Cluster bombs

Leo · 05-30-2008, 09:02 PM

111 countries, including the UK, Australia, Canada, and all the western European nations formally adopted a treaty banning cluster bombs on Friday, the 30th of May, 2008.

Four major countries refused to even attend the two week conference wherein this treaty was adopted. They were the USA, Israel, China and Russia.

Quote:

During the 34-day war in Lebanon in 2006, the United Nations estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets, 1 million of which may not have exploded, according to the ICRC. More than 250 civilians and bomb-disposal operators have been killed or injured by them in southern Lebanon since the war ended.

In more than 20 countries, according to the ICRC, cluster bombs have created lasting "no-go" areas, rendering them as dangerous as minefields.

Laos is the most affected country. Millions of bomblets dropped during the Vietnam War continue to kill civilians more than three decades later.

Countries agree cluster bomb ban - CNN.com

What can be done to induce compliance by all major nations?

Latherty · 05-30-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo

111 countries, including the UK, Australia, Canada, and all the western European nations formally adopted a treaty banning cluster bombs on Friday, the 30th of May, 2008.

Four major countries refused to even attend the two week conference wherein this treaty was adopted. They were the USA, Israel, China and Russia.

Countries agree cluster bomb ban - CNN.com

What can be done to induce compliance by all major nations?

Did any of the countries that actually signed ever used cluster bombs?

I don't think any power is going to reduce their arsenal at this particular juncture in world history...

Leo · 05-30-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latherty

Did any of the countries that actually signed ever used cluster bombs?

I don't think any power is going to reduce their arsenal at this particular juncture in world history...

Good point ... I don't think they did, but that doesn't change the morality of their stance - does it?

Heel31ok · 05-31-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo

Good point ... I don't think they did, but that doesn't change the morality of their stance - does it?

top be blunt about it if you are at war I really do not see morality as coming into play.weapons are for the purpose of killing and doing as much damage as possible.

Leo · 05-31-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel31ok

top be blunt about it if you are at war I really do not see morality as coming into play.weapons are for the purpose of killing and doing as much damage as possible.

If that were the case, we would not have the Geneva Conventions. The objections to cluster bombs devolve about the fact that they are indiscriminate weapons, which kill children as often as enemy combatants.

Akkaid · 05-31-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo

If that were the case, we would not have the Geneva Conventions. The objections to cluster bombs devolve about the fact that they are indiscriminate weapons, which kill children as often as enemy combatants.

A sentiment that only applies in Modern Quasi-War, aka, the NATO countries gang banging some 3rd World shit hole out of boredom.

Let real war come again, lets see how many Nations can still spell Geneva.

Latherty · 05-31-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akkaid

A sentiment that only applies in Modern Quasi-War, aka, the NATO countries gang banging some 3rd World shit hole out of boredom.

Let real war come again, lets see how many Nations can still spell Geneva.

The US has already dropped it for a minor conflict. But I think that most countries that are not panic-stricken pussies (like the US) would stand by the principle that survived two world wars which were both considered "total war".

Akkaid · 05-31-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latherty

The US has already dropped it for a minor conflict. But I think that most countries that are not panic-stricken pussies (like the US) would stand by the principle that survived two world wars which were both considered "total war".

I was refering to sentiment, not reality.

And who really gives a damn. The issue shouldn't be how a war is fought, but why a war is fought. If you don't want to kill everyone on the opposing team with little/no regard for collateral damage, just don't go to fucking war.

Pragmatist · 06-01-2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo

If that were the case, we would not have the Geneva Conventions. The objections to cluster bombs devolve about the fact that they are indiscriminate weapons, which kill children as often as enemy combatants.

Leo, if Spain decided they wanted your island and started bombing London such as the Germans did 60 years ago and your best weapon of defense happened to be something such as a clusterbomb, would you be in favor of using it? Would you be terribly concerned about the innocent that would perish if you did?

Maybe both sides in a war should should just select their best 2 warriors to fight it out against one another with paper straws so nobody got hurt.

Sounds good but it doesn't work that way. War is hell and should be avoided whenever possible but when necessary the smart ones will not be thinking about whether or not their weapons are too deadly. I think the decision about which you cite sounds noble but is really pretty stupid.

michaelr · 06-01-2008, 09:49 AM

The real work begins when the world tries to make the US ans Israel stop using them. There are bans on using them in populated areas but that goes ignored!