Cluster Bombs

[opebo]

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

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

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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

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

That is not the intent of the United States.

[JSojourner]

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?

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.

[dead0man]

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.

[dead0man]

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?

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 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.

[JSojourner]

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?

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 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.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

[dead0man]

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.

The one we've used since the first Gulf War link has a less than 1% unexploded ordinance rate and according to Futureweapons on the Military Channel, the next gen is even better.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

Never thought of setting an example, did you?

Lack of cluster bombs won't kill us.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

[JohnFKennedy]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

[Lief 🗽]

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

USA USA USA!

[Middle-aged Europe]

Yes (Normal)

[Hash]

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.

[AkSaber]

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.

[JSojourner]

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?

[Albus Dumbledore]

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.

[dead0man]

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?

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.