UK to Ban Cluster/Sub-munitions

[Lawman]

Cluster weapons ban leaves gap in UK inventory

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw070410_2_n.shtml


Wow..... I know people (read dirty hippys) whine about them being a cruel weapon, but I never expected the military to actually have to deal without having them in their inventory. Guess Fuel-Air weapons will be next, cause according to hippies if its a big fire ball its all napalm regardless of that whole overpressure thing...

 

[Herc_Dude]

All the Euro-sissies will applaud this move. Political correctness might just eventually lead to the end of us...

 

[NavAir42]

Personally I think banning any particular weapon because it's too cruel is a joke. Under that logic every weapon has to be banned for being too cruel. Some people (again, read dirty hippies) fail to realize what has been proven in thousands of years of warfare. The more quickly, and brutally you destroy your enemy the faster you win. There should be no half assing killing someone. You only tie the hands of commanders and operators by limiting what they are able to use when sent into combat.

William T Sherman said it best "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

 

[HeyJoe]

So are all threads migrating to the VT tragedy? This is only one of several that have been threadjacked.

 

[Lawman]

So are all threads migrating to the VT tragedy? This is only one of several that have been threadjacked.

Exactly what I was thinking. I started this thread for the purpose of pointing out a flawed thinking by the British government to try and appease a group by diliberately hampering its war fighting capability..... Not to argue the pro's and con's of firearms legislation.

 

[Brett327]

Exactly what I was thinking. I started this thread for the purpose of pointing out a flawed thinking by the British government to try and appease a group by diliberately hampering its war fighting capability..... Not to argue the pro's and con's of firearms legislation.

Concur. Thread pruned. Keep it on topic folks.

Brett

 

[insanebikerboy]

Personally I think banning any particular weapon because it's too cruel is a joke.

Yeah, kind of like how the Germans complained (in WWI, I think) of the shotgun being too cruel of a weapon. That'll teach 'em.

 

[Lawman]

Yeah, kind of like how the Germans complained (in WWI, I think) of the shotgun being too cruel of a weapon. That'll teach 'em.

This from the people who put the Flamethrowing into practical use on the battlefield....

 

[eddie]

To what extent is this a cost thing? To what extent is it due to political pressure? That's what I'm curious about.

I don't know the particulars of the British Army and RAF, but I do know the Royal Navy has been reducing it's array of capabilities (as opposed to it's size, which has also shrunk) for quite some time now.

Now, I have no operational or doctrinal frame of reference here, and that is why I love this site so much.

The article says the RAF is losing its "area-CAS" capability by retireing its cluster bombs. Instead, it will be forced to rely on heat and radar-seaking AGMs. The "area" trade off is obvious: cluster munitions are good at killing people (insurgents), while AGMs are better suited to harder individual targets. But I'm still a little confused.

-Does the RAF use guideded or unguided bombs other than CBUs?

-Are unguided bpmbs used in CAS by the US or the RAF? If not, what, other than the AGMs from the article, are used in CAS?

-The more pertinant question is: To what degree is RAF CAS capability really hampered by the loss of cluster munitions?

The article also mentions that AT2 tank rockets will remain in service because "each submunition is fitted with a self-destruct fuze." THIS sounds like a political issue, not so much in regards to the initial CBU targets, but as to the potential for collateral damage. Now, I think it's probably a good thing if we try and minimze the number of live munitions we leave in a country after it's all said and done, but there are of course other issues.

-Do modern CBUs stand to cause the same kind of grief over time as, say, SE Asian landmines have?

Like I prefaced: is this costs and force structure (which I am NOT saying isn't motivated by hippies), or is it purely PC-ism? I'd imagine a little of both.

 

[FMRAM]

This from the people who put the Flamethrowing into practical use on the battlefield....

Let's not forget about chemical warfare...