Cluster Bombs
They’re ahorrent. The very way they act is just morally unacceptable in the modern world. Their use in modern warfare just cannot be justified, especially considering that “normal” wars between massed armies no longer actually happen. So cluster bombs are just killing innocents [or at least non-combatants].
So this treaty signed by 109 countries to ban the use of cluster bombs must be applauded.
The main problem now being that this is only 109 countures that have signed the treaty - and the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistand, and Isreal are not among them.
Another issue over this comes from the fact that even if we make a moral stand and refuse to use these weapons, our enemies are not necessarily bound by the same, so our soldiers [or even ourselves] may be potentially put in danger. But this is such a teeny tiny possibility that is far outweighed by the undeniable benefits.
That cluster bombs are not to be used any more by Britain or 109 other countries is undeniably a good thing. But that all countries, including major powers, have not signed up is a very bad thing indeed. Those countries ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Categories: All WW
I’d add a note of caution that we need to make sure out forces are not strained even further as a result of needing more boots on the ground in fighting, and a concern about the increased casualties that will occur.
Matts last blog post..Senedd Circular w/b 25 May 2008: Them dry bones
Hmm. Do we normally drop these bombs on civilian areas? I thought we invented the cluster bomb to destroy enemy military runways. If we continued to use them just for their intended task then where is the harm in that? Surely the whole problem with this ordinance is that countries like Isreal are happy to drop them onto civlian areas.. Do we have anything to replace them for the task of denying enemy use of runways?
Strikes me as bonkers to take away a useful tool from our military’s toolkit at a time when they are already overstretched, undermanned and underfunded.
Why should other countries be ‘ashamed of themselves’?. They have made the hard headed decision that retaining these weapons will/might give them a military advantage at some time, so they have decided to do what they consider to be right for their soldiers/citizens - nothing to be ashamed of, I wish our politicians thought likewise and actually thought about us. And quite frankly as non of us knows where/when/how we will next need to fight I am a little worried that we have given away yet another weapon.
Mike - I see so weapons that indiscriminately kill civilians are OK in the modern world are they.
I know it is fashionable in American circles to kill tens even hundreds of non-americans to avoid a single death of a member of the american military but this strange concept is and has been alien to military culture for an awful longtime. Certainly I was taught that the order of batting (in who you should protect as a soldier) was your own civilians, neutral civilians, enemy civilians, yourself and fellow military and lastly enemy military - but even in the last case you were to protect them unless they were a clear threat to yourself.
Zorro - the point is that these bombs can kill 25km away from where they were aimed. That could very easily be within a civilian area. And besides, how many of our current wars are against other armies with runways and planes?!
Like I said in my post, cluster bombs “cannot be justified, especially considering that “normal†wars between massed armies no longer actually happen.”
Mike - it *is* something to be ashamed of. Because cluster bombs kill innocent civilians. People who are not involved in the fighting. Soldiers are paid to fight. It might make things a little more dangerous for them at some point in the indeterminate future, but it will save hundreds and thousands of lives in the mean time. Which is more than worth it.
thunderdragons last blog post..And He Isn’t Even Being Ironic!
Dragon,
All weapons are abhorrent, the H bomb has killed civilians and so has the bayonet - so where would you wish us to stop on the scale of ‘banning’? Soldiers are ‘paid to fight’, and I was once one of them but in a small country with tiny forces you do not throw their lives away (might I suggest that even large countries do not throw their soldiers to the wolves, soldiers are also human beings - hard to believe I know). All weapons are capable of killing civilians but cluster bombs (like any other weapon) were not specifically designed to do so and are not used specifically to do so. I repeat, you do not throw a weapon away and leave it in a potential enemies hand to use against you (and you, like me, do not know when/where/how/who we may next have to fight). And please, Dragon, the ‘hundreds of thousands’ is just a figure you have plucked out of the air!
Mike, the difference is that cluster bombs kill so indiscriminately. So do H bombs, but there are such large other restrictions on their use (MAD, anyone?) that they’re not likely to be used by anyone.
Because soldiers are human beings you never “throw away” their lives. But banning cluster bombs won’t put their lives in much extra danger. But it will reduce the danger for all non-combatants in battle areas - and like Baht At said, the order you should protect people is “your own civilians, neutral civilians, enemy civilians, yourself and fellow military and lastly enemy military”.
We are not likely to have any “traditional” ground wars between two opposing armies. So cluster bombs are not a necessary weapon.
thunderdragons last blog post..What goes around, comes around
I see, you feel you have the right to decide to put your countries soldiers into more danger just so long as it isn’t ‘much’ more danger!
Let us get down to basics - a few days ago we lost Marine Gostick. Look him up on the web, plenty of pictures and information. He looks a good kid, everyones son, everyones brother, everyones mate. Now imagine you were in a position where you either let him die (and now he’s a flesh and blood person, not a uniformed abstraction) or called in a cluster bomb on the enemy who was going to kill him (and this is a theoretical exercise so those are your only two options). What would you do?
I admire your humanitarian position but I can not agree with it, look at the countries who have banned this weapon - for most it is the equivalent of Scunthorpe banning the A Bomb. But for us fighting a war on two fronts (and even a Government of morons should have been able to avoid that!) with an overstretched and underfunded military which is, quite frankly, treated with contempt by the very politicians who sent it to war then no weapon should be abandoned, not one! This banning is simply an ego trip by a PM who despises the military and who wished to make a gesture - a gesture which will never put him in danger but which might (and who knows) in the future increase the danger for some ‘Poor Bloody Infantryman’.
That you have felt the need to mention a specific soldier’s death means that you know that you have lost the argument.
Yes, I do feel I have the right to put my countries soldiers (be they a flesh and blood person or a uniformed abstraction) in to more danger so long as it isn’t much more. Because they are soldiers. Their job is to fight. If we didn’t want to put them in danger, we’d just never go to war. The simple fact is that ‘Poor Bloody Infantryman’ knew what they were getting themselves in to when they signed up.
We have to lead by example. And whilst I agree it is a bit of an ego trip by Brown, the actionis no less correct for being so.
thunderdragons last blog post..What goes around, comes around
Oh no, Thunderdragon - the fact that I mentioned a specific soldiers name was an attempt to humanise in your eyes the men who wear our uniform. I have said it before - these guys are not robots, they are our men (& I include the women in that) and they are amongst the most human you could ever meet.
Possibly the fact that you ignored my theoretical exercise means that you may be having a small re-think, and not all is as black and white as first appears?
You have no right whatsoever to put any soldier (or anyone else) into more danger than is necessary. Not you, not me, not a politician or anyone else has a right to do that. The soldiers job is to fight (they do realise that) if necessary (necessary is the word) but if you send him to war (and in a democracy he goes in our name, whether we agree with the war or not) you do all you legally can to protect him so that he may actually win for you. The fact that they know what they are getting into (they are not idiots) is no justification for placing them in greater danger than they have to be in in order to win - do you honestly believe that it is?
And what makes you think we are leading? Is it not just possible that other countries (equally as intelligent and as moralistic perhaps) have looked at this ban and have concluded it may place them at a disadvantage and so have decided that they will not sign? This country is not always right!
It’s very simple - the slight amount of extra potential danger for our soldiers is far outweighed in my eyes by the protection of innocent bystanders.
You may disagree, and that is your prerogative.
thunderdragons last blog post..What goes around, comes around
You are right, it is my prerogative. I will not convince you, and you will certainly never convince me and so I’ll wish you a goodnight, my friend.