Russia used cluster bombs in Georgia

[Mikhayl]

---

[XabbaRus]

Big deal, US and UK have used them in other war zones. I don't see the big scandal.

[Wreford-Brown]

Cluster bombs are a legitimate tool of war.

The UK has made a decision not to use them in current operational theatres but not to get rid of them all together.

[Jimbuna]

Nasty little buggas, irrespective of which side uses them :o

[TarJak]

TBH they've gotta use em somewhere...:hmm:

[Skybird]

German news interviewed a witness who was at location and who is member of Human Rights Watch, saying that the Georgians used cluster bombs first, and that this was proven by chronological order of events, and intentionally against civilian areas in cities and in rural places as well. Not before 24-36 hours latter the Russian heavy artillery fired back in full strength, and then the chronological order of impact events and who did what can no longer be proven. Yes the Russians used cluster ammunition. But the Georgians used it first, and from the beginning, and not against military targets accepting collateral damage, but intentionally against civilian targets that were more or less free of Russian troops. It is the same attotude that made them using heavy missile artllery to fire like crazy into housing blocks during their initial noight attack that started it all.

Geogia the innocent victim? Dream on.

[NealT]

Nasty little buggas, irrespective of which side uses them :o

True...but think those are nasty? How about smart cluster bombs, who seek out heat sources and aim right for them...or fleschette rounds coming out of a 106 mm recoiless, or heck, even an IED can be a real flesh eater...

Yes, they are nasty all right...but then again, one of these days, we will graduate to a 'clean weapon' where you point, click, and your target vanishes into little atomic particles without a trace of ever existing.

[Wreford-Brown]

IMO the use of cluster bombs with more than 0% of duds is a scandal regardless of which country drops them. That's what I wanted to point out, not yet another plain "Russia is evil" thing if that matters.

I fully agree, and the decision the UK made was partially based on the fluid front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan that meant that either civilians or friendly troops were at risk from the small percentage of cluster munitions that did not function as intended.

The UK has also rescinded the use of anti-personnel landmines (although certain anti-tank mines initiate at pressures of around 100 static kilos, or a thin man wearing body armour running onto it) as well as any weapon designed to use fire as it's method of injury (I think this one is a Geneva Convention, but I'm a bit rusty).

Besides, why use expensive cluster munition when GMLRS can hit a target with around a 1m accuracy at up to 70km range.

Precision weaponry is taking over from area weaponry.

[Platapus]

Nasty little buggas, irrespective of which side uses them :o

True...but think those are nasty? How about smart cluster bombs, who seek out heat sources and aim right for them...or fleschette rounds coming out of a 106 mm recoiless, or heck, even an IED can be a real flesh eater...

Yes, they are nasty all right...but then again, one of these days, we will graduate to a 'clean weapon' where you point, click, and your target vanishes into little atomic particles without a trace of ever existing.


I don't think the killing power of the cluster munition is what bothers people. As you pointed out, there are no "nice" weapons. I think what bothers people, including me, is that the cluster munition has, through the duds, the capability of killing/injuring people far past the operational necessity of the weapon.

A flechette round is nasty but it is a short duration weapon. It hits you or it does not. A week later when a child picks it us they may poke themselves in the finger but it won't kill them. A cluster munition is different. It kills the people in the area during the operation (like a good weapon should) but then after the battle, it stays there until some kid picks it up.

There are many weapons that have been developed that nations have decided not to use. Atomic weapons, Biological weapons, Chemical weapons. I think that cluster munitions and land mines (unless they have a self destruct/neutralization capability) need to be added to the list of good effective weapons that we choose not to use because of the indiscriminate harm they cause.

Just because a weapon system is an effective killer, does not mean that we have to use it.

[Letum]

Don't use the past tense with cluster bombs.

If they where deployed 5 years ago, they will still be maiming farmers today.

[Happy Times]

I think bans on cluster weapons or landmines are naive, the difference is how you use them, indiscrimnetly or with judgement.

[Happy Times]

Besides, why use expensive cluster munition when GMLRS can hit a target with around a 1m accuracy at up to 70km range.

Precision weaponry is taking over from area weaponry.

I think you nailed it, I don't believe these weapons are actually so valuable militarily speaking.

Besides when you see the numbers of duds left on the ground you're led to wonder wether it's intentional or not. Actually wondering is even naïve, IMO this weapon is mostly used to "polute" the ground and screw the people living there. In the HRW article on Georgia they say the fields ready for harvesting or used for livestock are full of duds, what kind of strategic military target is that ? Btw it's the same in south Lebanon, but it's true that over there terrorists could eventually hide under the olive trees.
I wonder if Russia will accept to send precise data of the areas targetted for demining (which Israel refused).

Our defence is a prime exsample that cannot function without these, we dont plan to litter them just all over the place. Though im sure the Russians would, i dont think they will sign a ban ever.

[Kapitan]

CBU units have been restricted on use but not banned most countries including france germany uk usa have signed the treaty restricting thier useage in civilian areas however RUSSIA DID NOT !

Most of georgias equipment is russian and it states the obvious the the russians use russian equipment too, prove it on a battle field you cant.

Its war you could not tell me you would not do the same to protect your own country in that situation because if you dont use them im pretty sure your enamy will and thats the diffrence between victory and defeat.

Its war get over it it happens.

[Skybird]

If that's TV news, do you know if they have the info on their website ? Strangely enough HWR website only mentions Russian cluster bombs as of now (not that I have any doubt that Georgia would have used them too).
About the heavy missile artillery , I've read this morning in French newspaper "le canard enchainé" that US officers assisted the Georgian army to set the attack, citing anonymous sources in French army HQ in Paris...
No not TV news, but print and online.The first note of it was this:

http://www.welt.de/welt_print/arti2350025/Eher_Dutzende_als_Tausende_Tote.html

I then saw it the same day and one day later mentioned in two other online resources as well, but cannot find it anymore since I did not remember which papers it was, or sites. The women in that interview was not the only one saying so.

She also says in that article that it were not the russians committing crimes aginst the civilians, but militias - with the russians forming cordons in an attempt to keep the militias away from them. she also says that the numbers of killed people is exaggeated, judging by the records of the hospitals they visited. Projecting these records to the full pictures she says that the number of killed (at that point of time) were not two thousand but rather several dozen.

I think I had linked that article before.

A critical voice confirming her views also was that of some speaker for some organization I overheared in radio by chance. What I mean is: she is not as alone with her views as one ight think, but in the West it has become en vogue to blame it all on the russians. This is becasue of a clever sentimental PR campaign by Saakashvilli, and American pressure to favour a wanted "truth". Gorbatchev has rightfully complained about this in the essay by him that I linked some days ago.

[Happy Times]

There is also lot of analysis how the Russians planned this, so Shakasvilis person and actions arent that significant in this. We have discussed this before, but this analysis has been argued atleast as well the one you are promoting.

[Kapitan]

A year ago now we had a WW2 mine find its way up the thames river shall we ban mines too?

Last week we had an unexploded shell in shoebury ness shall we ban these too?

Nuclear bombs were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki shall we ban these as well?

At the end of the day to achieve peace you must first go to war Albert Einstiene once said "i know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought with but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

War is part of human life the earliest man was found with a spear in his rib cage if we dont use weapons to our own advantage then we will be over run and taken war involves everybody civilian or millatry, its the civilians who make the weapons the millatry who use them so by killing both you defeat the country in hand cut the supply you have achieved a major goal thats what donetz tried to do with his u boats.

You can easily sit in your arm chair saying how bad war is and that we shouldnt use this that and the offical statistics realsed by BIAS sources didcate that x amount is a dud weapon and crap like that most people are clueless as to what the thing does.

There was a legislation past with the UN security council stating that air craft should stay in the area untill the weapon is detonated or if it does fail report the location back to thier CO first put into practice in the Afghanistan war used sucsessfully in iraq untill thier air defence systems started to shoot them down so to get round it they put in GPS locators so they can find where the weapon is when they eventually get there.

If you dont like CBU's dont read about them dont listen about them blank them USA used CBU's to carpet bomb most of the afghan areas dropped from B52's

War is a fact of life and its people who protest about it that makes it even harder for the troops personally if i was incharge of a country and anti war actavist activly protesting around millatery sites i would have them executed on the grounds of treason and sabotage.

[SUBMAN1]

Everyone uses CBU's. Not a big deal. The reports that they were used on civilians disturbs me a bit, but civilians is a legitimate target in war, not barred by the Geneva convention. Break the will of the civilians and you break the will of the people to fight back.

An example is the US firebombing German civilians in WWII.

The funny thing is, no one gives the US credit these days for carefully working around civilians. They don't have to do this. They just do it because they care. So they use more expensive bombs in place of cheaper ones that could possibly do collateral damage.

Russia has no such qualms. They don't have to either.

-S

[Skybird]

so Shakasvilis person and actions arent that significant in this
Nonsense. It is very much about this autocratic Trottel. Most other leaders in his place would have acted with much more caution and spiking emotion. Ein Trottel wie er im Buche steht - and his people have to pay for his lack of scruples. That they still support him does not earn them my respect at all. They should bring him to court instead - and this is my private opinion on the man - I am not defending the Russians call here. That they do not like him, too, is pure coincidence in this case.

[Kapitan]

And that post is precisely the reason why you're not in charge :up:

Btw, I don't mind war, personally I think it's got to be the one of most thrilling sport on earth even if a bit cheap compared to alpinism. But anyway when I practice any sport I never try to involve bystanders.

Oh and the WWII comparison is total BS, it was a full scale war where indeed the people was the backbone of the military. Here Russia would eat the whole Georgian army no matter the will of the Georgian people and Georgia could cover Russia with cluster bombs it wouldn't change that fact. If they targetted civilians it's pure hatred nothing else, support that as much as you want.


One man with a strong will and determination can defeat an army.

i dont support the attacking of civilians but according to western democracy everyone has the right of free expression and speech the ossetians are trying to embrace the way the want to live along side russia so why is georgia challenging this personally the clap trap the americans give out is more BS than ever.

[August]

On the other hand we have the thousands of Georgians driven out of their homes in their own country because Russia wants control of those provinces.

[Wreford-Brown]

but civilians is a legitimate target in war, not barred by the Geneva convention.

Break the will of the civilians and you break the will of the people to fight back.
-S

Civilians ARE NOT a legitimate target, and nor are unarmed soldiers. They are both protected by the Geneva Convention:

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are part of international humanitarian law – a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals.
They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).
The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches (http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMGF9)"; those responsible for breaches must be punished.

The Geneva Conventions have been acceded to by 194 States (http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView) and enjoy universal acceptance.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions

[Kapitan]

The geneva convention is only applicable to those countries that have signed it and as south ossetia hasnt signed the geneva convention there fore civilians are legitimate targets.

[Thomen]

The geneva convention is only applicable to those countries that have signed it and as south ossetia hasnt signed the geneva convention there fore civilians are legitimate targets.

Georgia signed it, there fore it is applicable. ;)

[Kapitan]

The geneva convention is only applicable to those countries that have signed it and as south ossetia hasnt signed the geneva convention there fore civilians are legitimate targets.

Georgia signed it, there fore it is applicable. ;)

The break away republic which is recognised by the UN has not

[AntEater]

This does not give you free reign in how to use force.
In fact, a geneva convention signatory is first and foremost bound herself.
No matter who the enemy is.
Non state actors were not yet in consideration in the 19th century, but even the geneva convention recognizes the forces of a "levee en masse" as combatants.
This was included especially to protect revolutionary forces.
Used as an analogy, this means that even partisans, freedom fighters, terrorists or however you wish to define irregular, non state combatants fall under the protection of the Geneva convention.
You don't get a free reign just because your enemy is not a recognized state.
The geneva convention even binds you if the enemy is a recognized state but has declined to sign the convention. The convention limits first and foremost the means of warfare of the signatory state. It is not a mutual agreement on force limitation, but rather, a one sided declaration of limited use of force.

But as previous posters said, cluster munitions are not generally outlawed in international law.
Many believe they should and many states, not including the US and Russia, have signed a treaty which is supposed to limit their use, but even there almost all signatory states left themselves legal loopholes.
Germany signed the treaty but has declared it will keep her existing cluster munitions for national defense until a new generation of cluster weapons becomes available that have a much lower dud rate.

And regarding its use on civilians, there were civilian deaths on both sides, but I suppose neither side had hurting civilians as their prime objective.
The war was simply too short for "Bomber Harris" style terror bombing.
The georgians had to overcome quite substantial defenses in the initial attack. These were in a city, hence civilian deaths from cluster munitions. The russians, despite georgian propaganda, had the main aim of dismanteling the georgian military. In a non-desert area, there's always a good chance of area weapons hitting civilians.
But sides simply had other objectives in this war, at least on command level. On the ground, I suppose both sides committed atrocities (you can't send the Vostok battalion somewhere and expect a clean war!) but these were not the primary objective.

[Thomen]

The geneva convention is only applicable to those countries that have signed it and as south ossetia hasnt signed the geneva convention there fore civilians are legitimate targets.
Georgia signed it, there fore it is applicable. ;)
The break away republic which is recognised by the UN has not

Doesn't matter. You sign it, you behave accordingly.

[SUBMAN1]

Someone explain firebombing Dresden, or nuking Hiroshima then? I am puzzled.

I am guessing this is meant to protect civi's who are not citizens of a given country taking part in the fighting.

-S

[JHuschke]

However, I do hope Russia wins the war but I think anyone has the right to use any type of weapon in war. It's a war right? U.S. doesn't need to tell other countries what to do..it can become a war for America. I assure you, it would be a win for Russia if there was a war between them and the U.S. Having fought in Iraq for years there aren't enough troops and enough resources to fight back. Of course there are reserves but even that wouldn't be enough.

Don't try to involve yourselves in a war blaming a country for starting a war when it was defending itself.

[Thomen]

Someone explain firebombing Dresden, or nuking Hiroshima then? I am puzzled.

I am guessing this is meant to protect civi's who are not citizens of a given country taking part in the fighting.

-S

If I remember correctly, the involved countries are still bickering and bitching about that.
Furthermore, the version of the Geneva Convention in question is from 1977. (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.)

[CaptHawkeye]

Ya know, the idea that we can have a "controlled war" or "moderated war" is a very modern idea. All throughout history people have never done that, or shown much motivation for it. It's just a contemporary notion that one can wage a "civil" war that's come from the "self-esteem" hand holding society we run these days. War is hell. No amount of Geneva Conventions or Rules will change it. It some ways, it should not be changed.

[Mush Martin]

I find the debate of the morality of various types of bombs a little
strange. I realize this stuff comes up Dum Dum bullets and bloodgroves
come to mind.

But if your in your in for a penny or a pound your in to win not lose
if it works use it.

Thermobaryc weapons are a reasonably horrible to die from Im sure
but the decision is made not to chew up son's doing it with boots.
and Kaboom the morality of the decision is the same type of reasoning
and rationale used by truman. why should I send folks to die again
if I have a tool to subdue the enemy.

different types of bombs have different applications but all applications
are against the enemy.

I dont feel that a cluster bomb a thermobaryc weapon or
a neutron bomb are any more or less moral than a hand grenade.

JMO
MM