RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs

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

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

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 4:57:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 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 Not REALLY arguing with you. More like I can't figure out what I'm trying to say. Which means I should probably go hang out in the "Really Dopey Shit" forum. I might make sense to myself there. [8D]

kittinSol -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:00:36 AM)
To be fair to you, E's standpoint is confusing. On the one hand, she says this: quote: 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. On the other hand, she argues for strict observance in using clusterbombs the 'proper way'. It seems contradictory to me. If the aim of war is just to kill and maim, why be shy of anything? Let's go all out.

Irishknight -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:07:24 AM)
I think I understand her stance. Think about it as a fist fight. The fight sucks. You try to avoid it but when you can't you give it EVERYTHING you jave to kick the other guy's ass. At that point, it becomes all about winning. Biting, punching, eye gouging, hitting people with chairs and tables, it's all legal. I hope I got the jist of what you were saying correct LadyE.

kittinSol -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:10:29 AM)
Hmmmm... I have read nothing about avoiding war at all costs so far. Unfortunately.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:12:06 AM)
My position Kitten, is that to have peace we must prepare for war - but avoid war at all costs, and only go to war if it is legal to do so according to the precedents which we ourselves set at Nuernberg. Once the war is on, then its on and it has to be total in this day and age - but we shouldnt be using weapons which hang around after the event; ie, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons are out, and cluster bombs are out for as long as they are unreliable - for which I see no reason given our technological abilities, aside from negligent manufacture or deliberate design. We can also throw in mines into that category and any other form of weaponry which can linger and cause death or injury after the event. E

Irishknight -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:16:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Hmmmm... I have read nothing about avoiding war at all costs so far. Unfortunately. Thats the feel I got from LadyE. Even if I'm wrong, I should go on record as saying thats my stance on war. Try to avoid it but when it is made necessary through the actions of others, hit them until they quit.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:21:47 AM)
Probably gathered from my preceding post, but yes IK - we're on the same page it seems E

kittinSol -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:24:00 AM)
Let's go and talk to him about Nuremberg. Perhaps we could sing him that lovely song I quoted from, you know, that lovely song about napalm sticking to kids.

LadyEllen -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:40:24 AM)
Lets be serious Kitten - "war" is a word that has lost its meaning. "War" is the conscious discarding of every moral, which means its OK for that period of war to do whatever to your enemy, to your enemy's people, to your enemy's allies, their property and yes, to the "non combatants" too; because the reality is that there are no non-combatants on the enemy side - theyre all part of the enemy's war effort, unless theyre dead, injured or taken prisoner. There is no room in "war" for concerns about the welfare of the enemy, moral debate or ethical dilemna. And this is why we have to avoid it at all costs. And paradoxically, why the possession of weapons with collosal power to kill and destroy is what kept the peace after 1945 in Europe and throughout much of the world. This is also why we have tried to make rules for war by way of treaties and agreements - "war is hell" is another over used phrase which has lost its meaning, but even with the treaties and agreements, it remains so. And we shouldnt ever kid ourselves that we can make war without causing death, injury and destruction to all of those we choose as enemies or choose us as enemies. Too many people in the west it seems, regard "war" as some form of sporting event - too often our "glorious leaders" perpetuate and promote this notion. No one in Iraq or elsewhere in any other war zone would be killed or injured by our weaponry, were our "glorious leaders" to not give the orders for that to occur. That they give such orders in unlawful circumstances - unlawful according to the precedents set by their predecessors - and get away with it so often and so effectively, is the source of the crime. E

DomAviator -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 10:27:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 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 Ellen we intend for all ordnance to go off... However 5-10% fails to do so... Thats not limited to cluster munitions - it includes everything - whether its an RPG (rocket propelled grende) or the latest JDAM.... Its not a 5-10% failure rate of cluster bomblets, its a 5-10% failure rate of everything that goes boom hence the UXO / ERW problem everywhere there has been conflict. Furthermore, sometimes littering the countryside with UXO is the military goal. Its called "denial of access"... Some of these munitions are intended to disperse what are essentially mines so as to deny enemy personell access to an area. For example - drop them on the outskirts of a city so that the enemy cant retreat through that area safely. Sometimes we want them to "bring them home" kind of a trojan horse... Commander Hadji, loook what I found outside.... New American Technology !!!! BOOM!!!! No more command bunker, no more commanders, mission accomplished... The type of cluster bombs you refer to are essentially air emplaced landmines... We drop them, and they lay there waiting for someome to approach it...They have many uses that protect our own men... For example if the PJ's have a downed pilot they are trying to extract, we may encircle the operation with these - so that oppossing forces cant come in and capture him... There are a variety of cluster munitions... for various purposes. None are really for runway cratering as they arent powerful enough. They are mainly antipersonell devices although frag clusters will do a nice job on parked airplanes.... However to crater a runway we usually drop 250 pounders with the fuses retarded so that thye dig in and make the biggest possible crater and we will drop them on a delay - such as 18 of them a half second apart as we fly down the lemgth of the runway. This will leave them with 18 giant holes that need fixing and a whole lot of FOD to clean before they can run a jet engine down that runway. The daisy cutter is not a cluster bomb - it was designed to carve helicopter LZ's out of jungle... Drop one and you now have a clearing to land in...

Alumbrado -> RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs (5/30/2008 5:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight I think I understand her stance. Think about it as a fist fight. The fight sucks. You try to avoid it but when you can't you give it EVERYTHING you jave to kick the other guy's ass. At that point, it becomes all about winning.... That, and the loose change on the ground afterward. (Thanks, to Margaret Smith)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125