Last week two movies opened my eyes to the nightmare of Bombies (cluster bombs) in Laos, and the utter destruction of rural communities. Destruction not only at the time of the Vietnam war, where bombs were dumped on Laos every eight minutes, 24 hours a day, for nine years. But destruction today (and for the last three decades), as they remain scattered around and often activated. Lives and limbs cannot be given back. But devastated livelihoods and removal and deactivation of bombies can be. This mess demands cleaning up...

I recommend watching them.

Hard to believe isn't it?

Yet it exists & because these folks do not have a loud voice internationally nothing has been done.

As you say it demands cleaning up. hopefully films such as these will give them the voice they lack.

As for cluster bombs,flechettes, white phosphorous......these things need to be outlawed worldwide period.

Hard to believe isn't it?

Yet it exists & because these folks do not have a loud voice internationally nothing has been done.

As you say it demands cleaning up. hopefully films such as these will give them the voice they lack.

As for cluster bombs,flechettes, white phosphorous......these things need to be outlawed worldwide period.

It's a fine sentiment to outlaw bad things worldwide.....unfortunately, some global aggressors don't sign up to banning certain things because it is not economically or politically expedient for their own ends.

What's the point of 100 countries banning white phosphorous if one country continues to use it with no repercussions except a little ignominy? Israel for example......whatsmore....the ignominy is water off a duck's back.

All weapons are terrible and stuff like napalm is completely legal, but mankind has always settled differences with war and it does not look like it is going away any time soon.

The difference with "bombies" is that they kill long after the war is over.

Israel is not the only country that uses phosphorous and it is not banned. it is mostly used as a smoke screen in combat situations rather than a weapon.

As for cluster bombs,flechettes, white phosphorous......these things need to be outlawed worldwide period.

Absolutely!

Weapons of war need to be re-evaluated with the long term consequences in mind.

Clean up the mess already made, and then rethink for the future.

One can only hope.

A new flavor of the month. Everyone give up on landmines?

All weapons are terrible and stuff like napalm is completely legal, but mankind has always settled differences with war and it does not look like it is going away any time soon.

The difference with "bombies" is that they kill long after the war is over.

Israel is not the only country that uses phosphorous and it is not banned. it is mostly used as a smoke screen in combat situations rather than a weapon.

Aye, there's the rub. One country uses it and then there's a "justification" for other countries to use it. The arms race.

America labeled Saddam's use of WP as use of a chemical weapon (and therefore illegal).

WP is not banned if it is used for smoke production, but it is banned if it is used as a weapon (as Israel used it on Gaza).

A good friend of mine worked for HALO for a time, cleaning up landmines and bomblets.

Later he was stabbed to death by a drunk Thai, but that's another story.

Eeek - outlawing these things because of their latent potential to cause harm after the dispute (war or whatever) has ended / moved on is sensible in some ways, but we'd be back to bows and arrows or throwing rocks at each other. It would be better to find ways to impose negotiations as a prelude to any other course of action.

But nowadays war or terrorism has taken a different turn. It used to be that a country went to war, sent it's army to fight and occupy land. The last one standing was the winner and got to grab all the goodies. This went on until (and including) the Korean war, which was somewhat of a stalemate.

Vietnam was never about the South occupying the North, they just wanted the North not to occupy them. And this is a hundreds of years old desire. For them it wasn't anything about the politics, it was just "Keep the North out". The American, Russian and Australian politicians turned it into a political thing, thus bringing the Lao government into it as well. Left to the Viets, there would probably have been a meeting of minds that allowed for a two-state solution. And Laos would never have been bombed.

What can be done about the current elephant in the room - terrorist attacks on civilians? War as I understand it has declined. Afghanistan is not about occupying land for the loot it offers, but about regime change that the locals do not want. They would be quite happy the way they were, and will go back to that the moment the occupiers leave.

Libya too is about regime change, as with Ivory Coast and Yemen. Maybe also Syria. Certain governments, or at least the politicians within parts of those governments, wanting to have their names recognised for grandiose acts, when they can't manage their own economies. So they have a little military action against some country too small to fight back.

The French dwarf, the Somali-American and the pair of British public-schoolboys between them are costing a lot of innocent lives for nothing but their own aggrandisement. They too should be banned.

Sorry to have gone off the topic of bomblets, but there are many other dangers to the world citizenry, all of which should be stopped in one way or another.

Remember too that these bomblets still show up almost anywhere. A year or so ago we had one laying in the open on a Saigon Hash trail. The hares sprayed it white, reported it to the local authorities, but I don't know what happened to it. This was on a regular footpath, used by scores of people every day.

As to the OP....what is America doing about it's deadly, illegal legacy in Laos?

As to the OP....what is America doing about it's deadly, illegal legacy in Laos?

There are charity groups there, both decontaminating and helping those crippled by the ordnance, but I don't know how many are American sponsored, let alone American government sponsored.

There are among the workers a considerable number of American citizens, however. So don't go knocking the people, just their (and other) governments.

I am sure that someone who is internet savvy could find out the $ amount, but the majority of demining activity some years back was done by European nations. A great deal of their funding came from the US gov't, but because of the contentiousness of a US presence on the soil of former enemies, EU countries, usually neutral ones, were those actively involved in the actual demining activity.

The Norwegians and the Swiss, for example, didn't usually get detained and accused of working for the CIA.

Their efforts are laudable and they have done an exemplary job in a number of places, including Iraq where the mines and bombs were the result of the Iraq-Iran war and Saddam's war against the Kurds.

WP is not banned if it is used for smoke production, but it is banned if it is used as a weapon (as Israel used it on Gaza).

Incorrect again and it was not used as a weapon in Gaza. Why even bother to post all these false claims?

WP is not banned if it is used for smoke production, but it is banned if it is used as a weapon (as Israel used it on Gaza).

Incorrect again and it was not used as a weapon in Gaza. Why even bother to post all these false claims?

Which part of my post is false???? Your use of "and" implies (at least) two of my three assertions.

As to the OP....what is America doing about it's deadly, illegal legacy in Laos?

There are charity groups there, both decontaminating and helping those crippled by the ordnance, but I don't know how many are American sponsored, let alone American government sponsored.

There are among the workers a considerable number of American citizens, however. So don't go knocking the people, just their (and other) governments.

Don't fall into the convenient excuse for belligerance that it is the people being blamed....(even though many of the people support the government, and are thus responsible too).

WP is not banned if it is used for smoke production, but it is banned if it is used as a weapon (as Israel used it on Gaza).

Incorrect again and it was not used as a weapon in Gaza. Why even bother to post all these false claims?

Which part of my post is false???? Your use of "and" implies (at least) two of my three assertions.

It is NOT banned as a weapon against armed combatants and Israel did NOT use it as a weapon.

America labeled Saddam's use of WP as use of a chemical weapon

That's the first I've heard that.

WP is not banned if it is used for smoke production, but it is banned if it is used as a weapon (as Israel used it on Gaza).

Incorrect again and it was not used as a weapon in Gaza. Why even bother to post all these false claims?

Which part of my post is false???? Your use of "and" implies (at least) two of my three assertions.

It is NOT banned as a weapon against armed combatants and Israel did NOT use it as a weapon.

It IS banned as a weapon, full stop. From Wiki, under The Chemical Weapons Convention....:

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use. If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons".^[74]

The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals"

Israel DID use it as a weapon as evidenced by the infamous video footage of it being dropped from a helicopter, not as a smoke-screen, but as an incendiary.....(Whatsmore, Israel was ALSO guilty of using it in civilian populated areas, an act VERY specifically outlawed)

Why do you bother to raise these false claims?.

America labeled Saddam's use of WP as use of a chemical weapon

That's the first I've heard that.

Do you hear everything?

Of course, you don't....so now you will discredit Wikipedia.

From Wiki.....

Another news report^[6] said "US intelligence" called WP a chemical weapon in a declassified Pentagon report from February 1991:

"Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

Why do you bother to raise these false claims?.

False?

Israel used White Phosphorus against HAMAS targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This violated no international laws or conventions.

White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets. The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, which regulates the use of "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons . . ."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

It IS banned as a weapon, full stop. From Wiki, under The Chemical Weapons Convention....:

Where is the link? Everything that I can find on Wiki says that it is "controversial" and that some people are arguing that it should be banned as a military weapon, but, so far, it is not.

I very much doubt that those ordinances were banned during the Vietnam War era.

U.S. = promoting democracy. Indeed.

As for cluster bombs,flechettes, white phosphorous......these things need to be outlawed worldwide period.

Nice sentiment. But all will fall on deaf ears as long as the arms, weapons, and war business continues to influence everything we know.

Of course, countries could quit buying them and using them.

Of course, countries could quit buying them and using them.

Like that will come about anytime soon. War profiteering is far more influential than redeeming a civilisation.

I knew a man who President Truman said, “we would not have won WW II without him.”

I guess WW II was a good war so that makes it OK.

He was just an ordinary kind of guy. Involved in industry, an engineer by training and trade.

Outside of the fact he had a big funeral one would never have known.

I imagine it is hard to know when you make armaments and do the research and development that make arms if they will be used for a good war or a bad war.

When Nobel made dynamite did he know what it would be used for?

When Maxim invented the Maxim gun he did not have any idea that WW I was coming.

Here richly, with ridiculous display,

The Politician's corpse was laid away.

While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged

I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged.

Put the blame where it belongs.

Why do you bother to raise these false claims?.

False?

Israel used White Phosphorus against HAMAS targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This violated no international laws or conventions.

White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets. The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, which regulates the use of "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons . . ."

http://www.globalsec...unitions/wp.htm

Yes false. You have provided an article that says Israel used WP as an obscurant, which does not refute that they also used it as a weapon....which everyone has seen that they did.

The Wiki article on WP is simply that, the Wiki article on White Phosphorous....no need for a link as it is not obscure......but since that is too difficult for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Yes there is contoversy (people that want to use it (as a weapon) will create an argument, spurious as it is, just to maintain a stance such as yours)....but it is quite clear that under the CWC, WP is illegal as a weapon, is illegal if it is used to harm, and is illegal to use over civilian populations.

Israel used it illegally. *Troll remark edited out* This photo plainly shows not a smokescreen but an incendiary attack.

Continuation of a discussion of the use of WP by Israel will result in this topic being closed.

The OP is about the situation of unexploded ordinances in Laos. Please limit the discussion to the OP.

America labeled Saddam's use of WP as use of a chemical weapon

That's the first I've heard that.

Do you hear everything?

Of course, you don't....so now you will discredit Wikipedia.

What a snippy reply to a non-agressive post. No wonder you get into so many battles around here.

Of course, countries could quit buying them and using them.

Like that will come about anytime soon. War profiteering is far more influential than redeeming a civilisation.

My civilisation doesn't need to be redeemed.