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

[merig00]

It's the same story as the Kyoto protocol... Countries that would benefit from it sign the treaty and then bitch at countries who refused to sign it cause that will cost them a lot.

[airiefairie]

We could look at it from another angle: it could be countries that are most affected by the consequences of the problem but are hardly the main contributors to it, asking the main contributors to take their share of the responsibility for creating the problem.

[merig00]

Ok countries that could get bombed or not planning to bomb anyone signed it while countries that can bomb or are planning to bomb did not sign it.

Color me surprised.

Same shit.

[airiefairie]

Now you got my point better.

End of story I suppose?

[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?

[korean_guy_01]

Do some of these 108 countries' government support (financially & harbor) terrorists? Perhaps a deal can be reached...

[airiefairie]

Please explain how cluster bombs help deal with terrorists.

[underlankers]

This. One would in fact think that weaponry that serves no purpose but to spread death over a wide area would create more terrorists as opposed to less.

[3fgburner]

Suppose you have a wide area, that's covered with people you want to kill? That's what cluster munitions are FOR. As an example, in the late 60s / early 70s, they took the nuclear warheads off of some tactical missiles, and replaced them with clusters. Or would you rather we went back to having the nukes handy?

[3fgburner]

"This puts the next question: are cluster munitions really that important for military success, or [...]?"

(Former artilleryman here, we had cluster shells and mine-layer shells)

In a word, they're extremely useful for certain situations. For example: You have a large-area target -- say, a large, somewhat-fortified enemy position. You want to hit as many enemy in that area as possible. You could carpet-bomb, with the number of bombs varying inversely with their size. Or, you could use a small tactical nuke, which is, of course, Right Out. Or, you use a cluster munition which gives you a wide dispersion of smaller individual strikes. The alternative is to turn that area into a mess of wall-to-wall craters. Or, perhaps, using napalm. Or white phosphorus. Which is the lesser evil?

[airiefairie]

Thanks, finally someone who really knows what we are talking about here (excluding me as well) to step in with some valuable input.

To your question, I am afraid I would have to respond to you with your own question: is there a lesser evil, and if yes, what is it? I hope you would have some ideas.

[3fgburner]

Essentially, military force consists of killing people and breaking things until the other side gets tired and doesn't want to play any more. The "lesser evil" consists primarily of doing the killing and breaking as efficiently as possible, while trying to minimize killing and breaking of people and stuff that aren't bad guys or their property. Having bad guys who intentionally use innocents who are theoretically on their side, as shields, makes it more difficult.

[airiefairie]

That still does not answer the question how the cluster munitions can help fight people who use civilians as shields.

[redheadrat]

logically there is no single weapon that is important

on the other hand new warfare methods create need for new weapons, new weapons on the other hand create new warfare methods

I am sure that military tacticians would be able to give you a dozen scenarios where cluster bombs would be the best choice in combat.

I am also sure that military sapers would be able to give 99.9% effective ways to clear unexploded munitions and landmines.

In the end, 3/4 of signatories of these treaties don't care about these weapons. They will sign every treaty, or they will try to get some advantage from signing them. But still they will never voice any real public opinion.

[mahnmut]

Meanwhile, another 3/4 would sign whatever they're told by the strong of the day. Oh wait, doesn't that make 6/4? There must be something wrong with my arithmetic.

Or they could be signing all those papers just for fun, you know, because they like signing things.

[redheadrat]

You mean that time and a half all signers are influenced by greed?

I mean that Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Moldova, Lithuania, etc. all have real reasons to sign, they are on the receiving end of these bombs. Chances for rest to be engaged in heavy military action are close to none. But they do look good when they sign one of those treaties.

[mahnmut]

Did you even read that link? Many countries vote what they are told simply because they are held on a very short rope.