Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 12:47:22 PM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 12:52:43 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 1:10:41 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 1:19:14 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FullCircle)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 2:38:11 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		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????

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:07:24 PM   
Gwynvyd


Posts: 4949
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Self avowed Geek-Girl~
Come for the boobs, stay for the brains.

Be the kinda woman that when your feet hit the floor in the morning the Devil says "Oh shit, shes awake..."
~ Softandshy's "Shiney"

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:12:39 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Gwynvyd)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:20:34 PM   
Gwynvyd


Posts: 4949
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Self avowed Geek-Girl~
Come for the boobs, stay for the brains.

Be the kinda woman that when your feet hit the floor in the morning the Devil says "Oh shit, shes awake..."
~ Softandshy's "Shiney"

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:22:05 PM   
cjan


Posts: 3513
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline 		I wish "they" would ban clusterfucks.

_____________________________

"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall ,frozen , dead, from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."- D.H. L

" When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks in to you"- Frank Nitti



(in reply to Gwynvyd)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:23:48 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Gwynvyd)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 8:07:09 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 2:40:47 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		[awaiting explanation of weird double post]

< Message edited by LadyEllen -- 5/30/2008 3:13:02 AM >

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Irishknight)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 2:42:31 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		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


< Message edited by LadyEllen -- 5/30/2008 3:11:57 AM >

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 3:13:36 AM   
rubberpet


Posts: 1743
Joined: 4/6/2006
From: The Land of Voodoo
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Collared and devoted property of Mistress Lorelei (vampchick88) as of 3/26/08.

Rubberpet - The Resident Anti-Subby and mysterious shadowy figure known as Voodoo, proud hitman and wiseguy for the Subby Mafia.


(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 3:44:40 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to DomAviator)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 4:08:09 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 4:21:25 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 4:26:08 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:



Ah yes, cluster bombs and the MK77... Great stuff.  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  .


< Message edited by kittinSol -- 5/30/2008 4:42:50 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 4:35:47 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline 		"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.


(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/30/2008 4:43:23 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094