The cluster munitions treaty

[airiefairie]

Apologies for not separating the cited article from the initial post. Second try now. The international Convention on the use of cluster munitions was signed earlier this month, and more than 100 countries have joined in. The document bans the use of cluster bombs, one of the deadliest weapons in modern times, and most damaging in the long term.

Comments

[underlankers]

As I said, the simple reason these countries are excluded but signatories to it are comfortable with military bases of one of these big countries and like having it as an umbrella/safety net is that it enables them to have the weapons used but pull a Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of the affair. To be perfectly forthright, military power in any real sense is a white elephant these days.

Modern times favor soft power and that's why Chinese influence along with that of India and Turkey are expanding dramatically worldwide while that of the USA and Israel are grinding to standstills. Arms limitation treaties are notable goals but aren't the primary concern as the main purpose of armies these days is only to shore up broader economic power.

[airiefairie]

signatories to it are comfortable with military bases

are cluster munitions really that important for military success?

[underlankers]

Not really. But then as my comment said military power is only relevant insofar as it adds oomph to economic power. The 2000s is where the Marxist idea that everything is economic is most relevant.

[merig00]

I'm not aware of another method to cover a large area from the air.

Also "cluster munition" is a broad term. Do they want to ban all of them or just some specific ones?

[airiefairie]

"Covering a large area" sounds more like a World War Two method. I am not sure modern warfare is supposed to be what it used to be 70 years ago.

[merig00]

Well that goes back to the point about countries who do not see need to cover a large area anytime in the future or afraid that their large area will be covered vs. countries that see a possibility to use them :)

[airiefairie]

But I still think that even those countries who have refused to sign the treaty do not consider covering large areas with destruction is a winning military strategy. Have they been using that in Iraq and/or Afghanistan at the moment, and if not, why not?

[merig00]

I'm lazy so Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb#History_of_use

[airiefairie]

Yes thanks. And I am sleepy, time for bed. See you! =)

[underlankers]

Against who, exactly? If modern wars were more like the Iran-Iraq conflict use of these things and land mines would be less morally gray/evil (IMHO they're the latter regardless of who they're used against). But the two wars the USA is fighting are counterinsurgency where the USA is the analogue of the Soviets in Red Dawn and the Insurgencies are the Wolverines.

In those wars, using these weapons gives no gain, but creates a great deal of lingering bitterness and can mean war wounds in some cases don't fully subside until the steel rain's aftermath is done for.

[merig00]

Being super lazy: http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/661040.html?thread=49367088#t49367088

Plus see the last two comments: from Redheadrat and the one above him.

[underlankers]

So let's see: Israel's first defeat by an Arab paramilitary, Russia's defeat at the hands of the Chechens, the USA's use of them obviously hasn't helped shorten the war, and Russia would have buried Georgia in bodies without them anyway.

Is this a list that's suppose to make me change my mind? Because it's really not helping.

[merig00]

You asked where it has been used and so I've told you. Just some situations when it is used. Its not like they used it once and it ruined the whole war.

[underlankers]

And which enemy of the Great Powers these days necessitates such weapons? The people fighting Great Powers these days know they'd lose in any straightforward confrontation, hence they choose asymmetric methods (albeit against an enemy without scruples that's no help). In the 21st century methods that worked against a WWII-size army is no gain and counts for much towards geopolitical nightmares.