new treaty to ban cluster bombs

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

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 >> new treaty to ban cluster bombs

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:12:06 AM

LadyEllen

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

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/article3747676.ece

E

_____________________________

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

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:19:52 AM

Irishknight

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

WTF are they thinking? What are they gonna ban next? Getting drunk and sleeping with ugly people? Double cheeseburgers?

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:22:03 AM

RealityLicks

Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

WTF are they thinking? What are they gonna ban next? Getting drunk and sleeping with ugly people? Double cheeseburgers?

Well, if they do, some people around here are due a celibate crash diet.

(in reply to Irishknight)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:26:37 AM

LadyEllen

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

The only downside I see is that we wont get TV pictures of their deployment any more - and all the horror aside, theyre pretty damned cool when they scatter and there are dozens of smaller explosions. A lethal firework display.

Apparently we're keeping "cluster bombs that arent cluster bombs" - guided ones and ones with a few bomblets rather than dozens and the ones which deactivate (apparently) if they dont go off.

E

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Irishknight)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:34:25 AM

slaveboyforyou

Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline

It's pretty meaningless. The U.S., Russia, and China aren't participating. I don't see us participating anytime soon in such a ban. It's horrible that innocent people get killed and maimed by bomblets, but a ban isn't going to stop the use of them. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's out.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 6:38:11 AM

Gwynvyd

Posts: 4949
Status: offline

I am thinking the people who would be against this... have no bloody clue WTF a cluster bomb actualy is or does....

These were used in Viet Nam... Children are *still* being blown to bits today from them by trying to clear fields to help feed thier families.

I know as Westerners people generaly do not give a fuck about others.. but if some jack ass cluster bombed your country.. and it happened to land on your property.. and you simply could no longer use your land... *Ever* again ~ it would be devistating. You would be finacialy ruined.. and not to mention little Timmy or Betty might go outside to play one day and not come back.

Most places that get cluster bombed are in civilian centers. It takes out many lives of well.... civilians. Back to Westerners not giving a fig.. but I know it wouldnt be a bright spot in my day if someone cluster bombed my town and hit my family and friends.

Evil humans will use the devices left to them... just as incendiary bombs were banned these should be too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_bomb

Incedently we still have one hell of a incendiary bomb that is just like Napalm... and since we didnt sign all of the articles.. we are assholes enough to use it. ( In Iraq none the less ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb You have to love our nation... Home of the free land of the brave.

*sighs* Why does our govt have to be such wankers about these things? arent we supposed to be held to a higher standard? I dont care if every body else is doing it too.. that is no arguement.. it has to start somewhere.... ( It is like the teenager that says "but Mom.. all the other kids are!" ~ "If they jumped off a bridge would you?" )

Gwyn

Knowledge is a good thing.... go eat your cheeseburger, get drunk and fuck who you like.

< Message edited by Gwynvyd -- 5/29/2008 6:42:42 AM >

_____________________________

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 RealityLicks)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 7:29:39 AM

popeye1250

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

No, I don't think the U.S. govt. should be "held to a higher standard" than other govts. That's just foolishness.
Who would "decide" that or those standards anyway, you and me? I doubt it.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Gwynvyd)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 8:45:23 AM

DomAviator

Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline

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

Once again - the purpose of war is to break shit and kill people. Whoever breaks the most shit and kills the most people fastest wins... To do this we need good weapons, and thats the name of the game.... It would be utterly stupid to sign onto any treaty that limits the ordnance that we could drop on a target, particularly highly effective weapons that accomplish the stated goal of killing people and breaking shit. Besides, both clusterbombs and napalm make nice songs... Ah I remember them well....

Yes indeed its pretty neat,
To watch (racial term) burn in the street,
Roasting flesh, it smells so sweet,
Napalm sticks to kids.

Baby Abdul sucking on momma's tit,
Wounded (racial term) down in a pit,
Intruder drivers dont give a shit,
Napalm sticks to kids.

My BN (bombadier/navigator) don't care a bit,
Just as long as the pieces fit,
When you shove the bodies in a pit,
Napalm sticks to kids.

Eighteen kids in a School Zone,
Books under arms and walking home,
Last in line goes home alone because,
Napalm sticks to kids.

That is PART of a real cadence that we sung while running... (There are enough verses to get you through a five mile run) Somehow, it you change "napalm" to "strawberry jam" it just doesnt have the same effect and it kind of loses the purpose of turning sensitive brand new college grads into a weapons system....

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 8:47:05 AM

Irishknight

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

I think that if we do sign on them we'll just figure out another way around this treaty. We'll make a new bomb along similar but not the same prociples that will kill more people then we'll ban it and build yet another.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:05:26 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

No, I don't think the U.S. govt. should be "held to a higher standard" than other govts. That's just foolishness.
Who would "decide" that or those standards anyway, you and me? I doubt it.

When Popeye is right, he is right all the way.
It is a fact that cluster bombs have atrocious properties. So do a lot of modern weapons, or not so modern ones used in sufficient numbers. The world would be much better off without their use. Unringing those bells is just not going to happen though.

Governments use those things in their own self interests, and demanding that only certain peoples be held to a higher standard is just another weapon in the search for power over others.

There in no group on this earth altruistic enough to dictate such things without abusing it.

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 5/29/2008 9:07:55 AM >

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 10

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:06:45 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

I get it! This guy is actually an agent for world peace and disarmement who's trying to infiltrate our collective spirit with blatantly gruesome images of war! What better way to put people off the carnage than by presenting it to them on a plate?

A cunning plan.

_____________________________

(in reply to DomAviator)

Profile

Post #: 11

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:11:39 AM

Irishknight

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

I'm just saying that the government would work around it even if they do sign. Its what they do. They rarely agree to stop using any weapon until they have something to replace it.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 12

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:18:51 AM

LadyEllen

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

But of course this treaty is also right, because the makers of such weapons are not able to make them sufficiently well that they all go off on the intended target during conflict, but instead some remain live and unexploded on the ground to maim and kill after the event, when the conflict is over. Killing or injuring people after the event, when the conflict is over, is clearly unlawful by any standard of lawfulness.

If one of these unexploded bomblets injured or killed a US soldier in Iraq, would there not be grounds for a lawsuit against the manufacturer on the basis that their negligent manufacture (ie the bomblet did not go off as intended) led to the injury or death? Would there not also be grounds for criminal charges along the same lines, in that the negligent manufacture led to the injury or death - corporate manslaughter perhaps in the latter case?

E

_____________________________

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

(in reply to kittinSol)

Profile

Post #: 13

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:25:11 AM

kittinSol

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

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 reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 14

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:33:03 AM

DomAviator

Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

If one of these unexploded bomblets injured or killed a US soldier in Iraq, would there not be grounds for a lawsuit against the manufacturer on the basis that their negligent manufacture (ie the bomblet did not go off as intended) led to the injury or death? Would there not also be grounds for criminal charges along the same lines, in that the negligent manufacture led to the injury or death - corporate manslaughter perhaps in the latter case?

E

Ellen, no these things (and any other munition) can and does go off and kill military personell and civilian contractors regularly - even on ranges in the USA. There is an entire UXO / ERW (unexploded ordnance / explosive remnants of war) industry, including contractors who go do range clearance work. We also had some assholes in Nevada, mostly local drunks and bums, who would sneak out onto the ranges to gather scrap metal to sell and they tended to get "energentically disassembled" if they touched the wrong thing. There is no negligence involved - in reality approx 5-10% of bombs dropped do not detonate for any of a number of reasons ... dead batteries, electrical connections jolted loose by flak, fell wrong and hit ass first etc.... We expect a 5-10% failure rate.

This next one is going to be unpopular but many of us also thought that the bomblets in a cluster munition were actually intended to be picked up and brought home. 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.

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.

< Message edited by DomAviator -- 5/29/2008 9:37:22 AM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Profile

Post #: 15

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:44:07 AM

popeye1250

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

And what difference does it make "how" someone is killed, dead is dead.
Like Archie Bunker said about handguns; "Would it make you feel better if 'dey was pushed out of windows, little goil?"
If you have a massive force of infantry moving against you over a wide area cluster bombs are the perfect weapon to counter that situation.
You can bet that there's plenty of cluster bombs in S. Korea!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DomAviator)

Profile

Post #: 16

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:47:24 AM

slaveboyforyou

Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline

A couple of months ago a civil war buff found some grape shot in Virginia I think. He was cleaning it up in his garage, and blew himself up. From what I read the guy was an expert on the stuff. He had been collecting the stuff from battlefield sites for decades.

Edited to add:

Actually it was a few weeks ago. Here's the link.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=4774820

< Message edited by slaveboyforyou -- 5/29/2008 9:53:58 AM >

(in reply to DomAviator)

Profile

Post #: 17

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 9:57:00 AM

DomAviator

Posts: 1253
Joined: 4/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

A couple of months ago a civil war buff found some grape shot in Virginia I think. He was cleaning it up in his garage, and blew himself up. From what I read the guy was an expert on the stuff. He had been collecting the stuff from battlefield sites for decades.

Exactly slaveboy, there is UXO / ERW everywhere. Just think what is under the soil all over Europe and the pacific. After being a fleet diver, and a SeaBee UCT diver, my dad finished out his Navy career in EOD. (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) His entire job was serving as senior NCO for a mobile unit that went around blowing up or "rendering safe" shit that was supposed to go boom but that didnt... Sometimes it was a GPS guided bomb that went nuts and landed on the officers golf course, other times it was a ww2 torpedo or mine that came up in a fishermans net, still other times it was RPG's that got stuck in the wall of a target on a range and didnt go off, or somebodys souvenier that they brought home from the war... He had one once where his Navy EOD unit was called by a police bomb squad because some WW2 vet brought collected a garage full of live ordnance! Its everywhere...

Edited to add: Hell sometimes you can even find UXO in somebodys asshole LOL

http://www.well.com/user/cynsa/newpiles.html#shell

< Message edited by DomAviator -- 5/29/2008 10:11:01 AM >

(in reply to slaveboyforyou)

Profile

Post #: 18

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 11:24:36 AM

FullCircle

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

Originally cluster bombs were used to blow up runway strips and I have no problem with their use in that respect because you’d expect such places to be lightly populated and because the place is identified as a airfield that has suffered bombings in the past you can easily establish there could be unexploded bomblets there.

For some reason people seem to have forgotten their original application and they have been used in populated areas for example by the Israelis and that is completely wrong in my opinion.

Sooner or later airfields will have to be bombed again and they will come back into use because the alternative is one bomb doing isolated damage to an airstrip that can then be patched over.

< Message edited by FullCircle -- 5/29/2008 11:25:39 AM >

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to DomAviator)

Profile

Post #: 19

RE: new treaty to ban cluster bombs - 5/29/2008 12:10:55 PM

popeye1250

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

FullCircle, I think that's a different kind of bomb that they use to render runways unusable than a cluster bomb.
Aviator would know I'm sure.

_____________________________

"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 #: 20