Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

Poll

Should cluster munitions be banned?

Yes32%32% - 39
No57%57% - 70
Don't care9%9% - 12
Total: 121
2008-05-22 05:35:03
PureFodder
Member
+225|6285
DUBLIN: UN chief Ban Ki-moon called yesterday for a "visionary" global deal to ban cluster bombs, as delegates from more than 100 countries opened a conference here aimed at outlawing the weapons.

The 12-day talks in Dublin aim for an international pact to stop the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of all cluster munitions among signatories.

Ireland's Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said: "Together, we owe it to the survivors of cluster munitions to ease their pain and give them hope. We owe it to humanity to ensure there will be no more innocent civilian victims of cluster munitions."

Dropped from planes or fired from artillery guns, cluster bombs explode in mid-air, scattering bomblets - increasing the risk of civilians being killed or maimed by their indiscriminate effect. They also pose a lasting threat, with many bomblets failing to explode on impact.

Mr Ban, in a video message, urged delegates to agree to a deal. He said cluster munitions were "inherently inaccurate, particularly indiscriminate and unreliable". "I hope you will be bold and visionary in your deliberations and wish you every success," hesaid.

Under the draft treaty, signatories would have six years to destroy stockpiles. It also includes provisions for cleaning up affected areas.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 77,00.html

The world is meeting to discuss the future of cluster munitions. A useful military weapon that comes with a significant price. They are inherently inaccurate and large numbers of unexploded munitions remain and pose a grave risk to anyone in the area for years to come. For example cluster munitions used in US wars in Indochina still kill people today.

2008-05-22 05:39:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6707|67.222.138.85
Because they don't have any.

Way to leave out the last line.
2008-05-22 05:44:53
PureFodder
Member
+225|6285

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because they don't have any.

Way to leave out the last line.
The countries there represent half the world's cluster bomb manufacturing, use and stockpiles.
2008-05-22 05:57:15
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6387
And they are useful too. These things aint shit compared to nalpalm or mines. Why not ban them first. Not to mention that not everyone is gonna abide by the treaty(I sure as hell hope we dont).
2008-05-22 05:59:49
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6555
Don't really see the point in banning any types of munitions. All you do is create a black market for them. Anyone fighting a war will use any weapon that will enable them to win that war so any rules would be futile.
2008-05-22 06:09:04
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|5827
What difference does it make?  If a war starts, people'll use them anyway.

Note:  A real war.  Not like Iraq.  Like a World War.  Or even like Vietnam.
2008-05-22 06:12:33
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|6463|Tyne & Wear, England
Uh...what about Biological and Chemical weapons, there are still nations that have them?  They make cluster bombs looks like an episode of the Teletubbies, and are completely unnecessary.  Why not start there?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
2008-05-22 06:13:02
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX
Don't really see the point in banning any types of munitions. All you do is create a black market for them. Anyone fighting a war will use any weapon that will enable them to win that war so any rules would be futile.
Don't agree with you there. Munitions like that generally need to be manufactured by reasonably industrialised countries and deployed by aircraft or heavy cannon.
If the larger arms producing countries agree to stop making them it would be a good thing, they are not exactly war winners in any case.

I thought anti-personnel mines and napalm had already been banned (except the US didn't sign).
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2008-05-22 06:13:45
PureFodder
Member
+225|6285

CameronPoe wrote:

Don't really see the point in banning any types of munitions. All you do is create a black market for them. Anyone fighting a war will use any weapon that will enable them to win that war so any rules would be futile.
Landmine use took a massive downturn after the mine ban treaty. Even countries that didn't sign the treaty have almost all stopped using them.

I partially agree that in the case of a war to the death that any country may use any weapon, but what about wars where one or both sides clearly aren't going to be wiped out if they don't win?
2008-05-22 06:15:44
PureFodder
Member
+225|6285

KILLSWITCH wrote:

Uh...what about Biological and Chemical weapons, there are still nations that have them?  They make cluster bombs looks like an episode of the Teletubbies, and are completely unnecessary.  Why not start there?
Why not do both. It's like arguing that there are still murderers so why bother to arrest theives.
2008-05-22 06:16:15
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6766|UK
The threat of cluster bombs are very useful for stopping large movements of enemy forces, just like nukes. They shouldn't be banned but the use of them in civilian areas should obviously be throughly thought out by the commander of an operation, using them to stop an enemy push in the middle of a uninhabited valley would be a great use of them, but using them in a middle of a city is obviously a no no.
2008-05-22 06:21:56
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|6463|Tyne & Wear, England

PureFodder wrote:

KILLSWITCH wrote:

Uh...what about Biological and Chemical weapons, there are still nations that have them?  They make cluster bombs looks like an episode of the Teletubbies, and are completely unnecessary.  Why not start there?
Why not do both. It's like arguing that there are still murderers so why bother to arrest theives.
Cluster bombs aren't as indiscriminate as Chemical or Biological weapons, cluster weapons could still have a place in modern warfare.  Against a large group of enemies or an enemy compound for example.  Any nation with a degree of morality isn't going to use them if civilian targets are near.

With Chemical weapons, you just don't know where the weather is going to take that shit, and Biological weapons could cause a pandemic of disease.

Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2008-05-22 06:23:04)

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
2008-05-22 06:31:59
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6387

Dilbert_X wrote:

I thought anti-personnel mines and napalm had already been banned (except the US didn't sign).
Most of the countries where they would be used havent signed either.
2008-05-22 06:34:21
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6621|London, England
At the end of the day when the shit hits the fan they wouldn't give a shit about a treaty, best not to waste time even going to sign it. Although I guess you could make a few people happy by doing it
2008-05-22 07:00:29
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6223|Escea

Someone would complain even if you got rid of them, tank battalion approaches small country, cluster munitions could easily and effectively take it out. Ban the cluster munition, tank's keeping going, invade said country, 'oh why didn't you do anything?' No point in banning them. Anything explosive can fail to detonate and then detonate later when someone happens to stumble across it.
2008-05-22 07:11:30
PureFodder
Member
+225|6285

M.O.A.B wrote:

Someone would complain even if you got rid of them, tank battalion approaches small country, cluster munitions could easily and effectively take it out. Ban the cluster munition, tank's keeping going, invade said country, 'oh why didn't you do anything?' No point in banning them. Anything explosive can fail to detonate and then detonate later when someone happens to stumble across it.
The difference is the vast number of bomblets, the small size of them (making them hard to find and dispose of) and the relatively high number of them that don't explode.
2008-05-22 08:04:09
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6447|Chicago, IL

CameronPoe wrote:

Don't really see the point in banning any types of munitions. All you do is create a black market for them. Anyone fighting a war will use any weapon that will enable them to win that war so any rules would be futile.
2008-05-22 09:28:14
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6491|Northern California
No ban, but accountability for each bomblet should be required.  You shouldn't "ban" certain weapons IMHO.  I'm aware that we don't want everyone sicking the plague or sarin on enemy populations, but warfare shouldn't really be limited...and besides, who really plays fairly anyway?? The underdog usually doesn't while the "civilized" aggressor does..and that's not even true (US uses DU and probably other unethical weaponry).

War is supposed to be hell.  If it's hellish enough, and people are made aware of it, maybe instead of banning certain elements to warfare, how bout trying to have your politicians be grown ups and NOT GET INTO WAR so easily?  It's a bummer we're not more socialistic to require a consensus vote on using our military forces.


PureFodder wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Someone would complain even if you got rid of them, tank battalion approaches small country, cluster munitions could easily and effectively take it out. Ban the cluster munition, tank's keeping going, invade said country, 'oh why didn't you do anything?' No point in banning them. Anything explosive can fail to detonate and then detonate later when someone happens to stumble across it.
The difference is the vast number of bomblets, the small size of them (making them hard to find and dispose of) and the relatively high number of them that don't explode.
That and little Iraqi children get their legs and arms blown off when they pick up long forgotten bomblets because the US Air Force "OK'd" a cluster bomb in a town outskirts because they were chasing ONE bad guy...  But hey, if the bomblets go away, then the kids will play on bombed out tank and vehicle carcases that have DU dust all over them!

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-05-22 09:30:14)

2008-05-22 09:44:52
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6623|Little Bentcock
Alot of cluster bombs are smart-ized now (smart bomb..) and have a blast radius not much wider than the target.

Also I think a commander would have second thoughts about dropping cluster bombs on dense population anyway.
2008-05-22 11:06:37
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6578|Columbus, OH
Good, good fear the Cluster Bomb(s)

But the U.S. military will not drop cluster bombs in an urban city or developed area. The argument inaccurate
2008-05-22 11:16:53
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

KILLSWITCH wrote:

Uh...what about Biological and Chemical weapons, there are still nations that have them?  They make cluster bombs looks like an episode of the Teletubbies, and are completely unnecessary.  Why not start there?
There are already international conventions associated with both of those (the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention).  The agreements only bind those that sign and accept the agreement, so if a nation refuses to sign, there isn't much that can be done about it.

As for this, read about the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and in particular, Article V.  This covers "unexploded ordinance" already, which is what they are trying to prevent by banning cluster bombs, right?
2008-05-22 11:31:38
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6491|Northern California

loubot wrote:

Good, good fear the Cluster Bomb(s)

But the U.S. military will not drop cluster bombs in an urban city or developed area. The argument inaccurate
I've seen pictures, part of a documentary covering such an occaision, and it's not exactly a secret, but at the early part of the iraq occupation, there were plenty of cluster bombs dropped in and near developed areas.  Little kids are blown up still probably from the bomblets.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-05-22 11:36:00)

2008-05-22 12:10:23
iamangry
Member
+59|6645|The United States of America
Yeah, we should definitely ban cluster bombs.  And stealth planes.  And TV missiles, satellite imagery, and anything else that America uses to generate a strategic and tactical advantage over it's adversaries.  Because that's what the UN is all about... leveling the playing field so wars last extra long.  Oh, and giving people food in exchange for oil, which is really a way of saying "bribing tyrants with access to valuable natural resources while making your own people think you're doing it for the starving children... and getting a little kick back for yourself."
2008-05-22 12:11:50
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6500|so randum

iamangry wrote:

Yeah, we should definitely ban cluster bombs.  And stealth planes.  And TV missiles, satellite imagery, and anything else that America uses to generate a strategic and tactical advantage over it's adversaries.  Because that's what the UN is all about... leveling the playing field so wars last extra long.  Oh, and giving people food in exchange for oil, which is really a way of saying "bribing tyrants with access to valuable natural resources while making your own people think you're doing it for the starving children... and getting a little kick back for yourself."
lol at username.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2008-05-22 12:44:27
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6578|Columbus, OH

IRONCHEF wrote:

loubot wrote:

Good, good fear the Cluster Bomb(s)

But the U.S. military will not drop cluster bombs in an urban city or developed area. The argument inaccurate
I've seen pictures, part of a documentary covering such an occaision, and it's not exactly a secret, but at the early part of the iraq occupation, there were plenty of cluster bombs dropped in and near developed areas.  Little kids are blown up still probably from the bomblets.
Some n00b pilot must of press the alt-fire too soon.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard