Banning Cluster Munitions

[picklesuit]

The people who decide to end wars are not the military...we are just the implement for the job...thus the minds that need changing are the civilian masters of the country. That is why we firebombed and nuked Japan. That is why we carpet bombed Germany. That is why President Nixon mined Haiphong/bombed Hanoi and pulled the Americans out. We don't need to convince the military to stop fighting...most of them will fight to the last man; we need to get the politicians to stop fighting and they withdraw funding.

Thus, we scare the fuck out of who we want to beat, take the will out of the civillian populace to continue defying our will, get our treaty, fix their shit, and establish our bases to "encourage" them to not renew hostilities. Fuck Humane, I want effective.

It really CAN be that easy.

 

[A4sForever]

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

BOMBSIGHTS ??? *sigh* .... they're ALL in MY gunsight! (sic)

 

[Catmando]

Personally, I loved CBUs. For certain missions, there was no better nor effective weapon!

 

[skidkid]

As terrible a death as it is...napalm really was the best anti- personel CAS ordnance that we ever employed. .

Not even close, NAPALM was inaccurate and unpredictable both are very bad for CAS. NAPALM looks cool and had/has it's uses but CAS really isnt one of them. Sometimes smaller bombs, rockets and the gun are the best choice for CAS (it can get close). NAPALM is great for hit the forested hill where the bad guys are or smoke all west of the river but not in close with a manuevering ground force. It is difficult to name a best CAS weapon but I dont think NAPALM is even in the top 5. This opinion is based on some reading on Viet Nam and some reading in the FAC(A) syllabus I would be interested to hear from those who flew CAS in Viet Nam's opininions. More recently look at how we are looing to get 250# LGB/JDAM so we can use it close and all of a sudden strafing is back in vogue for CAS.

As far as the philosophical argument: unleashing overwhelming death and destruction with as little restraint as possible wins wars quicker and more humanely than a series of half measures.

 

[A4sForever]

Personally, I loved CBUs. For certain missions, there was no better nor effective weapon!

+146 ... "Rock(eye) on, Bruddah!!!

Banning Cluster Munitions???

WHY is it that the guys who actually know ... support CBU's ... and that would include very, very, very few herein ... you know, who ACTUALLY KNOW what the fuck they're talkin' about ... re: air-to-mud targets, targeting, gettin' it done ... ???

ESPECIALLY when the question is soft targets, troops, trains, barges/boats, fuel farms, and air base ramps .... CBU's are the answer.

Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler??

Rockeyes (or "Rocks", if you prefer) are a BEAUTIFUL thing ....

Believe it.

 

[Huggy Bear]

Dropped a score over the years - always in training. The powers that be were all about precision weapons where I flew for "real". However, now that I think about it, the JSOW was a cluster munition, a 1/4 million $ GPS guided standoff cluster munition.

I'm glad we didn't sign. One of our real military strengths is the air support we can provide our troops - I doubt any nation can do it better - and cluster munitions are a big part of that. Can you imagine facing a horde of 1.2 million North Koreans without them.?

 

[SkywardET]

I think I should clarify my position on this. I merely posted the article and made some commentary to get things going. I fully support the logical endpoint of making CBU more "humane" by making them more effective. It's the bomblets that don't explode that cause the problems, so making more reliable bomblets is the more humane option, which ironically causes more explosions and immediate death.

But no one should argue that some farmer loosing their arms to an unexploded bomblet several years later is a good thing. The treaty in question does not place reality into its equation, but it has a noble goal regardless.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...The treaty in question does not place reality into its equation, but it has a noble goal regardless.

Well, there's the problem. Making treaties or setting international goals based purely on idealism, and not how the real world actually functions, never works. Never has, never will.

The League of Nations was completely impotent and the UN's main function seems to be providing a soap box for tinpot dictators to rail against the evil Yankee. So what's the point?

Pres. G.H.W. Bush was widely castigated for refusing to sign Kyoto, and now the signatory countries are facing billions of dollars in penalties for not meeting unrealistic emissions goals. Which they won't pay. So what was the point of the damn treaty?

We're one of the only big countries that won't sign anti-landmine or anti-CBU treaties, but most of the countries that did sign them don't have much of a military, nor much of a need for either landmines or CBU's. And honestly, most of those countries would prefer we didn't sign - it gives another excuse for smugness.

The thing is, CBU's are a legitamite weapon of war. There are plenty of reasons you want to use delayed-action submunitions (airfield denial, for example). But the countries most likely to use CBU's in the near future (as far as I know, we haven't used them since OIF Phase I) are Russia, China and Israel - countries not known for giving a damn. If the Russians think they need to deploy submunitions shaped like Snickers bars and set off by children's laughter, then they damn well will. So again, what's the point?

 

[mmx1]

Well, there's the problem. Making treaties or setting international goals based purely on idealism, and not how the real world actually functions, never works. Never has, never will.

The League of Nations was completely impotent and the UN's main function seems to be providing a soap box for tinpot dictators to rail against the evil Yankee. So what's the point?

Pres. G.H.W. Bush was widely castigated for refusing to sign Kyoto, and now the signatory countries are facing billions of dollars in penalties for not meeting unrealistic emissions goals. Which they won't pay. So what was the point of the damn treaty?

We're one of the only big countries that won't sign anti-landmine or anti-CBU treaties, but most of the countries that did sign them don't have much of a military, nor much of a need for either landmines or CBU's. And honestly, most of those countries would prefer we didn't sign - it gives another excuse for smugness.

The thing is, CBU's are a legitamite weapon of war. There are plenty of reasons you want to use delayed-action submunitions (airfield denial, for example). But the countries most likely to use CBU's in the near future (as far as I know, we haven't used them since OIF Phase I) are Russia, China and Israel - countries not known for giving a damn. If the Russians think they need to deploy submunitions shaped like Snickers bars and set off by children's laughter, then they damn well will. So again, what's the point?

Well, I think the landmine treaty was successful in shrinking the market for landmines, by removing many producers and stockpiles from the marketplace, and placing pressure on the holdouts to be more judicious in their use and export of mines. If the major powers get into a shooting war, landmines will probably be a minor concern, but I think it has mitigated their use in regional conflicts like, say, the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.

Of course, proliferation isn't really a problem with CBU's, but if it convinces the nations who don't think they'll use them to disarm their stockpiles, what's the harm?

I understand being defensive about pressure for us to stop using them, but if the result of these treaties is that the use of these weapons with considerable side-effects on civilians is monopolized by the major powers, I can only see that as a good thing. After all, isn't that one of the reasons we seek non-proliferation of WMD - if they're monopolized by a few then we mitigate the risk that they'll be used?

 

[mmx1]

We also need consider matching the ends with the means. Some have shrugged off the collateral damage with the argument that we should be as brutal as necessary.

So, pray tell, is our intent to terrorize the population by dropping UXO all over them? Clearly not, or we'd be using air-seeded mines instead. So there is a clear disconnect between the ends - blowing up widely scattered soft targets - and the means - leaving lots of unexploded bomblets. Enough of a disconnect that we're reluctant to use such munitions when blue forces are likely to pass through the area, and impetus to develop more reliable submunitions that we can use in closer proximity to blue and green forces. No, we haven't committed to not using CBU's (or landmines) outright, but their side effects certainly play into the determination of when it's appropriate to use them.

If our intent is really to take the gloves off and terrorize civilian populations under the presumption of collective responsibility, then let's drop the pretense and develop snickers-shaped submunitions triggered by a child's laughter. I guarantee that'll be pretty terrifying (imagine the product testing).

Or we could continue to make rational choices in discriminating the type and level of violence we apply.

 

[A4sForever]

1. Some have shrugged off the collateral damage with the argument that we should be as brutal as necessary.

2. If our intent is really to take the gloves off and terrorize civilian populations ...let's drop the pretense and develop snickers-shaped submunitions triggered by a child's laughter.

1. Some?? I guess that would be me ... and as you point out, I'd be as "brutal" ... as necessary. But "shrugged off"?? .... Hardly. And you're missing the entire point of total warfare. But then ... since your warfighting experience is all theoretical from the get-go .... why is that not a great surprise ???

2. "Snickers"?? "Child's laughter"?? That would, of course, be ridiculous. Which goes a long way to validate your inexperience and negate your entire argument.

Ignorance born of inexperience. *sigh* ...

Some things just never change ... all of which points to a larger point: the utter vacuousness of arguing w/ people who don't have a clue whereof they speak. /

 

[Uncle Fester]

Well, I think the landmine treaty was successful in shrinking the market for landmines, by removing many producers and stockpiles from the marketplace, and placing pressure on the holdouts to be more judicious in their use and export of mines. If the major powers get into a shooting war, landmines will probably be a minor concern, but I think it has mitigated their use in regional conflicts like, say, the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.

Of course, proliferation isn't really a problem with CBU's, but if it convinces the nations who don't think they'll use them to disarm their stockpiles, what's the harm?

I'm not sure that's the case at all. The real problem children as far as landmines go - Cold War-era Eastern Bloc manufacturers and stockpiles, and the third-world armies and rebel movements that buy them - aren't impacted by the treaty at all. I suppose you could make an argument that it discourages weapons firms from making any new ones, but again, it's not the new mines that are the problem.

The Ottawa treaty on landmines is merely a promise by signatory countries not to use mines, clear the ones they have, get rid of government stockpiles, and offer assistance in mine clearance and medical care for victims. More to the point, most of the world's biggest suppliers and consumers (China, Russia, North and South Korea and a good chunk of the former Soviet republics) haven't signed, and a large proportion of FSU-made mines are in the hands of private dealers and firms anyway.

Assuming that the CBU ban uses essentially the same language as the landmine treaty (the same coalition is pushing both), neither problem will get solved, because they don't take into account the root of the problems. It's a very naiive approach to the problem; as if "let's just all agree not to use these things, okay?" is a realistic way of regulating the use of very widely-proliferated conventional weapons.

And the very real harm of these kinds of make-believe treaties is they substitute the illusion of action for actual solutions.

As to your specific example - the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia - I'll tell you from experience, the Ethiopians are ruthless SOB's...if they wanted to use mines, you can bet your ass they would.

 

[SkywardET]

Ignorance born of inexperience. *sigh* ...

Some things just never change ... all of which points to a larger point: the utter vacuousness of arguing w/ people who don't have a clue whereof they speak. /

Hey now, that pretty much applies to everyone at some point or another; especially on an Internet forum.

I'll cede that I have ignorance born of inexperience. In fairness to me, there's not much I can do about that. The US and especially the Navy haven't been at war for a long time, so I will have to wait until one or the other are so that I can get some of that experience. Until then, cut me some slack please!

In the meantime, I see no reason to take a critical approach towards examining the tactics and policies in place while we can afford to do so. I don't like the prospect of winning the war but loosing the peace.

 

[Brett327]

And you're missing the entire point of total warfare.

I think the real point of total warfare is that we're probably not going to see it in play any time soon. I'm all for A4's style max brutality warfare when the situation calls for it, but let's face it, we're now living in an era when limited warfare is the name of the game and you don't win hearts and minds by ignoring CD and killing a bunch of civilians. Like it or not, that's the reality. Sure, it would have been easier to go into Iraq or Afghanistan and level the entire country, but that's not a politically tennable position to take. You can bitch about politicians this or politicians that, but they set the policy and we execute it. To suggest otherwise isn't very Clauswitzian of you. We're not living in a WWII era, so yearning for the relative simplicity of that style of warfare isn't going to get you very far in modern times. That said, I'm against all these ridiculous treaties for many of the reasons listed. Treaties are great until back out of them, and we're no les guilty than the rest (think ABM treaty). I see no reason to limit ourselves to certain "PC" warfighting capabilities if all bets are off when the next big balloon goes up.

Brett

 

[eddie]

Don't regulate warfare! It only incentivises cheating!

This calls for a reminder of my favorite attempt, the Washington Naval Conference! By limiting the tonnage and type of capital vessels on an individual nation-basis, all sorts of "cleverness" was incentivized...

As I recall,

The Clever: Innovative engineering
US: smaller ships = lower speeds. Advanced boilers bring up the top speed of heavy cruisers
Germany: already under Versailles restrictions, they develop stronger, lighter armor. Eventually leads to pocket BBs

The Sneaky
UK and Japan: built hulls that could easily be modified to take on illegal arms and armor

The North Korean Approach
Japan: blatantly produced outside of treaty limits, and officially withdrew in the mid '30s. (But I want Yamato to weigh 65,000 tons and carry 18 inchers!)
Italy: simply lied about tonnage

The French
- They whined and complained a lot, along with the Japs. Difference was, the French never sacked up and did anything about it.



On the other hand, we have the Treaty largley to thank for forcing US minds out of the box and developing Naval Aviation into a combat instead of supporing arm once BBs became taboo. History is complicated.