US Not Part of Cluster Bomb Ban

[unhappycamper]

US Not Part of Cluster Bomb Ban
March 03, 2010
Military.com|by Bryant Jordan

After a two-year effort, an international ban on the use of cluster bombs will go into effect on Aug. 1. The United States did not sign the treaty and has no plans to scrap its inventory of cluster bombs, but the world's sole superpower may find it more difficult to use them thanks to European allies who agreed to the ban last month.

"The United States is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and is not bound by its obligations," Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal told Military.com in a Feb. 25 e-mail. "Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility and can result in less collateral damage than unitary weapons when used in accordance with the law of armed conflict principles of discrimination and proportionality and military rules of engagement."

Cluster bombs are weapons that are generally derided in civilian circles but that some countries are reluctant to abandon. They're air-dropped or missile-delivered bombardment systems that break apart before impact and scatter hundreds of smaller bomblets. While most explode right away, some don't --- and that's where the controversy surrounding the weapons is centered.

According to an official with a London-based group that advocates for the worldwide ban on cluster bombs, the U.S. may not be bound as a signatory to the new treaty when it goes into effect, but key American allies will be. Thomas Nash, coordinator for the Cluster Munitions Coalition, said the prohibition will bar these allies, including Germany, France and Great Britain, from taking part or even planning operations that will involve use of cluster bombs.

"It's going to make using cluster munitions … very difficult if not impossible in joint operations," he said.


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/us-not-part-of-cluster-bomb-ban-.html?col=1186032310810

[ixion]

1. ah, the smell of cluster bombs in the morning... smells like.. change

or not.

[bif]

2. I don't believe we're part of the ban on land mines either

That's pretty sad.

[unhappycamper]

6. The good ole US of A is not a signatory to that ban either. n/t

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

17. US land mines are sensor-fuzed.

All the problems they are worried about have not applied to US land mines for a few decades.

Unfortunately, the US is just about the only industrialized country that uses civilian-friendly land mines. They are much more expensive than the regular kind, and most other countries in Europe and elsewhere don't spend the extra money. It is reasonable for the US to not participate in a ban that does not apply to them. Other countries are trying to put their guilt on the US.

[Cleobulus]

20. That isn't foolproof, and isn't worth the risk, to be frank about it. n/t

[Flipper999]

3. Ugh

Well even if we agreed to the ban, our leadership would probably find some way to ignore it when they get the itch for some good ol' cluster bombing.

[Echo In Light]

4. Morally indefensible

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Actually, there is some moral conflict

As the article points out there are time that sub munition weapons are the best solution for the immediate tactical problem and the long term after the conflict is over. Those who refuse to recognize that are in those cases forcing the militaries involved to cuase more collateral damage in both the short and long term.

The US has been developing much smaller unitary warhead weapons for some time and they are proving effective, and reduce the need for submunitions but submunitons still have a valid and legitimate tactical use.

The other thing that many do not consider is that the US is taking a much longer view on its tactics and munitions employed in asymmetrical situations. The WWII answer of bombing someplace like Falujah until its flat or taking out dams and other large infrastructure is no longer used. Instead smaller specific target with less damage to infrastrucure and being hit. Those kind of smaller (I wont use the word surgical) strikes also reduce the call for submunitions.

Those are the facts on the ground. Submuniton weapons are not going away, though their use will be more limited to targets they address better than anything else available.

[Echo In Light]

9. Not what I was driving at

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. My point remains, submunitons are not inherently evil and not using them at times is worse

[Echo In Light]

12. Then I completely disagree w/you, and the military you represent

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. I represent no company or military...I am representing experience and knowledge on this topic

[unhappycamper]

14. I must disagree.

Unexploded cluster bomblets are still taking legs, hands, arms, and lives in Indochina from the stuff the United States dropped over 40 years ago.

There are still considerable areas in Indochina that are extremely dangerous from unexploded munitions.

[Echo In Light]

15. Exactly. Which is why I say it's morally indefensible for the US to not agree to the treaty

Military jargon to justify weaponry doesn't mean shit to me. Innocent people getting injured/killed does.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Then you clearly do not understand current doctrine or the technology

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

16. The US's point is that they haven't built or used weapons like this in ages.

Modern US cluster bombs are sensor-fuzed. If the bomblet does not see a target, it self-destructs before it even reaches the ground. In the unlikely event that the self-destruct fails, there is an independent fail-safe that neutralizes the bomblet shortly. US land mines work similarly, and have for decades. They are not indiscriminate weapons.

The reason everyone else is all hot and bothered over it is that the US is pretty much the only industrialized country that uses responsible "civilian safe" versions of these weapons. US weapons of this nature have been sensor-fuzed for decades and, because these cost several times more than the unsafe versions, just about every other industrialized country has been using the unsafe kind. The US is willing to sell civilian-friendly weapons to most countries, but those countries prefer the much cheaper unsafe weapons.


This is the real backstory. The US views the self-righteousness of the signatories of these bans as disingenuous. US weapons are safe, so why should the US have to acquiesce to the guilt of the rest of the industrialized world that had no qualms about using unsafe weapons? The US military phased out those types of weapons a long time ago.

[PacerLJ35]

22. I'd say you're wasting your time

But every once in a while somebody reads an informed post and the learn something new. I post on here all the time about aviation and military topics and 95% of the time I'm told my experience doesn't matter, or I'm simply naive, or I'm accused of being a military/government mole, and we can't forget about the "why should I believe some stranger claiming to be an expert" nonsense. Anyways, there's a lot of information most people on this message board don't know, understand or (worse) they don't WANT to understand it, lest it alter their preconceived ideas.

[gratuitous]

11. Correct

Sophistry about asymmetrical warfare aside, the fact is that we can't and don't keep track of all our bang-bangs after we shoot them off, and they wind up killing women, kids and other non-combatants for a long time afterward.

[spanone]

5. does the military actually run this country with a figure head as president?

[Echo In Light]

7. Select corporate interests do, which has direct influence over the govt/military

... to the extent that one could say those big $ interests ostensibly own it, which is why the need for covert ops/criminal conspiracy/cover up, etc, b/c those interests are forced to operate within the illusory framework of a supposed rep democracy.

[bridgit]

19. There is quite a little group of usual suspects that aren't, while still not good...

We are but one of them http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7423714.stm

[Motown_Johnny]

21. any country that will use water boarding would break the treaty on cluster bombs too

why would anyone think we might honor a treaty?