Nations sign cluster bomb ban, except for Russia, China and (Guess Who?)

[marmar]

AP, via Yahoo!:



Nations sign cluster-bomb ban, US and Russia refuse
By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer


OSLO, Norway – Nations began signing a treaty banning cluster bombs Wednesday in a move that supporters hope will shame the U.S., Russia and China and other non-signers into abandoning weapons blamed for maiming and killing civilians.

Norway, which began the drive to ban cluster bombs 18 months ago, was to be first to sign, followed by Laos and Lebanon, both hard-hit by the weapons.

Organizers said 88 countries were expected to sign on Wednesday and around 100 out of the world's 192 U.N. member nations will have signed by Thursday.

Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles that scatter them over vast areas. Some fail to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years until they are disturbed, often by children attracted by their small size and bright colors.

"Banning cluster bombs took too long. Too many people lost arms and legs," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said as he opened the conference. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081203/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_norway_cluster_bombs

[patrice]

1. People must wake up to the fact that killing innocent people is the NORM for

ANY armed conflict.

This is why the so-called Pro-life movement, one of, if not the, greatest proponents of American Exceptionalism, is such a

SAD SAD JOKE

[marketcrazy1]

2. of course we did not sign

we use them more than anyone!! and we sell them to ALL our "allies"

[hobbit709]

3. Cluster bombs, land mines, Geneva Conventions

"We don't need no stinking rules" is the mantra of the neocons.

Gonzales used the same words in his opinion on torture "Quaint and obsolete" that Felmarschall Keitel wrote on his copy of a legal opinion. It was used as evidence at Nuremberg.

[soothsayer]

4. Don't forget depleted uranium (everyone else banned it)

[Tarc]

5. Can Obama sign it when he takes office, or is this a done deal now?

[hoplophile]

6. Cluster bombs work

and war is Hell.

[wuushew]

7. Regular high explosive bombs work in similar situations

It seems to me the cost of using bombs either regular or fragmentation in larger quantities would be offset by the good that comes from not killing children.

Using cluster bombs is like intentionally placing dynamite in the middle of the road and walking away.

[hoplophile]

8. Regular high explosive bombs DO work. Cluster bombs work BETTER.

War is Hell.

[wuushew]

9. When is the last time we have been at "true" war?

WWII? Korea?


Chemical and biological weapons are effective killers as well, but the United States does comply with those treaties to some extent. I see no situation where the United States needs to deploy indiscriminate weapons like cluster munitions and mines to kill on an industrial scale.

All the fake wars we are fighting are either unnecessary and fabricated or are the type of conflicts where winning hearts and minds yields better results than killing more effectively.



Do you have a specific situation where you want anti-personnel bombs used?

[hoplophile]

11. Your red herrings aside

Cluster bombs are very efficient killing devices. They are designed to send shrapnel out over a wide spread area to kill lots of enemy personnel. If and when our military needs such a weapon (weather we are in a declared war or not is not relevant) I firmly believe that they should have the best possible weapon to do that. Cluster bombs are currently the best weapon for that situation. As I have said before. War is Hell. There is no way to "nicely" kill the enemy.

[wuushew]

14. Then you must be very pleased with the Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006

Despite using the most effective weapons, its strategic aims and goals were not met and in fact the idelogical position of Israel vis a vis its enemies was considerably weakened.

[hoplophile]

16. Your response is completely irrelevant to the O.P.

Should the U.S. sign a treaty swearing not to use cluster bombs? NO! Cluster bombs do their intended job better than any other bomb and should be in the United States Military inventory and be used as deemed necessary. The "Israeli-Lebanon war of 2006" is not relevant to the issue.

[wuushew]

18. The cluster bombs were of U.S. manufacture

it seems very relevant.

You never answered my question about what situations you feel cluster bombs are appropriate for use. I can think of only one, Tora-Bora. Yet the for some reason the military declined to use them. All other areas we are fighting in currently have greater concentrations of civilization targets.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Cluster bombs don't just kill during the war; they make the land dangerous long afterwards

'If and when our military needs such a weapon (weather we are in a declared war or not is not relevant) I firmly believe that they should have the best possible weapon to do that.'

Including WMD?

And I haven't seen that wars are more quickly or more successfully ended when cluster bombs are used anyway. Cases in point: USA and UK in Iraq 2003 and Israel in Lebanon 2006 - neither a great example of ultimate military success, apart from all ethical considerations.

Most recently both sides are said to have used them in the Russia/Georgia war, and it just ended with the bigger country winning, as one might have expected anyway.

Ban them! I'm ashamed that the UK were so late in signing this, but glad they did in the end.

[StreetKnowledge]

17. Cluster bombs are not always anti-personnel weapons.

The US Armed Forces focus their usage on targets such as runways at air bases and naval bases. It (quite effectively) shuts the runway down. The US Military DOES NOT use them on areas where civilians are likely to be.

[wartrace]

10. We need to make improved cluster munitions.

Each bomb-let should explode immediately or become inert. That solves the problem of children finding them & blowing themselves up.

What happens if, North Korea decides to move south again? They have one million soldiers, cluster bombs are a very effective weapon against infantry. Personally I would like our armed forces to have this weapon in its arsenal in order to save American lives on the battlefield.

[wuushew]

12. Why can't the R.O.K. defend itself?

Let them make the ethical choice. The D.P.R.K. isn't invading Los Angeles.

[wartrace]

15. Good question.

That is a question for President Obama to explore. The point I was attempting to make is either we have them (cluster bombs) in our inventory or we should be prepared to lose more of our troops if an armed conflict erupts. Personally I would like to see our troops have EVERY advantage if a war occurs.

[StreetKnowledge]

19. The ROK could do much of the job themselves

But not all of it. The DPRK is resoundingly, awesomely paranoid. That's why they have an active military of a million+ men. I think this guy's point is "we should have these, just in case." I wouldn't use them as anti-personnel weapons (for the obvious reasons) but I do agree that you want to keep your eyes open.

[Truth2Tell]

30. Sweet. Posting pictures

of people you want to kill with cluster bombs.

[wildbilln864]

31. We need to make peace! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Well, we wouldn't want to be like wimpy Norway and other civilized nations.

And, we certainly wouldn't want to lose our place as the Number One arms supplier to the world or threaten the profits of the MIC.

[Nederland]

20. I'm shocked

The countries that make cluster bombs are opposed to banning them, and the countries that don't make cluster bombs are in favor. Just goes to proves that there are no saints nor sinners in the world, only countries acting out of selfish interest.

[wuushew]

21. I still don't get why the U.K. is more ethical then us...

They are frequently part of the same misadventures we are.

[LeftishBrit]

23. We were not among the first signatories

and we joined the USA in using the evil things in 2003.

The USA, Russia and China are of course the big 'superpowers' which may have something to do with their being the holdouts.

[old mark]

24. We should never ban cluster bombs or depleted uranium projectiles.

Never. They are very effective weapons, and in the end save lives.

mark

[wuushew]

25. Tungsten can be used as a kinetic penatrator to replace uranium

Tungsten 19.25  g/cm3
Uranium 19.1 g/cm3

[The Magistrate]

27. Tungsten Was Formerly Used For That Purpose, Sir

The reason for its replacement by uranium was that uranium begins to burn under the heat generated while penetrating armor, and thus combines the effects of a kinetic round with those of an incendiary round, which is of great benefit in destroying armor vehicles, which contain many flammables. A tungsten round remains 'cold', and its principal effect on penetration is to ricochet about within the confines of the vehicle, which may kill crew members and damage equipment, but is unlikely to detonate ammunition or ignite fuel.

[wuushew]

28. Tungsten is also more expensive than surplus toxic waste

But if you factor in the price in human health, medical costs, lost productivity and environmental clean-up you are really not saving any money in the long run.


There was absolutely no reason to employ DU ammunition in either Gulf War I or Kosovo. Iraq did not possess any tank capable of penetrating the armor of the M1A1. Add to that the complete air superiority the coalition enjoyed and the idea that we had to use DU in the name of better war making is ludicrous.

[Solon]

26. Whose lives? Not those who have to live on the land they are used on after the war...

These weapons make as much sense to use as landmines.

[old mark]

29. Tungsten was considered but was rejected for use in AT weapons.

When the concept was in development, tungsten was only available from China. The cost of tungsten was many times that of DU, and tungsten is extremely more dangerous than DU. Tungsten is very carcinogenic.

The lives saved are those on our side who would have been killed by those on the other side who were killed. Any long, drawn out military action produces more casualties than a swift, decisive one, and I assure you that a weapon that allowed more Iraqi (Soviet made) tanks to survive would have produced many more civilian casualties than the rather quick end inflicted on Iraqi armor.

IMO, the entire war is a crime on the part of GWB, but when our troops are engaging an enemy it best to win quickly and decisively.


mark