Cluster Bombs

[Јas]

An international conference, hosted in Dublin over the past two weeks, has resulted in an agreement by 111 countries to ban cluster bombs. (News pieces on the Agreement: Reuters, BBC, Associated Press.)

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?

[John Dibble]

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.

[opebo]

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

[JSojourner]

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. 

[opebo]

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).

[CARLHAYDEN]

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).

[12th Doctor]

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'm savoring this rare moment of agreement with Carl.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Not until every other nation does as well.

[Jake]

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.

[JSojourner]

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).

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. 

[opebo]

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.

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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).

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. 

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.

[opebo]

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).

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. 

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.

[JSojourner]

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).

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. 

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.

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

Not until every other nation does as well.

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

[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.

[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.

And this was the thought process that led to WWI.

[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.

And this was the thought process that led to WWI.

Maybe so, but we cannot be too careful.

[opebo]

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.

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.

[JSojourner]

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.

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? 

[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.

[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?

[Iosif is a COTHO]

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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[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.

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.

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

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.