I don't think China, Russia or Pakistan would be shouting for joy because the US had gotten rid of its cluster bombs. It's not like in their absence the US arsenal is ineffective.

Well they are effective and we do use them/need them or we would have signed the treaty.  You guys don't think we signed it just because W. Bush is pure evil do you?

Erm, I think you're missing the point of the treaty. They're not being banned because no-one wants them.

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.

What do you think the policy's real motivation is?


True, but if we're giving something up, then other nations need to do so as well.

Dominating weaker countries, forcing capitalism upon them and thus sucking them dry.

That is not the intent of the United States.

Actually...pretty close, yes.

I mean, I would bet my left nut the folks who make the cluster bombs have contributed mega-bucks to his various candidacies.  And both he and Dick likely have oodles of cash invested in these companies.  I think that was reason number one for the Iraq War, frankly.  Not oil, not saving Daddy's reputation, not WMD's or spreading democracy...but money.

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.

I don't know, any of that could be true or untrue, we'll probably never know.  But the weapons work.  And the next generation are safer (post war) and more effective against enemy targets.

Safer is good.  Failing a ban or an absolute, ironclad commitment to remediate theaters where we use them, I would be very pleased to know that we were manufacturing safer devices that were extremely difficult to set off post deployment by civilians or conditions.

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.

The one we've used since the first Gulf War link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97) has a less than 1% unexploded ordinance rate and according to Futureweapons on the Military Channel, the next gen is even better.

Never thought of setting an example, did you?

Lack of cluster bombs won't kill us.

Never crossed my mind.

If the enemy, or potential enemy, has it, then we need to have it.

()

Why? If they use cluster bombs, we use much stronger armaments.

True, but we cannot be at any sort of disadvantage.

It isn't a disadvantage if we're still stronger.

I hope you realize what continuous armament means.

I do, but it is a disadvantage if the enemy has something we don't.

'Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!'

Other countries use child soldiers. Does the U.S have to have them?

I'm glad that the United States once again finds itself among such nations as Russia, China and Pakistan.

USA USA USA!

Yes (Normal)

---

And if we/the US waits for great democratic nations like China, Russia, and Pakistan to do something to ban this or any other armament, nothing will be done. Rien.

No way would I want to ban cluster bombs. What I do want is for the military to be able to protect themselves with whatever weapon they might need, whenever they have to go fight some evil asshole.

What advantage do cluster bombs give us over bunker busters, incendiary bombs or other ordnance?

The problem is the interventionist foreign policy and large military-industrial complex and not cluster bombs. Solve the first 2 problems and the third solves itself.

Different needs.  Not every target is buried underground or hidden deep in a forrest.  Some targets are tank columns.  Some targets are active training grounds or battlefields full of bad guys.  If you want to destroy a group of "soft" targets that are spread out over a couple of square football fields and you want to drop one bomb instead of just carpet bombing the area (like we used to do and would end up doing if we didn't have cluster bombs available), you drop a cluster bomb.