Why hasn't the United States ratified the ban on cluster bombs?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

Seems pretty hypocritical to sell an authoritarian, homophobic, sexist, oppressive theocracy 1,300 of these weapons that are banned in 83 countries while criticizing others for their own use of deadly weapons.


U.S. Shipping Thousands of Cluster Bombs to Saudis, Despite Global Ban

Cluster bombs spit out dozens, even hundreds, of micro-munitions in order cover a wide area with death and destruction. These weapons are used for killing large groups of people, destroying thinly-skinned vehicles and dispensing landmines or poison gas.

These weapons are loathed because in addition to killing enemy combatants, their fairly indiscriminate nature means they can kill plenty of civilians. And not just in the heat of battle. The little ball-shaped bomblets dispersed by cluster munitions don't always detonate on first impact. Often, they will just sit there on the ground until someone, often a child, picks them up and causes them to explode.

So far, 112 countries have signed an international treaty banning cluster bombs, with 83 ratifying it. Guess who isn't part of that club? China, Russia, most for the former USSR, Syria... and the United States, which is selling thousands Textron-made cluster bombs to the Saudis between now and 2015.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/22/us_shipping_thousands_of_cluster_bombs_to_saudi_arabia_despite_international_ban



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is why the world doesn't take us seriously when we claim our crusades are for "human rights".

[msongs]

1. because, like Assad, 'Murica doesn't have to live according to the rules (land mines anyone?) nt

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Seems to be the case.

The argument I'm hearing from Kerry and the bomb Syria posters is that chemical weapons have been banned by most countries and we have a duty to enforce that.

Does that mean we should be bombed by one of the countries that ratified the cluster bomb treaty?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. U.S. Using Cluster Munitions In Iraq

From 2003

U.S. ground forces in Iraq are using cluster munitions with a very high failure rate, creating immediate and long-term dangers for civilians and friendly soldiers, Human Rights Watch reported today.

it is evident from television images and stories from reporters embedded with U.S. units that U.S. forces are using artillery projectiles and rockets containing large numbers of submunitions, or cluster munitions. When these submunitions fail to explode on impact as designed, they become hazardous explosive "duds"—functioning like volatile, indiscriminate antipersonnel landmines.

"The United States should not be using these weapons," said Steve Goose, executive director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. "Iraqi civilians will be paying the price with their lives and limbs for many years."

At least eighty U.S. casualties during the 1991 Gulf War were attributed to cluster munition duds. More than 4,000 civilians were killed or injured by cluster munition duds after the end of the war.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2003/04/01/us-using-cluster-munitions-iraq

[Igel]

4. Because they have better uses and worse uses.

Like landmines.

They good anti-infantry weapons. You have a large number of soldiers coming towards your lines on foot, cluster munitions are the way to go. They're a pain to clean up, and you shouldn't use them in urban or populated areas. But in a field or away from people, yeah.

The downside is that the few kids that get out to play with them while their parents aren't watching them or don't know what the little bomblets are get killed. The upside is that hundreds of other kids still have their daddies.

One confound is that "cluster bomb" is often used by reporters like "assault rifle" is. It's a scary term with a precise meaning, but all they get is a "sort-of/kind-of" meaning for a scary term that they want to use because it's scary. We all fear "assault rifles." "Semi-automatic" doesn't carry the same "I'm afraid" cachet, so everything that's semi-automatic is an "assault rifle." Just like all dogs are pit bulls and all cats are lions.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. So you support land mines and cluster weapons?

Interesting. I guess when you're not picking them out of your own backyard it's easy to have that opinion. American privilege I suppose.

the few kids that get out to play with them while their parents aren't watching them or don't know what the little bomblets are get killed.

I love when we write off the innocent children that we kill as a "few kids".



And save that "assault riffle vs automatic riffle / magazine vs clip" nonsense for the gun forums.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. We have also not joined the Land Mine Ban 161 nations are Party to the treaty, the US one of 36

to refuse and to continue use and to sell to the other 35.
http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Universal/MBT/States-Not-Party

And yet we preach with great gusto of our moral high ground.

[eissa]

7. Lawrence Wilkerson made a great point on

Chris Hayes' show. Basically said that we (and most countries) signed off on the chemical weapons ban, not because their use is so atrocious and immoral, but because conventional weaponry is more efficient. If we thought the use of chemical warfare were in any way of benefit (like land mines) we wouldn't have signed off.

Btw, pretty sure depleted uranium and white phosphorous are chemicals.