ffs

[Steel_Tomb]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/28/uk.cluster.bomb/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

what kind of crap is this? I'm sorry but get real, its a weapon of war. Modern CBU's like the SFW are designed to self detonate before hitting the ground, are they to be banned too? They are taking away a really vital piece of equipment here! How else are you supposed to stop whole tank collumns now? a few mavericks won't make much of a dent compared to a few Mk-20's. :damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:

I feel for civ's that are injured by unexploded munitions, but they can't just outrightly ban an entire class of weapons its ludicrous.

[Platapus]

I believe this treaty is more aimed at eliminating the type of CBU that leaves either intentional or unintentional unexploded bomblets that can and do harm civilians well after the battle.

I remember doing CBU testing a few hundred years ago, the dud rate was rather high (lowest bidder).

Since the environment of war is moving closer to more urban and populated areas, the advantages of CBU's may no longer be greater than the disadvantages.

Whether this ban will be effective is unknown. Weaponeering countries are very good at working around or ignoring such agreements.

The good news is that warfare involving "whole tank columns" will be less likely as the fabric of war changes.

[Steel_Tomb]

Older CBU designed to take out infantry can go, I have no problem with that. Its the anti-armour varients like the Mk-20 Rockeye and the CBU-87 for lightly armoured targets that need to stay with us. I agree with the case that conflicts are becoming more centralised around urban areas, but the possibility for the need to take out multiple targets with one bomb is still pretty essential. There are some things that you simply can not just "get rid" of, and cluster munitions are one of them. Platforms like the A-10 rely heavily on CBU's to take out ground targets, to deny a mud moving aircraft these weapons would reduce its sting significantly. Less targets destroyed also means more passes over the target, increasing the chances of loosing airframes... not a good thing in any situation!

Perhaps research needs to be made into creating better fuses to reduce the chance of unexploded munitions, but the fact remains... its simply unreasonable to expect such a necessary and effective weapon to be banned. War is a sad and bloody thing, its a tragic fact that you will get civillian casulties in any conflict. It doesn't make it right, but its what happens in war.

[August]

The good news is that warfare involving "whole tank columns" will be less likely as the fabric of war changes.

I agree with the rest of what you said but what is more or less likely in future wars is pure speculation.

[baggygreen]

The good news is that warfare involving "whole tank columns" will be less likely as the fabric of war changes.
I agree with the rest of what you said but what is more or less likely in future wars is pure speculation.Personally i think the 'old style' of warfare is a better one in the sense that the enemy is clearly defined and so it is much easier to know your targets, and ultimately it's easier to win (or lose) than the current type where we're fighting insurgents who blend so nicely to the civvy population

[mrbeast]

The Israelis dropped cluster bombs all over Southern Lebanon a couple of years ago about a million bomblets are still unexploded and littering the countryside.

[August]

The Israelis dropped cluster bombs all over Southern Lebanon a couple of years ago about a million bomblets are still unexploded and littering the countryside.

Obviously that number is an exaggeration.

[mrbeast]

770 cluster-bomb sites have now been identified. And the current U.N. estimate is that Israel dropped between 2 million and 3 million bomblets on Lebanon, of which up to a million have yet to explode. In fact, it is estimated that there are more unexploded bomblets in southern Lebanon than there are people. They lurk in tobacco fields, olive groves, on rooftops, in farms, mixed in with rubble. They are injuring two or three people every day, according to the United Nations, and have killed 20 people since the cease-fire in August.
"What we did was insane and monstrous," one Israeli commander admitted to the newspaper Haaretz. "We covered entire towns in cluster bombs."

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=56096

Don't now how accurate the figures are either way theres a hell of a lot of unexploded ordnance lying about in Lebanon

[richardphat]

War from nowadays.............No need to do alot just press the button and a missile blow in a spot!............Get in a jet and drop bomb..............Soldier noways dont even need to see the victim to kill............:nope: :nope: :nope:
I said its the right thing to do those unexploded cluster are very dangerous.
Its true that those thing are very effective in war but still i felt they should find something else to use!

[RickC Sniper]

War from nowadays.............No need to do alot just press the button and a missile blow in a spot!............Get in a jet and drop bomb.


War still requires, and will continue to require boots on the ground to bring it to a conclusion.

[CCIP]

War from nowadays.............No need to do alot just press the button and a missile blow in a spot!............Get in a jet and drop bomb..............Soldier noways dont even need to see the victim to kill............:nope: :nope: :nope:
You say that with the confidence of someone who has first-hand experience in this sort of button-pressing war :hmm:


A lot of the high-tech illusions aren't just on one side I think. I think if you put yourself in the place of a modern pilot or even intelligence specialist, you'll see that their work is no button-fest but every bit as demanding, if not more demanding, than the "close" warfare of the past.

That said, my stance on cluster bombs is that they're nothing if not weapons of mass destruction. Their use absolutely needs to be regulated tightly if it can't be eliminated. The way they've been used in recent conflicts is unacceptable.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Mk-20 is no longer in the US inventory anymore, IIRC. CBU-89s and WCMD/GPS guided variant of that is still there though. I think those are the only ones?

Edit: Oh, and JSOW-A is cluster.

PD

[MothBalls]

They should be banned. The can inflict injuries decades after they were deployed and that's just not acceptable.

Actually any bomb is not acceptable, but we don't live in a perfect world. If we did, we wouldn't have or need any bombs at all.

[Ducimus]

I think a couple of civil war generals said it best:

- " War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it;"
- "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."

[PeriscopeDepth]

- " War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it;"
Agreed.

"Yay! We banned cluster bombs! Well, at least everybody did but the nations who are liable to actually use them."

What about nuclear weapons? Naval mines? DU rounds?

Anywhere you are dumping ordinance that civillians may be, they will die. War will never be "more civil".

PD

[richardphat]

What im trying to mean is we are trying to make war differently. Of course war brings death to each side...... But with cruise missile and other bla bla bla, why risking the life of our soldier when we can launch a rocket. I consider our modern warfare not a war but just to crush the ennemy unfair:nope: :nope:

[baggygreen]

What im trying to mean is we are trying to make war differently. Of course war brings death to each side...... But with cruise missile and other bla bla bla, why risking the life of our soldier when we can launch a rocket. I consider our modern warfare not a war but just to crush the ennemy unfair:nope: :nope:one has to ask then, should we return to the days of the trenches ie ww1? was that fairer cos it required men to do most of the work, not just unfairly won by pushing buttons??

Personally, I'd rather see world leaders duking it out with pistols at dawn, or even swords. but it aint even gonna happen, so any war in which the least number of people are killed is the way to go. If that means using JSOWs against enemy armour columns, so be it. if that means cratering a runway with clusters and killing as many ground- and repair-crew as possible, so be it.

I'd draw the line at delayed clusters though if i had it my way, and against clusters in civvy areas unless there are no other options

[Yahoshua]

What im trying to mean is we are trying to make war differently. Of course war brings death to each side...... But with cruise missile and other bla bla bla, why risking the life of our soldier when we can launch a rocket. I consider our modern warfare not a war but just to crush the ennemy unfair:nope: :nope:

What in the world are you smoking?

War is not about a "fair fight". War is fought until somebody wins or until neither side is capable of continuing the fight. War is a harsh, bloody, violent, and horrible thing and always will be. Get used to it.

Launching rockets is all well and good but rockets don't make the same ideological impact on governments that an occupation force will.

[CCIP]

What im trying to mean is we are trying to make war differently. Of course war brings death to each side...... But with cruise missile and other bla bla bla, why risking the life of our soldier when we can launch a rocket. I consider our modern warfare not a war but just to crush the ennemy unfair:nope: :nope:
What in the world are you smoking?

War is not about a "fair fight". War is fought until somebody wins or until neither side is capable of continuing the fight. War is a harsh, bloody, violent, and horrible thing and always will be. Get used to it.

Launching rockets is all well and good but rockets don't make the same ideological impact on governments that an occupation force will.
I don't think war ever was fair, yea. This actually sounds to me a lot like the infamous crossbow controversy - a weapon that the church (unsuccessfully) tried to ban as unfair and too harmful - IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

Likewise, I don't think there's as little risk as you assume and the decisions are taken as lightly as that. Frankly, not much has changed.
I'm always tempted to pull this video when people think modern warfare is not intense, consisting of little nerve and bravery and a lot of sanitary, reckless button pushing (recording from an F-16 frantically dodging multiple SAM launches over Baghdad... you tell me that doesn't take guts, strength and skill in the extreme)- http://youtube.com/watch?v=g5PNhNEW-os (http://youtube.com/watch?v=g5PNhNEW-os)

(and while saying all that, keep in mind that I consider myself a pacifist. Just a realistic one)

[richardphat]

What im trying to mean is we are trying to make war differently. Of course war brings death to each side...... But with cruise missile and other bla bla bla, why risking the life of our soldier when we can launch a rocket. I consider our modern warfare not a war but just to crush the ennemy unfair:nope: :nope:

What in the world are you smoking?

War is not about a "fair fight". War is fought until somebody wins or until neither side is capable of continuing the fight. War is a harsh, bloody, violent, and horrible thing and always will be. Get used to it.

Launching rockets is all well and good but rockets don't make the same ideological impact on governments that an occupation force will.

If only i can write in french I guess it would be correct if you guys use google translator! I hope moderator can forgivee me
Une guerre en effet est quelque chose de triste. Ce que je veux dire, cest le fait qu'un soldat arme est capable de tuer sans qu'il voit sa victime ou que la victime le voit. Cette methode est completement differente de celui que les gens connaissent comme la deuxieme guerre mondiale ou de la premiere. Les combattants savent qui sont les ennemi et ils voient qui sont leurs opposants. Tandis qu'une "guerre de nos jours", ils ne le sont plus. On lance une missile, torpilles, on lache une bombe......... Ce nest pas grave, pour un de ces engins on est capable de tuer des milliers de personnes. On connaissait les risques mais on les tente de les utiliser pour voir une ou deux fois comme Nagasaki et Hiroshima.
Je n'ai jamais dis qu'une guerre dois etre un combat juste, mais je voulais dire que la facon dont les peuples s'affrontent est differente maintenant "grace" aux engins qui sont plus mortels. De mon point de vue je dis que ce n'est plus une guerre mais un sorte de menace dont l'ennemi ne le saura!

Pss since i dont write english very well i used google translate, not very 100% since its a machine who do the job so:

A war is indeed something sad. What I am saying that is the fact that a soldier weapon is capable of killing without having seen the victim or the victim sees. This method is completely different from what people know as the second World War or the first. The combatants know who are the enemy and they see who their opponents. While a "war nowadays, they are not. We launch a missile, torpedoes, a bomb ......... This is not serious, for one of these devices one is able to kill thousands of people. They knew the risks but they are trying to use them to see once or twice as Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I never say that a war must be a just struggle, but I wanted to say that the way the people fighting is different now "grace" the gears that are more deadly. From my point of view I say that this is no longer a war but a kind of threat that the enemy will not know!


Sry guys google translator didnt satisfy me. It doesnt make sense sometimes

[TLAM Strike]

Considering some of the new weapons the DOD is working on it dosn't suprise me. The new "Cluster Bombs" if we can even call them that are something like a package of tiny self guiding anti-tank warheads. The A-10 and Paladian Gun/MRLS's anti-armor role is well protected dont worry.

[Jacky Fisher]

if you think Lebanon is bad, they keep digging up old shells from the First World War in Belgium and France nearly 90 years later. As for banning cluster bombs, if something better comes along, then they will be phased out anyway.

[Dowly]

What im trying to mean is we are trying to make war differently. Of course war brings death to each side...... But with cruise missile and other bla bla bla, why risking the life of our soldier when we can launch a rocket. I consider our modern warfare not a war but just to crush the ennemy unfair:nope: :nope:
What in the world are you smoking?

War is not about a "fair fight". War is fought until somebody wins or until neither side is capable of continuing the fight. War is a harsh, bloody, violent, and horrible thing and always will be. Get used to it.

Launching rockets is all well and good but rockets don't make the same ideological impact on governments that an occupation force will.
If only i can write in french I guess it would be correct if you guys use google translator! I hope moderator can forgivee me
Une guerre en effet est quelque chose de triste. Ce que je veux dire, cest le fait qu'un soldat arme est capable de tuer sans qu'il voit sa victime ou que la victime le voit. Cette methode est completement differente de celui que les gens connaissent comme la deuxieme guerre mondiale ou de la premiere. Les combattants savent qui sont les ennemi et ils voient qui sont leurs opposants. Tandis qu'une "guerre de nos jours", ils ne le sont plus. On lance une missile, torpilles, on lache une bombe......... Ce nest pas grave, pour un de ces engins on est capable de tuer des milliers de personnes. On connaissait les risques mais on les tente de les utiliser pour voir une ou deux fois comme Nagasaki et Hiroshima.
Je n'ai jamais dis qu'une guerre dois etre un combat juste, mais je voulais dire que la facon dont les peuples s'affrontent est differente maintenant "grace" aux engins qui sont plus mortels. De mon point de vue je dis que ce n'est plus une guerre mais un sorte de menace dont l'ennemi ne le saura!

Pss since i dont write english very well i used google translate, not very 100% since its a machine who do the job so:

A war is indeed something sad. What I am saying that is the fact that a soldier weapon is capable of killing without having seen the victim or the victim sees. This method is completely different from what people know as the second World War or the first. The combatants know who are the enemy and they see who their opponents. While a "war nowadays, they are not. We launch a missile, torpedoes, a bomb ......... This is not serious, for one of these devices one is able to kill thousands of people. They knew the risks but they are trying to use them to see once or twice as Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I never say that a war must be a just struggle, but I wanted to say that the way the people fighting is different now "grace" the gears that are more deadly. From my point of view I say that this is no longer a war but a kind of threat that the enemy will not know!


Sry guys google translator didnt satisfy me. It doesnt make sense sometimes

I agree with you on that the warfare has changed drasticly over the years. For an all out nation vs. nation conflict, it works well. But what I think it doesnt work that well to, is a situation between you and an independent army inside a nation, that would otherwise be neutral (IRAQ for example). The modern warfare is very destructive, but still not "accurate" enough to a fight against guerrillas.