• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Banning Cluster Munitions

eddie said:
...the Washington Naval Conference! By limiting the tonnage and type of capital vessels on an individual nation-basis, all sorts of "cleverness" was incentivized...
Click to expand...

Excellent example. After the horrificness that was WWI, there were all sort of attempts at wishful-thinking, "let's just make war illegal!" treaties and agreements. Some stuck (not even the Nazis used mustard gas), but must of the treaties turned out to be so much toilet paper. All the Washington Treaty accomplished, as Eddie points out, was to ensure the players had better weapons when the next war kicked off.

Bottom line is, the real problems WRT landmines and CBUs are caused by players who aren't subject to any of the treaties, or will simply ignore them. Countries that feel like they need them will continue to use them, and the rest will continue to make good money on selling them.

Besides, none of these treaties have any sort of practical enforcement element to them. What will we all do if a signatory country does use CBUs in the next war? "Hey! No fair! Cheater McCheterson!"
 
Uncle Fester said:
Some stuck (not even the Nazis used mustard gas)
Click to expand...

I have a question about that. My impression on that front was that Hitler thought the Allies still had the goodies too, and due to this pairity, chose not to employ them. Truth?
 
sodajones said:
We should bring napalm back.
Click to expand...
Why?

The only reason I ask is because napalm is merely the chemical composition of a certain incendiary device. The US still has the Mk-77 incendiary bomb, and we used it in Desert Storm and OIF. The chemicals may not be "napalm" but the effect is the same.
 
eddie said:
I have a question about that. My impression on that front was that Hitler thought the Allies still had the goodies too, and due to this pairity, chose not to employ them. Truth?
Click to expand...

Hitler refused to sanction the use of gas/chemical weapons as he himself lived through a gas attack in WWI. It left him temporarily blinded and hospitalized for months; he was left terrified of its effects till the very end.

"Fun" fact: the use of gas attacks was seriously considered by the Allies for the invasion of Japan, based on the casualty figures from the Okinawa campaign.
 
phrogpilot73 said:
Why?

The only reason I ask is because napalm is merely the chemical composition of a certain incendiary device. The US still has the Mk-77 incendiary bomb, and we used it in Desert Storm and OIF. The chemicals may not be "napalm" but the effect is the same.
Click to expand...

Cause it sticks to kids. :confused:


On a more serious note, passing all this legislation is just going to add to the misery. If we are not allowed to wage war in a manner that is brutal and final, it will only serve to draw the conflict out further. I'm referring to conventional war of course.
 
eddie said:
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...
Click to expand...
Poor analogy, as these treaties do not aim to enforce any sort of political order through the application of artificial military "balance" - which is what invites cheating. They're more analogous to START or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, in that these are voluntary pledges to disarm.
 
My parents had a friend who, as a kid, had found an unexploded bomb in London. It blew up on he and his little friends; doctors were able to patch him up, but he was a mess from head to toe. It seems like, with today's technology, that sort of thing could be mostly avoided. Is all that talk about presicion just hype?

 
mmx1 said:
Poor analogy, as these treaties do not aim to enforce any sort of political order through the application of artificial military "balance" - which is what invites cheating. They're more analogous to START or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, in that these are voluntary pledges to disarm.
Click to expand...

The functional distinction is failing on me. I picked Washington because it has a special "IJN place" in my heart, but if you want me to say, "Kellogg-Briand Pact," I'll say it.

Certainly the 'ze Germans, the Ruskies, and our nihonjin friends ignored that one too.
 
voodooqueen said:
...that sort of thing could be mostly avoided.
Click to expand...

Impossible task. There will always be duds - lots of them. That's like saying we're going to eliminate automobile accidents by improving the safety features of cars. UXOs take an almost endless variety of forms, from shells, mortars, bombs, mines, etc. UXOs are an unavoidable by-product of war. Our interest in improving the reliability of our ordnance should be driven by our desire to maximize Pk. Let's not get caught up in the mindset that we can engineer our way out of this. Good intentions don't count here.

Brett
 
Camp Elliot, adjacent to MCAS Miramar had multiple live fire ranges during WW-II. And for many years since, unexploded ordnance continued to turn up. In fact, in 1983 in a new residential community built upon an old range, two 8-year-old boys were killed when they came across a 37mm unexploded shell.
Related link
 
Pearl Harbor still has UXO, or at least there was still one UXO when the Commodore came over the PA of the ATG school I was at on Ford Island during 2M school in 2005. He said that some UXO from the Japanese attack and had been handled by EOD in an adjacent but unmanned building or near it, and wanted to quell any rumors before they started.

I'm curious what you guys might think of the development of non-persistant ordnance. You know, ordnance that is designed to not go bang after X years have passed since its manufacture. We have a policy about landmines for that. What if such an effort was expanded to all ordnance or the most common UXO-producing ordnance?
 
SkywardET said:
I'm curious what you guys might think of the development of non-persistant ordnance. You know, ordnance that is designed to not go bang after X years have passed since its manufacture. We have a policy about landmines for that. What if such an effort was expanded to all ordnance or the most common UXO-producing ordnance?
Click to expand...

That's fine in theory, but what happens when the disarming mechanism doesn't work? It's one thing to talk about not making delayed-detonation ordy, but duds are another matter. Duds are duds because something didn't work...how do you engineer your way around that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top