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

[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]

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.

[Wreford-Brown]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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The UK has also rescinded the use of anti-personnel landmines (although certain anti-tank mines initiate at pressures of around 100 static kilos, or a thin man wearing body armour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]

Originally Posted by NealT

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]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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/arti23...ende_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.