Ban on Cluster Munitions

[usmarinemike]

Blah, blah, blah...

Do IO's and NGO's really have nothing better to talk about?? I mean seriously. This topic is horseshit. I would be willing to bet that more people are killed by unclean drinking water than friggin enexploded cluster munitions...

Don't miss the forest for the trees.:sleep_125

I'm sort of with you, but I just wanted to see what the overall opinion was. The funny thing is that most of the posts in the thread cite stuff that's already in the posted article as if it is new knowledge.



As for "redundant fuzes" would it be cheaper in time and money to put an eggtimer on every bomblet or to have to send out teams to go get rid of every little bomblet that doesn't go off? As I said earlier, it works for FASCAMs. I don't know if they blow themselves up or dud themselves, but apparently their safing system works pretty well.

 

[eddie]

Blah, blah, blah...

Do IO's and NGO's really have nothing better to talk about?? I mean seriously. This topic is horseshit. I would be willing to bet that more people are killed by unclean drinking water than friggin enexploded cluster munitions...

Don't miss the forest for the trees.:sleep_125

I agree, but people tend to fight battles they can win...

 

[scoober78]

I agree, but people tend to fight battles they can win...

Sure...but who's winning this? The nations with the large and active inventories of this munitions aren't signatories, which makes the whole thing a bit moot.

As to your general point, peopel don't fight battles they can win, they fight battles they think they can win. Big difference. The problem is that these issues aren't zero sum games. Action is winning. Instead of "outlawing" cluster munitions, spend more time and effort cleaning them up. The problem with the zero sum mentality is it discourages action on problems which are "too big" to "solve".

This is the same fundamental challenge that the enviromental movement faces...among others. Stop bellyaching about it and start acting. (not you)

 

[FLYTPAY]

I agree, but people tend to fight battles they can win...

50% of the people fighting 2 sided battles win

 

[A4sForever]

.... I just wanted to see what the overall opinion was. The funny thing is that most of the posts in the thread cite stuff that's already in the posted article as if it is new knowledge....

I don't know what the "overall" opinion is -- and I've stayed out of this discussion, 'cause it's a fruitless one -- but I'll give you my $20 worth, just because.

When you "go to war" ... you BOMB the other miserable fuckers back to the Stone Age -- there's no quarter given and none is expected. You're tryin' to KILL them, remember?? Don't give me this dewy-eyed stuff about "non-combatants" and "collateral damage". Tell that to the folks in the Twin Towers or those in 1945 Tokyo or Dresden or 1940 London, etc., etc. .... the list is infinite.

When you go to war ... and I said "war" ... you kill the OTHER bastards as fast and efficiently as you are able. It's tough to "legislate" war and how you fight it -- the only thing that counts is winning. You will have time for your guilt and recriminations and mea-culpa's and "clean-up's" sleep_125) later -- providing you win, of course. Setting prescribed "limitations" on how to fight w/ conventional weapons is a guarantee of ultimate failure, because some other asshole will break the "rules" when it is expedient for him or when his survival is on the line.

If you don't try to win; to go for the other guy's jugular -- then stay home and don't get in and for God's sake don't "go downtown".

That's the way to end conflicts ... and wars. And prevent future ones ....

/$20 worth

 

[FLYTPAY]

Another reason we do not become a signatory to the cluster munitions ban is that if we eliminate clutsers, we are demonstrating a perception of compliance and then the dangerous trend of eliminating our advantage and even weapons development starts.

+1 A4's, I believe in overkill rather than risking under/no kill

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Even a military victory that is not a strategic victory is still a loss. e.g. Vietnam.

Explanation: The military executed its missions in Vietnam with great success beating back the enemy consistently til the end of the war.

Strategically it is a loss because the U.S. Government did not run the war quickly enough to achieve the objective that was set out for(preventing the takeover of South Vietnam by Communist forces in the North)

Policy dictates how the war is conducted. Mind you I agree that if you go to war it should be all out destruction of the enemy and their infrastructure...I think that those days are over for now.

 

[A4sForever]

.... Policy dictates how the war is conducted. Mind you I agree that if you go to war it should be all out destruction of the enemy and their infrastructure...I think that those days are over for now.

Policy. Running "wars" by policy. Brilliant ... but that's why we don't "win" too many wars anymore ... ahhhh -- wisdom from the mouths of babes.

Can you imagine these guys having a "policy" of anything other than "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" ???

President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill announce their unconditional surrender policy to correspondents at the Casablanca Conference, February 1943.

 

[waldo20]

A4s........ perhaps you should forward your previous post on to all of our fearless leaders of today!! nah wouldnt make a difference.....

 

[Flash]

Policy. Running "wars" by policy. Brilliant ... but that's why we don't "win" too many wars anymore ... ahhhh -- wisdom from the mouths of babes.

Can you imagine these guys having a "policy" of anything other than "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" ???

And yet in Japan.....it wasn't. We let them keep the Emperor, and made things a lot easier for the occupation.

What was that about policy not winning out again?

 

[mmx1]

Would this include any missile/bomb with submunitions?? I'm thinking TLAM, JSOW, SFM, WCMD, specifically. If the jet guys wanna pipe in that would be great....I remember when the CBU-97 sensor fused munition came out that the AF was claiming that a pair of F-16s with 4 SFWs a piece could take out most of an armored brigade.

This is something they're working out at the conference. Several nations that use these submunitions are trying to draw a distinction between a 100+ submunition Rockeye and something more modern with a handful of smart submunitions.

 

[FLYTPAY]

a 100+ submunition Rockeye and something more modern with a handful of smart submunitions.

243 in a Rock......some of these smart munitions are wicked!

 

[Lawman]

These people make me laugh though it does give you a good idea of "what works."

Just arm yourself with weapons that they think are deplorable and rest assured whoevers ass your kicking will be effectively sore.

For Example the MLRS rockets which they would call an inhumane and cruel weapon, and what the Iraqis called "Steel Rain."

 

[scoober78]

And yet in Japan.....it wasn't. We let them keep the Emperor, and made things a lot easier for the occupation.

What was that about policy not winning out again?

Get real Flash...

To quote you..."We let them keep..."

Key words...tricky phrases. You can't serioulsy think that the Japanese surrender was even the least bit equivocal.

 

[Flash]

Get real Flash...

To quote you..."We let them keep..."

Key words...tricky phrases. You can't serioulsy think that the Japanese surrender was even the least bit equivocal.

My point was that policy and politics intruded even into the most 'total' of wars, we didn't even deliberately target the palace in Tokyo even at the height of the bombing. Didn't help, it burned anyways.

Catch my drift now?