August 1, 201015 yr Global cluster bomb ban comes into force Goes into effect August 1st albeit not everyone has agreed to it. The campaign to ban cluster munitions gained momentum after the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The UN estimates that Israel dropped 4m bomblets onto southern Lebanon during the last three days of the war, when a ceasefire had already been agreed. Israel insists its use of cluster munitions in Lebanon was in accordance with international humanitarian law and says most were fired at open and uninhabited areas used by Hezbollah fighters. "Lebanon was the turning point," says Jeff Abramson from the Arms Control Association, an advocacy group based in Washington. International: Cluster Bomb Ban Takes Effect Many former users, producers, and stockpilers of cluster munitions have joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as have many contaminated countries. But several key countries still remain outside, including Brazil, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, and the United States.The Bush administration did not participate in the development or negotiation of the convention. In July 2008, the Pentagon announced a new policy stating that by the end of 2018, the US will no longer use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent - in essence banning all but a tiny fraction of the existing arsenal. The Obama administration has not reviewed US policy on cluster munitions or the convention. "The US has already acknowledged that cluster munitions cause unacceptable harm to civilians. It should not wait another eight years to stop using cluster munitions; it should ban them now," Goose said. Makes you wonder that part about promising to no longer use bombs with a failure rate higher than 1% eh?
August 1, 201015 yr Makes you wonder that part about promising to no longer use bombs with a failure rate higher than 1% eh? Is that failure to explode or failure to kill someone?
August 1, 201015 yr Author Makes you wonder that part about promising to no longer use bombs with a failure rate higher than 1% eh? Is that failure to explode or failure to kill someone? I know......hard to understand One the one hand I would wonder why any military would even say such a thing. As in if they know or can sort reliable bombs from unreliable why even bother waiting till 2018 to stop using them? At first I assumed bombs that hit & do no explode creating a long term hazard ....Saying that sounds kind of dumb immediately Yet that original article went on to say... in essence banning all but a tiny fraction of the existing arsenal So.... try to make sense of that one....Are they saying all but a tiny fraction is unreliable? In the end I am just assuming that a cluster bomb by definition cannot be claimed to have any pin point accuracy by their very nature. Very confusing but good to see folks perk up about the whole subject & possibly stop the use of such devices. There were some news clips on the results today & it is quite sad to see. Yet as the article shows the main users of the bombs have not signed on to the agreement to stop using them.
August 1, 201015 yr Some cluster bombs are intended to explode on impact, others aren't. For the latter which become mines, I wonder how they determine the failure rate? http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm Submunitions are classified as either bomblets, grenades, or mines. They are small explosive-filled or chemical-filled items designed for saturation coverage of a large area. They may be antipersonnel (APERS), antimateriel (AMAT), antitank (AT), dual-purpose (DP), incendiary, or chemical. Submunitions may be spread by dispensers, missiles, rockets, or projectiles. Each of these delivery systems disperses its payload of submunitions while still in flight, and the submunitions drop over the target. On the battlefield, submunitions are widely used in both offensive and defensive missions. Submunitions are used to destroy an enemy in place (impact) or to slow or prevent enemy movement away from or through an area (area denial). Impact submunitions go off when they hit the ground. Area-denial submunitions, including FASCAM, have a limited active life and self-destruct after their active life has expired. The major difference between scatterable mines and placed mines is that the scatterable mines land on the surface and can be seen. Placed mines may be hidden or buried under the ground and usually cannot be seen.
August 1, 201015 yr Author Ah they just had another deal on TV & the reporter was showing that in fact the unreliable part is in fact un-exploded sub munitions. ( parts of the cluster ) Cluster munitions or cluster bombs are air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapons that eject smaller submunitions: a cluster of bomblets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb Same as what you posted Can & does kill & maim civilians for months & even years
August 1, 201015 yr One of the spoils of war that could be suggested is both sides have police up all munitions prior to retuning home. Just make sure the Generals are out in front. I know, fantasy world suggestion.
August 1, 201015 yr Author One of the spoils of war that could be suggested is both sides have police up all munitions prior to retuning home. Just make sure the Generals are out in front. I know, fantasy world suggestion. I like it
August 1, 201015 yr One of the spoils of war that could be suggested is both sides have police up all munitions prior to retuning home. Just make sure the Generals are out in front. I know, fantasy world suggestion. I would like to think that nowadays the US or UK military would be able to keep track of what type of munition was dropped and where so that when the hostilities end at least some cleanup could be attempted. Or even marking it as a dangerous area. Of course, in that scenario, hostilities have to stop first and we have to come out on the winning side. I don't see the Taliban managing to chase out the US & NATO then invite them in to clean up bombed areas.
August 2, 201015 yr What's the point of a ban under international law if the main agressors of the world, who also happen to be the main users of the nasty things, (US and Israel) will not stop using them? Might as well NOT ban them so at least if they are used against the US or Israel, the users are not war criminals.
August 2, 201015 yr What's the point of a ban under international law if the main agressors of the world, who also happen to be the main users of the nasty things, (US and Israel) will not stop using them? Just like the pointless Kyoto Protocol with the world's two largest polluters not signing (China and the USA, respectively). The point isn't to actually accomplish anything. It's to make some people/countries feel good about themselves. Many of the countries who signed on to the KP still didn't reduce their emissions enough but, hey, they signed it and that's just as good because that's all anyone paid attention to.
August 2, 201015 yr What's the point of a ban under international law if the main agressors of the world, who also happen to be the main users of the nasty things, (US and Israel) will not stop using them? Just like the pointless Kyoto Protocol with the world's two largest polluters not signing (China and the USA, respectively). The point isn't to actually accomplish anything. It's to make some people/countries feel good about themselves. Many of the countries who signed on to the KP still didn't reduce their emissions enough but, hey, they signed it and that's just as good because that's all anyone paid attention to. So your insinuating that we're all doomed under the guise of warm and fuzzy rhetoric. Wonder if there's an U.N. or International Community program for this?
August 2, 201015 yr One of the spoils of war that could be suggested is both sides have police up all munitions prior to retuning home. Just make sure the Generals are out in front. I know, fantasy world suggestion. I like it Even better if they fought wars like they used to when the man in charge was up front and centre rather than lurking in a burrow thousands of miles away.
August 23, 201015 yr Crikey Endure, I know you were a personal envoy of the Duke of Wellington, but when exactly was that, leading from the front that is?
August 23, 201015 yr The point isn't to actually accomplish anything. It's to make some people/countries feel good about themselves. Just had to Green you for that
August 23, 201015 yr Crikey Endure, I know you were a personal envoy of the Duke of Wellington, but when exactly was that, leading from the front that is? havent you seen Braveheart?
August 24, 201015 yr What's the point of a ban under international law if the main agressors of the world, who also happen to be the main users of the nasty things, (US and Israel) will not stop using them? Might as well NOT ban them so at least if they are used against the US or Israel, the users are not war criminals. Was not White phosphorus banned It did not stop Israel from using it in the Gaza strip so no reason to beleive that this ban will result in anything different.
August 24, 201015 yr I'm pretty sure that suicide vests that are blown up in public buses have been banned too, but Israel-bashers don't seem to mention anything bad about them.
August 28, 201015 yr yada yada suicide vest yada yada try hard to divert from facts yakety israel bashers yakety yak
August 28, 201015 yr Was not White phosphorus banned It did not stop Israel from using it in the Gaza strip so no reason to beleive that this ban will result in anything different. WP is a little of a grey area, it can be used at certain times and in sertain areas. For example it can be used as a screen for suport soldiers, or as means of retreat. It should not be used in built up areas or in the vicinity of civilian population, however apologists generally use the term they are attacking the enemy and civilians should either leave the area or stop supporting them, all issues here are bankrupt.
August 29, 201015 yr Was not White phosphorus banned It did not stop Israel from using it in the Gaza strip so no reason to beleive that this ban will result in anything different. WP is a little of a grey area, it can be used at certain times and in sertain areas. For example it can be used as a screen for suport soldiers, or as means of retreat. It should not be used in built up areas or in the vicinity of civilian population, however apologists generally use the term they are attacking the enemy and civilians should either leave the area or stop supporting them, all issues here are bankrupt. Someone posted a video here about WP and it turned out that the narration was about WP but the horrific pics were of something else. False and/or misleading attempts like that distract from the real problems associated with WP.
September 2, 201015 yr Author Oh look today I got a red for a starting this topic & posting the news. Must be a pro cluster bomb Odd the red came a month after posting it
September 2, 201015 yr Author Who are you talking about? Sorry, but I'm in the dark here. Now I'm curious. Sometimes a little crack is all that is needed for the light to get in IP checks are good too if done properly That aside no big deal buddy. Nothing worth talking about. Topic is cluster bombs Sorry for the sidetrack
September 2, 201015 yr Flame deleted. Civility will be restored in this forum. Best you all heed my very public warning
September 2, 201015 yr Odd the red came a month after posting it It happens sometimes. Earlier this week I gave someone a green for starting that Suggestion thread and it was started months ago.
September 2, 201015 yr Why ban any form of weapon? I thought the idea of a war was to kill as many people as possible... men, women or children. Why else start a war? Annihilate the enemy and get on with it. Turn the other country into a parking lot and then start from scratch. If you leave any survivors then the remainder grow up to be terrorists.
September 2, 201015 yr Why ban any form of weapon? I thought the idea of a war was to kill as many people as possible... men, women or children. Why else start a war? Annihilate the enemy and get on with it. Turn the other country into a parking lot and then start from scratch. If you leave any survivors then the remainder grow up to be terrorists. That is the point. But the Vietnam War brought us another new weapon - the swaying of public opinion.
September 2, 201015 yr Why ban any form of weapon? I thought the idea of a war was to kill as many people as possible... men, women or children. Why else start a war? Annihilate the enemy and get on with it. Turn the other country into a parking lot and then start from scratch. If you leave any survivors then the remainder grow up to be terrorists. and to be on the safe side add a little genocide in selected areas of neighbouring countries which sympathised with your dead enemies when they were alive. that will teach them all a lesson and save on future deployment of cluster bombs or weapons of mass destruction. eff Geneva Convention, skrew human rights! those nowadays in power can do no wrong and do not have to fear any Nürnberg or Den Haag trials. SIEG HEIL!
September 2, 201015 yr Why ban any form of weapon? I thought the idea of a war was to kill as many people as possible... men, women or children. Why else start a war? Annihilate the enemy and get on with it. Turn the other country into a parking lot and then start from scratch. If you leave any survivors then the remainder grow up to be terrorists. That is the point. But the Vietnam War brought us another new weapon - the swaying of public opinion. what a pity, eh?
Create an account or sign in to comment