The shame of clusterbombs

"Diaboloical" is an apt description, revere, but I think "terroristic" would be more accurate. The bombs do what they're designed to do--blow up random individuals, at random times--and how can that be anything but terrorism? The Pentagon's claim that cluster bombs "save" US troops is suspect too, since the remaining bomblets are just as likely to blow up a soldier scouting the area as anyone else. In all my reading on this topic, I've never seen a persuasive description of how cluster bombs fulfill any tactical objective, other than to terrorize the countryside. No civilized nation would deploy them.

Why aren't these considered "weapons of mass destruction"? I suppose the answer would be because the US wields them; therefore, they could not possibly be considered WMDs.

Kathleen-Now here's the problem with what you state up there. Bombs are designed to kill people. They have but one purpose and they do it. Generally speaking someone bombs another someone because they are pissed off at them. Okay, so we use something that kills people or their kids or livestock. So the point is what? The rationale is that we should pull them because they kill collaterals? I think that rather than that the assumption is that if we didnt use them at all that collaterals wouldnt be killed? Is it an inhuman weapon that kills you with one shot. What would we do if we didnt use those? We would have to field more soldiers is what..... Better to think this thru a bit. We kill on about a 6-8 to one ratio overall when we get to it right now. If these were dropped on a massed formation that would pretty much take them out of the fray. Thats what they were designed for.

I do advocate the limitation of civilian casualties, but in the case of Lebanon its the dress that they wear that makes it not terrorism and only an attack on enemy targets. Not combatants in particular and thats where this goes a bit south. They are attacking in most cases places where strongholds are. Cluster bombs are both enemy concentration reduction and area deprivation weapons. Just as a Durandal weapon is used on a runway to keep enemy planes from taking off. Runway deprivation.

These weapons keep people from running around so you CAN keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. You encircle the area with clusters and timed clusters and they aint going far. They are going to keep their heads down because those things keep going off. Just a few after that there will be either a napalm or 1000 lb unit dropped and it will finish the job in the middle. Quit using them? Ever seen what a clustering of 1000 pounders does?.... That would be the other option, and they too might not go off. Let me give you an idea.... London during the Blitz. That was the deliberate targeting of a city by a country. We responded in kind.

The idea in a war or enemy action is to kill your opponent and worry only somewhat about the civilian casualties. Its an act of war and the purpose of war should be to win. We get into this every now and then here. If all things were equal would you be just as dead if someone nuked you rather than fragged, cluster'd or napalmed you? Of course.

In the past wars were fought to be won. Now we have gotten into this politically correct stuff. WWII the Dresden, Bremen response in kind raids yielded 100,000 casualties and about 50,000 of those burned to death as the decision was made to take out the town because thats where the munitions workers lived. Schools, hospitals, etc. all went down in flames as the area was nape'd and incendiaried. If Hitler had won then both Churchill and Roosevelt would have been tried as war criminals. He who is standing after the fact gets to make the rules.

Here is the problem with what Revere says and its in the first para.... Where these weapons are being used they are all as a rule combatants. They move in and out of combatant designation when it suits them. Even the women. They always have the right to put on a uniform so we can hit the soldiers only, but again we are the only ones that want to play that game in the mid-east.

I will give grudgingly that one to Saddam and that is at least he had the cahoonies to put his military in and not some ragged clothed indviduals with a headdress on. He saved a lot of people with that. We hit their Air Force and Army headquarters with smart bombs and didnt have to use clusters. Clusters are for places and days when nothing else will work or that they serve a direct purpose.

But back to those same individuals who wont put on a uniform as required by Geneva. They have their children go to school to learn to hate the US and Israel. Just as they learned in Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's to hate Russia. So we are all talking about the semantics of combatant. Killing of civilians should be avoided at all costs and so far we and a few others are the only ones playing that game, however limited and light that game might be. Doesnt seem to affect those folks on the other side of the planet because they jack airplanes and fly them into buildings.

I would say thats pretty immoral too.

And Kathleen, all of those civilized countries that you allude to use them. It makes up for shortcomings in total forces... an equalizer if you will. Have to have weapons to fight wars and defend turf and borders and protect the national interests. Funny this comes up because there was an article from the 1700's that complained that the US was using grape shot against massed British forces.... How unsportsman of them.

I once took a group of teenagers for a trip around the Science Museum in London and they were having an exhibition about warfare. Half the kids in my group were standing around laughing at the sign that said, "How can we make safe bombs?" (Interesting discussion ensued.)

Thousand pounder MRK, some 2,000 pounders have been developed and are being tested.
You're correct in you analysis by the way.

Gee, a person on a motorcycle blew him self up yesterday in Afghanistan and took out 20 young men plus a few policemen. That's acceptable aye?

Here is the problem with what Revere says and its in the first para.... Where these weapons are being used they are all as a rule combatants. They move in and out of combatant designation when it suits them. Even the women.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is absolute unreconstructed bullshit. Every single man, woman and child in the mid-east is a combatant? Even among the other "inaccuracies" of your post that one really stands out.

It is simple. It does not matter what "they" do. That doesn't make what "we" do any more or less moral. Using CBMs, land mines, using incendiary or chemical weapons against civilian populations, using torture, the list goes on and on. There is no moral justification for it. In fact trying to justify it as if such justification were possible just makes it that much worse.

I've known about cluster bombs devastating effects for awhile, but for the first time this post made me think how much cluster bombs are like roadside bombs.

Both kill indiscriminately long after they are set. The only differences I can see are the differences between road and field, centrally manufactured versus improvised, used by the invaders versus used by the invaded.

P.S. -- Why does saying something "we" do is wrong imply that something "they" do is right?

Answer: it doesn't. So arguments about the evil of what "they" do fail in basic logic.

Alexandra you based your argument in the premise that they are not combatants. I disagree. They are in many cases using the civilian population to hide behind. They could always throw the bastards out into the streets. This is a war that has only one side in uniform. There is no win their hearts and minds, that went out the window when they blew up airplanes in the desert, took hostages American and Israelis and others, and then because they are the government in Lebanon rather than the puppet one of the Syrians they got their asses whacked.

As I have said before they can always put on a uniform and come on out for a couple of hours chat, or they can face the music when they attack yet another school bus. I have little or no pity for them as they are all of the same cloth, some are just a bit cleaner than the others. And remember Alexandra, this is the same group that would put you into a burqa, and make you walk 3 paces behind, and beat the hell out of you any time they felt it was necessary. Education? Only under their auspices and you can go when the other wives want you to. They can also take your kids away from you if you have any and put you out on the street to beg. Yup, just the group you want to support.

CBM's? Please, I dont fight wars with one hand behind my back. I wouldnt use them anyway. 1000 pounders or bust. After 15 or 20 of those in Teheran they'll be praying to Allah for it to stop. A near miss from three blocks away will likely kill you. If there is to be war then make war and not some insinuation that its immoral because of how you do it. Fight it with honor if you can, if you cant then you go after them at their level and that could be very low.

The purpose of war is just one...win it. The reason we were attacked was that we dont scare them anymore. Time to make sure they understand that they might not like the outcome and frankly it sickens me when I see our guys getting whacked and politicians arguing over armor for Hummers, guns and ammo. The thing that sickens me the most? Politically correct war with an enemy that attacks OUR civilians and then to have our own citizens and political candidates saying we were strafing women and children. This is coming from the people who conveniently forgot that these same sacks of shit bombed the vaunted UN headquarters in Baghdad. To put a razor sharp edge on it do we call you a pacificst, an appeaser, or someone who just has never been out in the field.

Be glad that I am not in charge of military operations. You wouldnt have had any Abu Ghraibs on my watch, but you sure as hell would have had that 600,000 body count and that would have happened as fast as I could have made it so, or until that white flag went up. But it would be from soldiers and not some rag wearing mafia thats employing the tactics of the Costra Nostra and then some. Sounds to me like you are supporting beheadings? My memory is very long on these things Alexandra... Hows yours.

And yes, in varying degrees they would like to see this country fall and if you want I can post you up all sorts of websites in the Mid-East that DAILY from every country tell Muslims to attack Americans, Brits, Aussies, Germans, French, and Italians. They are in jihad and that means holy war. So its a declared war but you just havent gotten the memo just yet. Cluster bombs may be the least we end up using on them and in they near future.

Randy: Your argument would seem to say that the 9-11 attacks were justified because the command and control of the US was hiding behind the civilians in the Twin Towers. Which is utter nonsense but the kind of utter nonsense your arguments lead to. You are the mirror image of al-Qaeda.

"Diaboloical" is an apt description, revere, but I think "terroristic" would be more accurate.

I think the proper word is cowardly.

And the mirror shatters Revere. The failure of the country to understand that we are going to get hit again and again and again if we go back to this negotiation crap is absolutely astounding.

I pose the question Revere.... What would YOU have done to stop 9/11 if you knew it was coming? Torture? Attack Teheran? Please do tell me. We hit one of the targets that was responsible, the next one is in the crosshairs.

No Revere, your argument is that cluster munitions are immoral because they continue to kill after an engagement. That is true to a limited degree but after five or so years they start to disintegrate internally.

It doesnt surprise me that the people who are least engaged in wars are the ones who try to define the weapons, and how they are used. If we simply went through a town with a machete cutting people into pieces wouldnt you just be as dead? If you are going to kill someone in a war then do it quick and move on as far as I am concerned.

The US and all of those other countries you mention keep those weapons around because they are equalizers, you use them on high concentrations of troop formations, airbases and if directed, against civilian targets. Incendiaries, Napalm, etc actually keep the total number of killed down. Why? Because you dont have to field as many troops on the low end spectrum. You put troops in the field I can guarantee you will use them. Having a large army ensures you will use that might as an option more readily than if you didnt. Case in point was Carter and the Kremlin. We were outnumbered about 30 to 1 when they invaded and that duly elected President had gutted the military to the point that we couldnt have stopped Cuba much less sixteen combat brigades. The Russians of course used CBMs on the civilians of Afghanistan.

Wars used to be fought with honor and men were the weapons. Then technology arrived and made us the better mousetraps. Its the thought of war and what is used that is unbearable for most people. People who have no stake in war always are seeking some kind of justice out of the world where there is none. Justice when it gets to the shooting kind of war lies at the end of your hand via a rifle, pickle button, or a flip of a switch. Everyone just gets to make a decision whether they want to play by the rules or go to war... One side has decided that we are the Great Satan, our side has decided to oblige that thought. But, until that shifts we should have and use every weapon at our disposal to stop, intercept, mitigate and destroy those who would attack us. I can assure you that they wouldnt hesitate to do the same to us.

Lassi-So you would suggest pistols at 20 paces? I would agree that it would have more honor. But Cowards hide behind children. We dont, they do.

Women are excluded now from "women and children" because they carry body bombs.

That statement about civilians being killed or maimed more oft than soldiers isnt correct BTW. Thats the propagandaspeak. If someone uses a CBM in a "civilian" area its not because there are civilians there.

Randy: Wars were never fought with honor. They were fought just like this one, dishonorably all around on all sides. That's what war does to people. And the rhetoric of war, the rhetoric which you use, is also typical of all wars and all sides. Some of the bitterest foes of wars are those who have fought them. And some of the biggest supporters are those who haven't and won't have to. So that argument is bogus. As are all of your arguments, which are merely justifications for whatever today's decision makers have decided. Bahh --- as in sheep.

revere and MRK: you both have valid thoughts and ideas that are unique to your life experience. and revere you might not be here if it weren't for honorable men and women who fought in wars to protect our behinds.

MRK said: People who have no stake in war always are seeking some kind of justice out of the world where there is none.

Bottom line in that sentence:
There is no justice in this world.
We just let our imagination convince us that there is.

Lea: That wasn't the point Randy made. Both sides routinely acted in barbaric ways during WWII. That's war. Randy seems to think that this kind of barbarism in war is new to this day and age. Hardly.

No Lea and thats exactly my point that Revere made. But not the second part. We are just better barbarians now and that just screws with the chi of the peaceniks. The bottom line is that it used to be much more honorable than it is now. Where is the honor in dropping a weapon from 35,000 feet except to know that as opposed to WWII and Vietnam that it will likely hit the target with 89% accuracy? Didnt have that luxury in WWII. The B-24's were very, very good at causing civilian casualties because it was fast and kind of slung it in there. The results were that often the factory they hit blew out the side and hit houses and hospitals and the like. It was the best weapon system they had at the time. Now we spend about 50,000 per smart bomb and it keeps the casualties down.

War is barbaric. But when diplomacy fails as it is now ....Teheran in particular is going to bear the brunt of a major attack. All they have to do is let the inspectors in as all of the other countries in the world do that have nuke power, bio, chemical generally do and all will be forgiven. But the amount of carnage that is required to subdue a foreign country like Iraq or Iran is generally achieved through air power. That means big bombs and keeping their ground people on the move and under cover. Then when they mass you hit them hard.

We could have ended Baghdad in a day from high altitude bombing. Three wings of Bufs or B2's could have laid down those thousand pounders without regard for civilian casualties and it would have been over. We could have napalmed them and didnt. We could have also used a tactical nuke. Bottom line is that unless you want US casualties (which I think some of them here do) you have to use the big weapons, smart weapons and sometimes weapons that just might kill you... and your family as you scurry for cover into the house. To have bigger military means we might use it more often and its way too costly to maintain it.

Or you can negotiate.

Randy: The idea you could end the war in a day with bombing is nonsense. Unless you want to use nuclear devices, that has never happened. Nixon/Kissinger tried it on North Vietnam and it didn't work. And the blowback internationally would be horrific. You can't bomb a people into submission. History has taught us that.

Revere we didnt bomb the North for almost six years. It was okay to kill a crossroads, or a radar site but we never went after party headquarters or the cities targets.

We have never bombed anyone into submission because of that international blowback except four times in history and it broke the back of the Germans. They were finished within weeks of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Revere, unrestricted bombing of Baghdad with 1000 pound bombs laid in a pattern would have leveled the place and they wouldnt have been bombed into submission, they would have been nearly all dead. Perhaps you should explore the thermobaric weapons that have even more force. Fuel/Air weapons generate something in the 1/2 megaton range. Five of them in a pattern over Teheran would do the trick if there was a motivation.

FAE'x were employed in both desert wars and over formations. There were in many cases not a mark on them, but they were dead. Inhumane? Depends on perspective. But after four days those troops were giving up in droves.

I want the US and its allies to have every weapon at its disposal if it becomes necessary to use them... CBMs are the smallest thing on the tip our spear.

We have never bombed anyone into submission because of that international blowback except four times in history and it broke the back of the Germans.

Randy, you just displayed the most stunning ignorance, about a subject you purport to know well.

What finished Germany was

(1) The encirclement and subsequent loss of von Paulus' 6'th Army at Stalingrad, and

(2) Their failure in the Kursk-Orel campaign. They could not afford, by that time, any other result than complete roaring success. Model's Ninth Army ground to a halt without even breaking through the perimeter. The southern attack broke through, but slammed into advancing Soviet armored reserves at Prokorovka. The result of that meeting engagement was tactically inconclusive, but a strategic defeat for the Wehrmacht, which was compelled to retreat. The Soviet counterblow against the German salient around Orel sealed their defeat.

A month later, the Red Army retook Kharkov. By the end of the fourth week of September, they had bridgeheads on the western side of the Dneiper.

Operation Bagration was a year later, but Kursk made the magnitude of that German defeat inevitable. And Bagration went in more than 6 months before the attack on Dresden. Look it up.

The Germans were bled to death in the east.

Even after the American/British breakout from the Normady lodgement, and the resulting pell-mell chase down the length of (formerly occupied) France, the Germans were sending two out of every three replacements east, not west.

I know you aren't going to refrain from conjuring so-called "facts" out of so much hot air, in support of whatever lunacy you're defending this time.

But when you do, expect to be called on it.

Ummm. bombs suck period. the ones that explode when intended and the ones that don't and lurk for later. easy peasy that one, at least for me.

Thing is a lot of people like bombs, some of the comments reflect that, seeing them as needed. A lot of us don't agree. I know more than a few people who work in technical jobs (data, webwork, etc) who used to work on software for defense contractors, maybe just the shipping software for the bomb deliveries (true example), maybe more serious. But they came to a point at which they could not stomach what they were participating in and found other work.

That is the attitude the world needs, en masse.

Read what you want into the comments tendrel however, I don't like bombs nor do I like killing.

When subhuman's or troglodyte's go around killing people for their religions, then a bomb is actually a merciful way to deal with distorted sick minds.

Now go ahead and twist the above paragraph around anyway you like because I don't care.

Charles-You cant fight a war without materiel and that is the reason that the four cities were firebombed. It was the key to the end.

Paulus lost because he couldnt get resupplied. Its as simple as that. BTW-Stalingrad was 1942......Square that up with firebombing that ended the EU war by May of 45.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2002/MOUTLewis.htm

We hit Dresden and the others in February of 45....On only two days of bombings

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/index.html

They surrendered only a 12 weeks after this Charles. Encirclements, cut offs and then surrenders by cities, open cities and in particular whole army groups. But, its a war and series of events. Both fronts were collapsing within days after these attacks on what was left of the German war machine. .......No fuel, no ammo and no one to fight any longer. They were also still using trains to haul Jews rather than ammo.

But its about cluster bombs.....Not how we got thru WWII. The Germans were dropping V-1's and 2's on London, as they also bombed the shit out of in the Blitz. Anyone want to give cover on 1500 pound weapons that are intended to kill civilians?

They could have at least aimed them at Southampton where the embarkation points were.

But in London it was doubtless that many people were killed by the harsh rhetoric of one Charles Roten in those attacks.

Libs......

Sigh......

........

"There never was a good war or a bad peace."
Benjamin Franklin

.......

Personally, my issue with this type of munition is not just that it kills civilians (who ought to be assumed innocent), but that it kills them years *after* the conflict has ended. There is no tactical advantage to killing a civilian who was not yet born during the conflict.

There is no way for children, or the unborn, to have any impact on a conflict. They cannot "throw them out" they cannot choose to not carry a bomb. So what good could it possibly do to blow the leg off a farmer who never did anything during the conflict in which the bombs were dropped?

UO is the Energizer bunny of war. It keeps going long after everything else has (sensibly) stopped.

War is king of unintended consequences, but this has been magnified a thousandfold by the introduction of stable explosives. Otherwise French potato farmers would not still have to worry about bombs in their fields that were fired when their grandfathers were children.

Hi Lea, I am not in the habit of twisting anyone's words around, sorry if you thought I was. I didn't call anyone out as far as the comments, I just think it is a shame that we as humans resort to violence so easily and quickly. Violence as a solution to violence is somewhat poetic I suppose and as you point out can seem the wisest choice given the circumstances sometimes.

Myself, I would like to see an end to the "sick and twisted minds" from the onset, not a fix that amounts to destructive actions later. Alas, I know it will never be, people will always be warped, at least some of us.

personally, I am buddhist, and find it amusing and appalling all at once when I hear of buddhist ideals being pushed with violent acts. Humans are strange strange creatures to be sure.
End of story, cluster bombs still shameful in my opinion. I wouldn't take any job that had anything to do with that side of things.

I agree entirely with Randy's (and his other supporters') comments. Human nature is what it is. We don't live in a utopia. Lions have not yet lain down with lambs. A wise old saying is that inappropriate mercy or kindness eventually leads to greater cruelty. Military history has hundreds of examples where a ruthlessly achieved victory ultimately resulted in less civilian and military casualties. Those who express fastidious reservations about the horrors of war, do so over the bodies of the millions of our fathers who sacrificed their lives in JUST wars to save your clean, blessedly peace-filled lives (and asses). Viet Nam and the Iraq "situation" was/is criminal in only one aspect. That our ruthless polititicians used/use our valiant soldiers as cannon fodder, when we could have brought all of our power to bear against our enemies. When a country (reluctantly) decides to go to war, its entire population should be involved and at risk, and it damned well better use EVERYTHING at its disposal to CRUSH the enemy, which will result in peace (and fear and respect - not "blowback" - from our erstwhile enemies and the rest of the uninvolved world, who chose to remain uninvolved, thereby making the conflict and how it was fought none of their damned business).

Now, as to cluster bombs; they're inappropriate. If they fail to explode, they fail in their immediate intended purpose - to kill the enemy at hand; and yes, inappropriately killing innocent civilians in an irrelevant time and setting. I'm not an ordinance expert, but I don't see why innert projectiles (that could be scientifically shaped and of the appropriate penetrating materials) to effectively kill the intended massed enemy, and then remain innert thereafter.

Appreciate the response tendrel. Pleased to hear you are Buddhist, it's close to what I am practicing.

You said: "Alas, I know it will never be, people will always be warped, at least some of us".
Yep, and then again, we as a society (across the globe) are so 50-50, so divided. Therefore your quoted sentence will always apply until unity in an unified world persists.