RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FullCircle -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 12:47:22 PM)
Well I'm not a munitions expert but to me that would be a logical reason for them, I can't think of any other reason for them.

popeye1250 -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 12:52:43 PM)
The problem with that is that anti personel or armour cluster bombs detonate at 10 to 50 feet up in the air to rain down shrapnel on troops or tanks. Shrapnel isn't really going to hurt a runway that much. You'd need a bomb that "burroughs" into the runway and then blows up to put a big hole in it.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 1:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen DA is quite right though Kitten - war is about killing and destroying as effectively as possible and its foolish not to use weapons which will accomplish that so that one wins. I don't know what to tell you, Ellen. There's so much wrong with the above it's worthy of an entirely new thread [:(] (how can anyone defend such murderous posturing and gleeful violence is, quite frankly, beyond me). In an ideal world Kitten, no one would need weapons of any kind, and that would be great. Sadly, we live in a world where there is a need to have the ability to use violence to establish one's point of view - and that goes from the street outside my house by way of police up to the international level. Every law we have, national and international, every treaty and convention, is only made because there is a threat of violence behind it, and only observed for the same reason. That our armed forces are hijacked by commercial interests is another subject though. E

Alumbrado -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 1:19:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Well I'm not a munitions expert but to me that would be a logical reason for them, I can't think of any other reason for them. 'Cluster' is pretty much a description of the packaging of multiple submunitions...what is packed in the cluster can be inert shrapnel, such as the flechette darts of a beehive artillery round, or incendiary, chemical, penetrating, and so forth. The purposes can be anti personnel, anti-material, anti-infrastructure, etc. All very nasty stuff.

Irishknight -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 2:38:11 PM)
Didn't they have one that dropped little fire bombs that was supposed to burn all the oxygen out of an area in seconds or something like that? Very frightening. Where's DA when we need his knowledge????

Gwynvyd -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 6:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Didn't they have one that dropped little fire bombs that was supposed to burn all the oxygen out of an area in seconds or something like that? Very frightening. Where's DA when we need his knowledge???? Yeah it's a Daisy Cutter Bomb... http://www.nd.edu/~techrev/Archive/Spring2002/a8.html The Russians just one upped us with a bigger badder one a few months ago. Gwyn

Alumbrado -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 6:12:39 PM)
quote: These powerful effects have caused the Daisy Cutter to be mistakenly identified as a fuel air bomb. The Daisy Cutter is in fact, not a fuel air bomb. Fuel air bombs vaporize a fuel in the air and ignite it. This produces a fireball which rapidly expands making the blast much more extensive than conventional weapons. Although the Daisy Cutter could be used in similar situations as fuel air bombs, it is much too big to depend on the surrounding air and it utilizes its own oxidizer.

Gwynvyd -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 6:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: These powerful effects have caused the Daisy Cutter to be mistakenly identified as a fuel air bomb. The Daisy Cutter is in fact, not a fuel air bomb. Fuel air bombs vaporize a fuel in the air and ignite it. This produces a fireball which rapidly expands making the blast much more extensive than conventional weapons. Although the Daisy Cutter could be used in similar situations as fuel air bombs, it is much too big to depend on the surrounding air and it utilizes its own oxidizer. yes it uses it's own oxidizer.. it is too bloody big not to. It is big and destructive. To be exact, the Daisy Cutter bomb weighs in at 15,000 pounds and destroys anything in a 600-yard radius. First used during the Vietnam War, these huge bombs have since been employed in the Gulf War and most recently in Afghanistan. Although the “Daisy Cutter” bomb is not a nuclear weapon, its use in battle has caused controversy because of its terrifying and utterly destructive nature. what he may have been thinking about is the MOAB.... now that is a typical fuel air bomb... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm Gwyn

cjan -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 6:22:05 PM)
I wish "they" would ban clusterfucks.

Alumbrado -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 6:23:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: These powerful effects have caused the Daisy Cutter to be mistakenly identified as a fuel air bomb. The Daisy Cutter is in fact, not a fuel air bomb. Fuel air bombs vaporize a fuel in the air and ignite it. This produces a fireball which rapidly expands making the blast much more extensive than conventional weapons. Although the Daisy Cutter could be used in similar situations as fuel air bombs, it is much too big to depend on the surrounding air and it utilizes its own oxidizer. yes it uses it's own oxidizer.. it is too bloody big not to. It is big and destructive. To be exact, the Daisy Cutter bomb weighs in at 15,000 pounds and destroys anything in a 600-yard radius. First used during the Vietnam War, these huge bombs have since been employed in the Gulf War and most recently in Afghanistan. Although the “Daisy Cutter” bomb is not a nuclear weapon, its use in battle has caused controversy because of its terrifying and utterly destructive nature. what he may have been thinking about is the MOAB.... now that is a typical fuel air bomb... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm Gwyn All very nasty stuff. Wish people would evolve past the need.

Irishknight -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/29/2008 8:07:09 PM)
Fascinating. Imagine if we put as much thought into solving our other problems as we do in designing these amazing bombs. We would be colonizing other planets by now.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 2:40:47 AM)
[awaiting explanation of weird double post]

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 2:42:31 AM)
No we wouldnt IK - we only ever put thought and effort into fucking one another over, whether its socially, commercially or militarily. Had we not been so predisposed, we'd never have made it off the African plains and would still be gathering fruit and roots for food. So much of our technological advance is down to finding new ways of fucking one another over - from the first raising of a stick, stone or bone as a weapon, all the way to today. Even the space programme, was about what? Trying to fuck the Russians over. Good thing there's nothing on the moon, or we'd be fucking one another over for that right now. And it is because as a species our predisposition is to fuck one another over, that we have these awesome and terrifying weapons today - because even if we now find peace to be best, we're ever aware that others of our species may feel differently. E

rubberpet -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 3:13:36 AM)
I'm for the ban in theory, but the reality is pretty bleak. Why not just update the technology of the cluster bomb with updated safeguards? Cluster bombs are very effective, but with any munitions and anything mechanical, there are always some malfunctions and not every single one detonates. That's why new technologies and safeguards need to be used with weapons like these to minimize aftermath accidents.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 3:44:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator The entire word is littered with UXO/ERW and not just from us. There are still live japaneese bombs and mines turning up all over the pacific - including hawaii. Despite the best efforts of your pros from dover, the UK is still strewn with WW2 german UXO. Absolutely DA - a German bomb was unearthed in Coventry just two months ago; bizarrely next to the theatre at which a play about the Coventry Blitz was to have its opening performance on that very day. But there is a difference between that German bomb and these bomblets. The Germans planned and intended for all their bombs to go off - that some did not given 1930s-40s technology is explicable perhaps. These bomblets meanwhile are modern manufacture, possible to make with the benefit of 70 years of technological advances, and it would seem from that, that their failure to go off immediately is either intentional or the result of extremely poor, negligent manufacture. Personally, I fail to see the difference between a soldier accidentally shooting a civilian after the conflict by way of his rifle malfunctioning (for which he would be in trouble, in our Army at least), and an RAF pilot accidentally blowing up a civilian after the conflict by way of dropping bomblets, some of which did not go off on the original target. Each person must be responsible for their actions, and malfunctioning equipment is no excuse for the soldier, so why should it be for the pilot - who is totally responsible for the aircraft and for what is loaded to it? If cluster bombs cannot be made such that the bomblets go off on the original target - regarding which I fail to understand any technological reason, given our capabilities - then they are not fit for purpose, unless their purpose is to not go off on the original target and to cause death and injury after the event. We must consider that if some are allowed to be prone to not go off on the original target, then it could be that all might not go off - leaving that troop formation or tank intact to kill our personnel and having cost a fortune to deliver in terms of resource. If a rifle manufacturer tried to sell his product to the army, but his rifle was prone to jamming, going off unexpectedly and shooting bullets in random directions, the army would be ill advised to purchase. And it has to be the same with cluster bombs and every other weapons we employ. To employ them regardless is to invite death and destruction on the innocent, and on our own people. E

Hippiekinkster -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 4:08:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen DA is quite right though Kitten - war is about killing and destroying as effectively as possible and its foolish not to use weapons which will accomplish that so that one wins. I don't know what to tell you, Ellen. There's so much wrong with the above it's worthy of an entirely new thread [:(] (how can anyone defend such murderous posturing and gleeful violence is, quite frankly, beyond me). No kidding. It's an invitation to the slippery slope of "nuking the ragheads", as our right-wing brothers and sisters so quaintly phrase it.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 4:21:25 AM)
No its not HK - its an admonition not to use these weapons lightly or indeed to have them used in circumstances which do not fulfil the minimum requirements for a legal war, according to the precedent set at Nuernberg. Those who talk of "nuking the ragheads" are no different to the nazis who thought it fit to eradicate the Slavs, and generally follow alike thought patterns in reaching their conclusions. The question is, whether the nazis would have attempted to fulfil their aims, had the Slavs had the same weaponry with which to respond to nazi aggression? The world is only a nice peaceful place in general, because each group knows the capacity for violence of the others. And every group will fuck over any other which it perceives to lack the same or greater capacity for violence. It is not the weaponry which is the problem, but those who wield it. E

kittinSol -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 4:26:08 AM)
quote: Ah yes, cluster bombs and the MK77... Great stuff. [:D] Once again - the purpose of war is to break shit and kill people. quote: Besides, both clusterbombs and napalm make nice songs... Ah I remember them well.... quote: Yes indeed its pretty neat, To watch (racial term) burn in the street, Roasting flesh, it smells so sweet, Napalm sticks to kids. quote: They looked like toys and while I dont know this to be a fact many of us thought it was by design... Pick them up, bring them home to show mommy and daddy, daddy starts fucking around with it and BOOM. These people are thugs who use war as an outlet for their developmental and emotional defficiencies [>:] .

Hippiekinkster -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 4:35:47 AM)
"DA is quite right though Kitten - war is about killing and destroying as effectively as possible and its foolish not to use weapons which will accomplish that so that one wins. " "...as effectively as possible, and it's foolish not to use weapons..." So, why not go ahead and use NBC weapons? The US has distanced itself from the Geneva Accords, the spirit of Nürnberg, and has decided that it will, under no circumstances, allow itself to be judged in the way that it judges other nations. Seems to me there are some seriously morally deficient people who manufacture these abominations. Not going after them is like going afetr GWB and leaving Rove to live peacefully on some South American beach somewhere. If it's China making them, I would like to see all Chinese goods boycotted.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 4:43:23 AM)
So your arguing with me why again? I would have no problem with cluster bombs - if they were made properly so that they all went off on the original target. That they do not (by error or design) means a ban is best. My main problem though, is with those who gain authorisation to use our weaponry for purposes other than the purposes established at Nuernberg - which given the law systems of the UK and the US, which operate on precedence, must apply to us too. Albeit of course, returning to my earlier point in an earlier post, its might which maketh right. E

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125