Cluster bombs: refusing to refuse

It's amazing how it's not enough for the US to not sign the treaty, but they have to pressure other countries not to sign it also. Hope our attitude changes soon.

The US is not going to change it's attitude soon.
One of the industries that is still exporting and profitable happens to be the the weapon industry.

An Observation on Effect Measures Honesty & request for help 12 6 08

Dear Colleagues:

Bravo for Effect Measures its posting on the US governments refusal to ban cluster munitions.

I believe that a partial explanation of Effect Measures epitomization of integrity is rests on Effect Measures adherence to principled discourse analysis, viz.: its use of coherent metaphors as well as its refusal to deploy facts which are literally true or partially true to hide massive lies.

As we all know, metaphors are literally false, but if they are coherent (apt because they contain identical elements in the same relationship among the two disparate terms of the metaphor) they, can, ironically but powerfully, reveal deep truths.

Equally ironically, literal truths, especially partial truths are often used to disguise massive and horrific lies -- an abuse of reasoned discourse to which Revere never resorts. But alas even quality news sources such as BBC often employ this deceptive device. For example, few would doubt the scale of the humanitarian crisis whose immediate cause is corruption by elements of the government of Zimbabwe leading to massive numbers of preventable deaths from water borne disease.

Tragically (criminally?) BBC appears to use this partial truth to hide far the greater truth, viz., that the underlying cause of the medical catastrophe in Zimbabwe (as well as Iraq & Afghanistan) is structural violence (see Galtung). All three nation share a dismal history of UK occupation, colonialism and neocolonialism, which I believe has made the proximate cause of the catastrophe all but inevitable.

I would appreciate any helpful comments from the truly wise and humanistic participants of Effect Measure, because I am preparing a paper on this topic -- a follow up to my NY paper on the causes of infant and U5 mortality in Iraq entitled: When No Amount of Evidence is Enough....
Thanks in advance and I hope this issue is sufficiently germane to Effect Measure.
Sincerely,
Tom

I am I am opposite to the war, but in present-day times can not do without the weapon.

In their primary roll, attacking massed enemy troops and soft targets in a conventional war, cluster bombs work. Short of nuclear or chemical weapons nothing works quite as well against targets like massed infantry or artillery units.

Notice that those who easily agree to such bans either don't have them and/or they have someone else fighting their wars for them.

There are creative outlets that would limit the damage that so offends you. You could constructively push for improved quality control and redundant self-destruct timers on cluster bombs. If 100% of the bomblets self-destruct in a set time period there is no problem.

You could creatively set up systems so cluster bomb packages register their location by GPS signal just before they scatter so the land could be identified as needing clearing. Many CBUs are targeted by GPS signal guidance so the solution isn't insurmountable from an engineering POV.

You could increase international funding for organizations like MAG so sites could be cleared in good time.

Of course all that would require real thought and a willingness to face the issues, get your hands dirty, and take some responsibility for what is done to keep you safe and sound. A lot easier to simply condemn the ugly weapons. Everyone knows that as a practical matter only two nations have and have much need for them. Other nations don't want to fight their own wars but are always big on telling those that do how they may and may not do it.

Some limitations are reasonable. Nuclear, biological and nuclear weapons are messy far beyond where and when they are used. But there are limits to how much feel-good Nerfing you can do.

Tell you what. Have all the signatory nations to this dedicate a brigade of combat troops to active combat deployment. None of this dragging ass deploying them and demanding they not go anywhere unfriendly. Do that and this sort of move might be taken seriously.

Not willing to do that? Then don't tell those who fight how to fight or what tools they may use.

If you want to have a positive effect make the bomblets more self-clearing and/or easier to clear. Research better ways to clear unexpended ordinance. Join, support and/or finance existing clearance operations like MAG.

Do all that and it will all be to the good. But passing what amounts to useless, cheap-shot, feel good, proclamation and ban isn't going anywhere. CBUs work, they work very well in certain situations better in some cases than any alternative weapon.

Indeed, the alternative to massive carpet/cluster munitions being used,is close in ground troop engagements. So instead of having an extra hundred thousand or two casualties on both sides in your military, you have CBM's to make them think twice. It has ALWAYS been a deprivation weapon. Deprivation in supplies, personnel. You get one or the other... You win.

If you are going to have a war there is no weapon that should never be considered. Nothing about a CBM is inhumane in the way it kills. Nor is it on the banned list. The UK, France, Germany, etc? Well, they know that they can get their weapons from us... good for business. But its all about what lengths would you go to win. India/Pakistan in particular...I would use CBM's before I did my NBC's. Failure to have them means you would be forced to use your NBC's if things got out of control.

Your guy on the video says that they were used in the bombing in Afghanistan of innocent civilians. Right... Innocent in Afghanistan is the same thing as screwing for chastity. No uniformed Army to fight against. I can assure you that they were used against hot villages and there were collaterals. They were used against Taliban targets and there are always collaterals to any close in bombing. 1 in 4 not exploding? Well more like one in ten. Mostly because the cluster munition get hit as its dropping in by another munition going off. Damages the warhead... But you are worried about children. Uh-huh.

Now its always the children who are in an area it would seem that get hit. In truth, especially in Afghanistan they send the children in to pick up the munitions and locate them so they can make IED's from the UXO's. Now when the President of the United States with the concurrence of the Congress (Bush). or not (Clinton), decides to engage in military operations, the idea is to break things and make big piles of bodies. Sorry but thats the fact. We cant use the stuff that the Russians were when they were there. Sticky munitions that had acid in them that would burn a hole right through you. How about that Mig-25 with the 600Kw radar? They would fly down into the valleys and turn it on and it would cook the the Afghans in their skins. Microwave them to death. Now, I bet there would be a stink storm about that huh? Not really... the media didnt even know how to spell it.

How about the poisoned wells. Cyanide Revere. Very nice on the population. We have been going out of our way there NOT to cause civilian casualties or to upset the local apple carts. The US has about 3 million in uniform, the Ruskies have about 1.5 million. But lets take Georgia and the Russians for a minute as an example. Rail launched weapons might have turned the Russians back simply because they couldn't take the casualties. CBM's are an absolute equalizer and the Big Three all know it. We have new ones that penetrate tanks even better than shown and then go off inside. Indeed it shreds and you are dead is the concept.

But, its a war and all humanity goes out the window generally speaking. Humane and a politically correct war? Yeah, if you want to lose it you play that game. You want a smaller military? You have to have something short of nukes and thats either guys with a rifle or something like a CBM. The idea is that you keep it out of the NBC arena because thats when it gets really dicey. Nukes, Bio, and Chemical are the immediate backstop to CBM's Revere. They are specifically designed for force degradation and they are only used during a war or something like it. Take your pick. NBC'S or CBM'S.

It is a merciless killer and its very quick. But so is a thousand pounder. It too is a force neutralizer and generally speaking a lot more unforgiving than a small one out of eight CBM. One of those doesnt go off and you have a 3 blocks going down if it goes off later. Jettisoned 1000 pounders in S. Lebanon were found in Iraq two years after the last Lebanese dust up.

Take a look at the below. Now this kid is going to do what with this? Scuse me, but wouldnt you like a nice big ice cream instead. FYI pay about 50 USD for a UXO that is small of any kind in Lebanon. They do collect them, make mines, IED's and the like. Always destroy your old cell phones too. Guess you werent aware that they were used to set the warheads off remotely. Thats the reason there was a market for them here for a while. As for the UXO's the warheads in many cases are removed and then chemical weapons are inserted into them. Syria is very good at this. The bore of their weapons are the same as ours... Such as the 155 howitzers. Simple mod, reload of the black powder charge and then you have.... A CBM or an NBC warhead... Take your pick.

In Iraq a 500 pounder is worth 1000. We have seen whole columns eviscerated by them. Now, I guess we are just being inhumane when we hit a village that only has a population of 100 and 75 of them run back into it when we are in hot pursuit with a CBM. Its not a My Lai when we use CBM's in a situation like that.

Then take our little 38,000 man contingent in S. Korea. They are outnumbered along with the AROK's about 11 to 1. What do we use if the NORKO's attack, harsh language? There arent enough airplanes to stave off that kind of numbers. They can literally bring up 300 to 1 advantages on the line of march and on multiple points.

We keep our interests protected with weapons of locally mass destruction so that we dont have to go to the full on WMD's. The Obama Nation wont sign this agreement either and they would be fools to do so. The military is the backstop for all political debates in the world and in every country. You pull out a knife, I pull out a bigger one. You pull out a rifle, I pull out a SAW. Its very simple, if you go to killing get it done and be quick about it. Failure to do so results in even MORE people getting killed and prolongs the situation.

http://www.rferl.org/Content/Some_100_Nations_To_Sign_Cluster_Bomb_Ban_…

Too bad our new President elect will escalate War in Afghanistan, with no end in sight to production of ever more destructive and terrorizing weapons with which to kill indiscriminately, unaccountably and control more resources...

i suppose that's a possibility, Douglas, but lacking a crystal ball i wouldn't presume it a certainty. as well, if Obama wanted to wage war for the purpose of controlling more resources, then notoriously resource-poor Afghanistan would likely not be a good place to start. (unless you count opium poppies or tribal warriors as resources. but let's not, say i.)

on the main topic of the post, i'm not willing to say cluster bombs --- or even land mines --- ought to be outright banned. they both have legitimate uses in at least some wartime situations. but not in just any situations, and we can have a valid argument over whether they should be getting used in any of the conflicts we're currently fighting. a categorical "no" to that specific question might perhaps be wrong, but is not obviously or necessarily wrong.

the more fundamental question is, of course, how do we keep wartime military activities from killing and maiming non-combatants and civilians. that's a perennial problem, and perhaps ultimately unsolvable, but i think there's reason for hope. it seems to me the trend in recent decades has been for the better on that subject, at least as far as the militaries of the developed, western nations are concerned.

In their primary roll, attacking massed enemy troops and soft targets in a conventional war, cluster bombs work. Short of nuclear or chemical weapons nothing works quite as well against targets like massed infantry or artillery units.

Right. That's my understanding, too.

So can you please enlighten me as to why the hell these are being used in low-intensity warfare against scattered and dispersed targets, in places like Afghanistan???.

One thing we could do is boycot the cluster bomb manufacturers. These include the following companies; Lockheed Martin, EADS, Daimler Chrysler, Giat Industries, MBDA, Rhienmetall, RUAG, SAAB, Denel, General Dynamics, L-3 Communications, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Textron.

Interestingly, three of these companies, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and L-3 Communications, provide a significant amount of contracted services to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

Charles... None of us know whether they are being used in low-intensity warfare or that they are scattered and dispersed.

E.g. I would call for a high intensity strike against hillsides that were rock laden and every nook and cranny would be a hidey hole. Caves too. CBM's are especially effective when used in that manner too. One guy with a PKS, a Kord or one of the larger bore weapons can wreak havoc on a column. Punches nice big holes in APC's and damned sure your body armor. It hits you so hard at even 1000 yards that it will pick you up and throw you. Might not penetrate at that range sometimes but it likely would break your neck from the hit. So the CBM's are the weapon of choice.

PKS or Kords? Two of these types of machine weapons in the right hands can do a LOT of damage to your troops. So you call for the air strike. Wouldnt want a chopper in the area because of the hand held Strela's so, its an airstrike. You can use a 500 pounder and if they are in a cave then you can collapse the entrance, or you can go with deprivation. We have nice sound based weapons too that can go off if they hear a voice. But deprivation of the ability to walk out of their holes after we move on is a very big deterrent. We call in the air strike and then move on. Most of the time they get killed in the strike. If its even a moderately large force and even in their holes, its going to get them.

It will penetrate steel very well, rocks pretty good too. Thats the reason we use them. Or, I guess its okay for us to get killed in the name of what......? Sorry, political correctness goes out the window in war zones. The only PC you ever see is on TV. I never let the media tag along for anything or any reason when I was in. They followed along then the locals treated them like they were bad guys. Not very nice and shown the way back into town if they were lucky.

Charles... None of us know whether they are being used in low-intensity warfare or that they are scattered and dispersed.

E.g. I would call for a high intensity strike against hillsides that were rock laden and every nook and cranny would be a hidey hole. Caves too. CBM's are especially effective when used in that manner too. One guy with a PKS, a Kord or one of the larger bore weapons can wreak havoc on a column. Punches nice big holes in APC's and damned sure your body armor. It hits you so hard at even 1000 yards that it will pick you up and throw you. Might not penetrate at that range sometimes but it likely would break your neck from the hit. So the CBM's are the weapon of choice.

PKS or Kords? Two of these types of machine weapons in the right hands can do a LOT of damage to your troops. So you call for the air strike. Wouldnt want a chopper in the area because of the hand held Strela's so, its an airstrike. You can use a 500 pounder and if they are in a cave then you can collapse the entrance, or you can go with deprivation. We have nice sound based weapons too that can go off if they hear a voice. But deprivation of the ability to walk out of their holes after we move on is a very big deterrent. We call in the air strike and then move on. Most of the time they get killed in the strike. If its even a moderately large force and even in their holes, its going to get them.

It will penetrate steel very well, rocks pretty good too. Thats the reason we use them. Or, I guess its okay for us to get killed in the name of what......? Sorry, political correctness goes out the window in war zones. The only PC you ever see is on TV. I never let the media tag along for anything or any reason when I was in. They followed along then the locals treated them like they were bad guys. Not very nice and shown the way back into town if they were lucky.