Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NealT
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jimbuna
Nasty little buggas, irrespective of which side uses them  |
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.