Banning Cluster Munitions

[SkywardET]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4VmE_BVd6aTBq1MRw30t1Fp1DWgD94S0MC00
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Some_100_countries_sign_ban_on_cluster_bombs_999.html

Of course the US will probably not ban the use of cluster munitions, but we do have a strong track record of being as humane as is practicable, which might lead to the curtailing of some usage of these weapons.

"Humane" in this case could likely be decreasing the failure factor for cluster bomblets that hit the ground but do not explode, thus reducing the left-over unexploded ordnance.

 

[nittany03]

The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.

The quest to wage the most ethical and humane war possible, while still winning, will be one of the greatest contributions modern America makes to history. No one wants to lay down UXO which could blow some kid's hand off five years later if at all humanly possible.

That said, war is ultimately about violently forcing the enemy to give up his arms and bend to your will. If you didn't have two parties whose differences were so irreconcilable that only physical violence was left as a method of redress, there wouldn't be a war in the first place.

Some people don't understand this. The PC crowd will never be satiated. While they do some good as a "conscience" of society, if you ban cluster bombs, they will want to ban Mk 84s next. They already tried to heavily restrict active sonar. There are people who would just as soon see the military go away, because in their minds, we're just barbarians who serve evil politicians and stop people from really understanding each other. And hugging and singing kumbaya. And smoking weed. Et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Single Seat]

Some people don't understand this. The PC crowd will never be satiated. While they do some good as a "conscience" of society, if you ban cluster bombs, they will want to ban Mk 84s next. They already tried to heavily restrict active sonar. There are people who would just as soon see the military go away, because in their minds, we're just barbarians who serve evil politicians and stop people from really understanding each other. And hugging and singing kumbaya. And smoking weed. Et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah, the same fucking morons that insist new airports/bases will effect bird migrations and stress wild life, yet some how can't seem to explain how we have such a huge fucking bird problem at airports. Anyone else done several million in damage to aircraft running into birds here?!?!?

 

[pourts]

Jesus, I threw up when I saw that picture. Not the bird strike, but your avatar.

 

[MIDNJAC]

"Montana 714, Left 180, 5 down and locked"

 

[MAKE VAPES]

You'll learn all bout this stuff in JPME, "just war theory"... Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars might as well be called Unjust Wars.

Guess we should take a vote from our enemies next conflict... would you rather die by Mk84, Mk83, Mk82, or by CBU? I think the choice would perplex them with the realities of their fate.

Might makes right? Send in the EOD dudes with the UN Non Governmental Organizational Clown possie to clean up if we do indeed need to use these things. Pigs away beeeatch!

 

[A4sForever]

The quest to wage the most ethical and humane war possible, while still winning, will be one of the greatest contributions modern America makes to history....

Personally, that is a conceptual "goal" that I will never be able (or willing) to get my head around ...

When the balloon goes up and the gloves come off, I want to go straight for the jugular as heavy and as hard as I can ... I want to kill as many of "them" in as short a time as possible and FINISH the job so "we" can come home.

There's nothing humane about killing. Ethics? Humane? War is a shitty business.

 

[Mumbles]

As terrible a death as it is...napalm really was the best anti- personel CAS ordnance that we ever employed. I can't imagine the psychological impact of seeing a nape strike and the aftermath... It wasn't but a few months ago that the peaceniks were up in arms about the thermobaric hellfires that we were shooting in to caves and sucking the lungs out of jihadis.

 

[SkywardET]

Personally, that is a conceptual "goal" that I will never be able (or willing) to get my head around ...

When the balloon goes up and the gloves come off, I want to go straight for the jugular as heavy and as hard as I can ... I want to kill as many of "them" in as short a time as possible and FINISH the job so "we" can come home.

There's nothing humane about killing. Ethics? Humane? War is a shitty business.

With respect, sir, it's not really about the killing so much as the after-effects. What was our deterrant against using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan or in Iraq?

The moral high ground is why we can take such pride in our ideals. We can develope ever more precise weapons and reduce collateral damage to even smaller margins, and I will fully support all of those endeavors. War may be a shitty business, but any effort to reduce its shittiness is evidently not wasted.


With regards to napalm and other ordnance, I have no comment. If we can use what is effective to get the job done and minimize civilian deaths, then whatever practice accomplishes that is good in my book.

 

[nittany03]

Personally, that is a conceptual "goal" that I will never be able (or willing) to get my head around ...

When the balloon goes up and the gloves come off, I want to go straight for the jugular as heavy and as hard as I can ... I want to kill as many of "them" in as short a time as possible and FINISH the job so "we" can come home.

There's nothing humane about killing. Ethics? Humane? War is a shitty business.

Agreed, but Sherman's March to the Sea or the firebombing of Dresden won't fly nowadays, and we have the technology to do better. If an organization sets itself against the US, I agree. Hit fast, hit hard, and hit often. Kill the bastards.

But I don't think anyone wants to hurt the old granny and her extended family next door who didn't do anything to anyone. I'm not saying it's laudable to cripple our ability to lay the smack down and paralyze ourselves not realizing that war is what it is. Refer to Clausewitz above. But the less collateral damage we cause when the balloon goes up and the gloves come off, the better.

I would also argue that it would be less shocking and demoralizing to be on the receiving end of a military machine which just lays waste to entire football fields. Any schmuck can do that. Far more scary to see only the people dropping dead and getting blown up that we want, when we want, where we want.

 

[C420sailor]

With regards to napalm and other ordnance, I have no comment. If we can use what is effective to get the job done and minimize civilian deaths, then whatever practice accomplishes that is good in my book.

That's all well and good, but what about when our obsession with fighting a PC war ends up costing us thousands of additional American lives? I understand fully that we have volunteered to go into harms way, but I would still much rather see a dead [insert country here] civilian than a dead American soldier.

 

[A4sForever]

1. (B)ut Sherman's March to the Sea or the firebombing of Dresden won't fly nowadays....

2. .... the less collateral damage we cause when the balloon goes up and the gloves come off, the better.

3. I would also argue that it would be less shocking and demoralizing to be on the receiving end of a military machine which just lays waste to entire football fields...

1. More's the pity, as it should "fly" nowadays. The mere fact that your point is commonly held is one BIG reason why we've lost our way on how to fight & win.

2. Disagree. The more the better: the more pain & suffering we bring to the enemies' front door -- where he lives -- the quicker it will end. Besides, we'll end up rebuilding it anyway ... we always do.

3. Disagree. When did the NViets first get serious in Paris and quit arguing about the shape of the table ??? Here's a hint -- and no fair asking my Amigos who were rotting in the Hilton for their input:

 

[exhelodrvr]

3. Disagree. When did the NViets first get serious in Paris and quit arguing about the shape of the table ??? Here's a hint -- and no fair asking my Amigos who were rotting in the Hilton for their input:

It's be nice if the only enemies we had to worry about were the ones in the bombsights.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Agreed, but Sherman's March to the Sea or the firebombing of Dresden won't fly nowadays, and we have the technology to do better. If an organization sets itself against the US, I agree. Hit fast, hit hard, and hit often. Kill the bastards.

But I don't think anyone wants to hurt the old granny and her extended family next door who didn't do anything to anyone. I'm not saying it's laudable to cripple our ability to lay the smack down and paralyze ourselves not realizing that war is what it is. Refer to Clausewitz above. But the less collateral damage we cause when the balloon goes up and the gloves come off, the better.

I would also argue that it would be less shocking and demoralizing to be on the receiving end of a military machine which just lays waste to entire football fields. Any schmuck can do that. Far more scary to see only the people dropping dead and getting blown up that we want, when we want, where we want.

Unfortunately, trying to minimize collateral damage in the short term often ends up causing more in the long term.

 

[Goober]

The point being missed by the original argument is this - you don't always get to pick where an engagement will occur. In most of our recent ones, the environment was urban (Iraq) or caves (Afgh). For those situations where precision was possible, it was the right choice. In mountainous terrain where an unknown number of hostiles exist in a generalized area, precision weapons don't provide the bang for the buck that a CBU offers. The same can be said for large troop concentrations when engaging with older gen weapons like APAM. They quickly and effectively (and dare I say economically) eliminate enemy forces in the environments for which they were designed.

I suspect that if facing large numbers of armored forces on the ground, those who would argue based on a potential for collateral civilian deaths or complete annihilation at the hands of overwhelming enemy fire would quickly welcome a couple of instant football fields of death. Some weapons do have their rightful place. You can't win hearts and minds if you're dead.

You guys missed me - I can tell...