NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking (strange for me). If we're banning landmines (I am voting FOR) then we should ban cluster bombs, as they act as landmines. So, I say, who will propose a resolution to ban cluster bombs?

I surely wouldn't. Cluster bombs may act like landmines, only you use planes to drop them on enemies, you don't leave them on the ground and blow up anyone who happens to touch that area.

Clusterbombs can be used wrong; GUNS can be used wrong, for that matter. But the clusterbomb is a crucial part of the military, and it isn't as arbitrary as the landmine...you have pilots who have to aim with them.

If we ban landminds, someone has to pay to get rid of them. I will not.

Cluster bombs kill indiscriminately: I wouldn't trust the aim of a pilot. The bomblets look like toys to children, so many casualties are under 6. The bombs split into something like 300 parts. We have here a bomb that is designed to kill children!

Cluster bombs kill indiscriminately: I wouldn't trust the aim of a pilot. The bomblets look like toys to children, so many casualties are under 6. The bombs split into something like 300 parts. We have here a bomb that is designed to kill children!

No, we have a strawman.

And if you don't trust the aim of a highly-trained pilot, who's aim do you trust?

if then how ab't bannin' all sorts of weaponz and make a peaceful coexistence among all countries?...

i think thats what all of us would like but would other nations do that?

any way, i agree with the mines but the cluster bobms aint as bad, all you have to do is paint them a dull coulor and change there shape a bit.

I don't necessarily see the urgency of ban cluster bombs in the same way that I did with landmines. Cluster bombs have a target whereas landmines can lay on the ground for a small child to come across.

The bomblets look like toys to children...

This look like a toy to you?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu97-3.jpg

The bomblets look like toys to children...

This look like a toy to you?

To a child it would. How are they supposed to know that they shouldn't play with it?

The bomblets look like toys to children...

This look like a toy to you?

To a child it would. How are they supposed to know that they shouldn't play with it?

Because it's sitting in the middle of a huge area of cratered earth and burned-out vehicles?

Because it's sitting in the middle of a huge area of cratered earth and burned-out vehicles?

That would be a wicked place for some 7 year old boys to play.

Because it's sitting in the middle of a huge area of cratered earth and burned-out vehicles?

That would be a wicked place for some 7 year old boys to play.

If they'd had two friends killed playing in the same kind of place a week before? And where the hell are their parents at?

If we ban landminds, someone has to pay to get rid of them. I will not.

The proposal didn't state any details on removing the current ones at all; it'll cost a lot to locate them and then to set them off. The nations using them probably wont all have high technology to locate and remove them all...

Maybe all those that voted yes should couth up the payment :lol: Or better yet, all those that never discussed the issue, or even weigh up which vote they should take.

Because it's sitting in the middle of a huge area of cratered earth and burned-out vehicles?

That would be a wicked place for some 7 year old boys to play.

If they'd had two friends killed playing in the same kind of place a week before? And where the hell are their parents at?

Dead. Mom stepped on a land mine and dad got hit by a cluster bomb. You can't look at regular views of family in a war zone. There are more orphaned children in most cases than you would believe possible.

If they'd had two friends killed playing in the same kind of place a week before? And where the hell are their parents at?

Well, the landmine could be easily hidden. The parents could be working their backsides of and because there is basically no school, they roam their city.

Clusterbombs can be used wrong; GUNS can be used wrong, for that matter. But the clusterbomb is a crucial part of the military, and it isn't as arbitrary as the landmine...you have pilots who have to aim with them.Kids in Vietnam are still being maimed by leftover Amarican cluster bombs.

Kids in Vietnam are still being maimed by leftover Amarican cluster bombs.

Perhaps the banning of cluster bombs is something that we therefore need to consider.

Kids in Vietnam are still being maimed by leftover Amarican cluster bombs.

Perhaps the banning of cluster bombs is something that we therefore need to consider.

Intuitively, I feel that any nation which uses such weapons should foot the bill for clearing up the war-zone after the war is finished. How would this be implemented, though? And I am not happy accepting intuitions without logical support.

This is a very tricky issue and one that requires some deep thought.

Incidentally, I would have been compelled to investigate intersting areas, and inspect anything I found there, when I was a child. I was insatiably curious.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

To a child, it could look like a toy, and, yes, I already know what one loks like. These are spread over a wide area, and there would not usually be a large crater.

Highly trained pilot? This is laughable. Reminds me of a Private Eye cartoon, showing soldiers in Iraq. The caption?
"Look out! It's the Americans!"

Highly trained pilot? This is laughable. Reminds me of a Private Eye cartoon, showing soldiers in Iraq. The caption?
"Look out! It's the Americans!"

American politicans demand that US aircraft fly so high they can't perform their jobs correctly because they're so afraid of own-side [ie American] casualties from SAMs. This is why US bombing accuracy is rather...suspect, shall we say.

Try learning about realities rather than basing your beliefs on political cartoons.

Erm, all you've done in that post is back up my argument.

Anyway, many guided missiles can be made to lose the target with a piece of radio equipment costing $50. The military use of these weapons is therefore suspect.

Erm, all you've done in that post is back up my argument.

Gutless politicans =/= untrained pilots.

Try to pay attention.

My argument is that they're unaccurate. And I really don't think much of their piloting anyway.

Back to the point, why are cluster bombs justified?

(I might go to the CACE or Global Market if things get though for support for this idea)

My argument is that they're unaccurate. And I really don't think much of their piloting anyway.

Back to the point, why are cluster bombs justified?

(I might go to the CACE or Global Market if things get though for support for this idea)

He's right, you simply demonstrated that cluster bombs are inaccurate - if American pilots fly too high to fire accurately when using them.

The accuracy of cluster bombs - does anyone have any concrete data on this?

Besides, landmines can be placed by highly-trained demolitions/tactical experts. I think the point is where cluster bombs/landmines can end up after the war and how easy they are to 'clean up' safely, not how accurately they are used in the first instance.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I think that by 'accuracy' my Babilonian comrade means that they hit the wrong targets- the mechenics of how they maim children is another matter.

Back to the point, why are cluster bombs justified?

Cluster bombs are essential for attacking large groups of soft or medium armoured targets, for example enemy encampments or convoys. They're the most efficient way to cover a reasonably dispersed target area effectively.

Consider: Most CBUs have a 5% munition failure rate; meaning in a 300-unit bomb, 15 rounds will not detonate on impact. Of those, let's say five or ten can actually detonate at all. That's hardly unacceptable, considering the dud rate for, say, artillery rounds or dumb bombs.

Bear in mind, in France artillery shells and grenades from World War One are still killing farmers. Shall we ban them too?

Bear in mind, in France artillery shells and grenades from World War One are still killing farmers. Shall we ban them too?The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind

Nice one, FOE.

But if they are innacurate, and kill indiscriminately (especially children) and leave behind bomblets which haven't detonated, why use them? Landmines have some use, but the recent resolution has banned them.

Back to the point, why are cluster bombs justified?

Cluster bombs are essential for attacking large groups of soft or medium armoured targets, for example enemy encampments or convoys. They're the most efficient way to cover a reasonably dispersed target area effectively.

Consider: Most CBUs have a 5% munition failure rate; meaning in a 300-unit bomb, 15 rounds will not detonate on impact. Of those, let's say five or ten can actually detonate at all. That's hardly unacceptable, considering the dud rate for, say, artillery rounds or dumb bombs.

Bear in mind, in France artillery shells and grenades from World War One are still killing farmers. Shall we ban them too?

Hmm. I'm still not convinced. Isn't the benefit of cluster bombs that they are spread over a large area? Doesn't that make them harder to retrieve?

There is a good point here, though - very few landmines are 'duds,' and they are intentionally hard to find.

As I said, perhaps something along the lines of 'you use it, you clean up after' could be implemented? Similar to the proposition that manufacturers provide a way to recycle their products after use? Thus, anyone engaging in a conflict would be forced to commit to preventing further devastation after its termination. Much simpler than banning this weapon and that weapon, and it would severely limit use of nuclear devices, especially 'dirty' bombs.

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

Nice one, FOE.

But if they are innacurate, and kill indiscriminately (especially children) and leave behind bomblets which haven't detonated, why use them? Landmines have some use, but the recent resolution has banned them.

If, you, err, read the first paragraph of my response...

Also, there is a pretty big problem with this resolution in NS terms; I've never see a nation deploy cluster bombs on the forums, much less against a nation with the kind of poor education that would make them a big risk [most landmine casualties are in signposted minefields, caused by the people killed not being able to read the warning signs]. So, first you have to explain why cluster bombs are a problem on Nationstates.

i'm for banning the use of making big holes in the ground full of unhappy dead people is a tactic of conflict.

let's face it, when a nation goes to war it's not likely to give diddly what anyone has aggreed to ban, even if the're a signatory to that ban themselves. if there's ever any doubt as to that one need only observe recent events on mundane earth.

i am however all for banning any and all methods of causing avoidable and unneccessary harm whatever they may be. if it's banned at least it won't be mass produced overtly.

to be effective however it is the causes and motivations of armed conflict that we need to focus on and do something about.

it may be all well and exciting to kill and die for those who willingly and knowingly choose to do so, but they need their own big sandbox someplace so the rest of us who would rather boil steam and build waterwheels can be left to do so without their annoying interuptions.

=^^=
.../\...

Why is it a problem on NS? Because people use them. And they're still wrong.

I hadn't heard landmines mentioned in RP until the resolution. I expect the same thing if this comes to vote.

Why is it a problem on NS? Because people use them. And they're still wrong.

I hadn't heard landmines mentioned in RP until the resolution. I expect the same thing if this comes to vote.

People haven't used them though, that's the thing. There can't be a problem related to the aftereffects of a weapon if aforesaid weapon hasn't been deployed. So, with cluster bombs you'd basically be putting forward a resolution relating to a real-life problem you're just transposed to NS for no apparent reason.

And I've sold landmines, and I know Vthnaar, Lavenrunz, Sentient Peoples and Slagkatunger use them. Among others.

People on NS RP just talk of bombing raids, not cluster bombs specifically. The fact that they're not mentioned often does not mean that they are not used.

Also, the supposed use of these bombs: would that be carpet bombing?

People on NS RP just talk of bombing raids, not cluster bombs specifically. The fact that they're not mentioned often does not mean that they are not used.

Also, the supposed use of these bombs: would that be carpet bombing?

No, they frequently name weapons, and when they do it's generally MOABs, fuel air explosives or cruise missiles, or else just old fashioned HE or incendiary bombs. CBUs hardly get a look in.

And, err, no. The bomblets in cluster bombs are far too lightweight to be effective against a target that required carpet bombing. They're designed to cover small groups of slightly dispersed targets, not huge built-up areas.

But large areas would be bombed, surely, causing great environmental damage.

But large areas would be bombed, surely, causing great environmental damage.

Err...Have you even been listening? Cluster bombs are used against multiple grouped soft or medium-armoured targets, like encampments, troop or armoured columns and industrial areas. There's not much environment for them to damage in places like that, since they have to be cleared open areas anyway.

Your average payload of bombs would cause similar if not more damage.

but by raising the issue people could start using cluster bombs.

GMC MA: Yes, it still cuases environmental damage. I use that argument to say why bombs are bad, and why this type of bomb is especially barbaric.

Z: I fail to see your logic. Are you telling me that by banning torture we encourage it?

So wait, cluster bombs are worse than, say, napalm? What empirical scale of barbarianism are you using here?

Napalm is indeed a horrific weapon that causes terrible burns and heavy environmental damage.

But what has this got to do with cluster bombs? I did not say that they are worse than napalm, just some other cruise missiles/guided bombs/"smart" weapons.

The cluster bomb is hardly the deamon child killer you make it out to be. The original use of the cluster bomb was the destruction of air strips, as they would be far more effictive than iron bombs.

There are very few unexploded bomblets left by modern ordinance. Yes when the weapon was first produced there were difficulties. Not much so anymore. This proposed ban a frivalous waiste of time. It is simply an attempt by overly concerned beatnik with to much time on his hands seaking to hide facts with cries of "think of the children"

Nuts...can't find the source.

From memory:
Cluster bombs contain around 300 bomblets. 5-10% of those fail to explode. With 40,000 bombs dropped in Iraq (obviously all aren't cluster bombs) that's a lot of unexploded ordianance.
These weapons have been condemned by many humanitarian groups. When this issue came to the real UN, only the USA and the Marshall Islands refused to ban them.

Ooo, meaningless figures. Are you saying if all the CBUs dropped in Iraq had been conventional bombs they would have a lower failure rate or it would somehow be 'better' unexploded ordinance? If not, what are you saying?

essentially, the cluster bomb is the most unreliable and inaccurate ordinance available to a modern air force for ground bombardment. they are useless against well dug in bunkers and largely ineffective against buildings. they are only used in areas where there are large numbers of infantry and vehicles in a large area (such as a jungle, desert, mountians etc). the fact is that they do act as landmines - the unexploded bomblets are essentially unstable and stepping on them/playing with them/using them as tennis balls is probably just as dangerous as doing the same with landmines. i think that a resolution passed banning such weapons would also encourage military forces to use more accurate, and ultimately more effective weapons against other countrys. allowing the use of these would send out the wrong message, that indiscriminate, brainless bombing is okay and works, when examples from the second world war right up the latest iraq one show that targeting the command and control centres of any military force using modern, accurate and reliable weapons will win a war, and facilitate any cleaning up period afterwards, far better than unreliable, inaccurate weapons that will cause problems for years afterwards. the same applies to landmines, and it must be noted these arenot used any more by any western military forces anyway, following a treaty banning them.

President of Jixieland

Good points, J.

My point is that:
1. Each bomb leaves around 10-30 unexploded bomblets.
2. These act as landmines, so breaking a previous resolution.
3. The casualties of these mines are mainly civilian children.

essentially, the cluster bomb is the most unreliable and inaccurate ordinance available to a modern air force for ground bombardment.

Something has to be. 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class.


they are useless against well dug in bunkers and largely ineffective against buildings.

Which is why they aren't used on bunkers and buildings. They have these things called "bunker busters", see...

They do not act as landmines, they act as unexploded munitions. A land mine is built to detonate upon triggering by personnel or vehicles, whereas a bomblet is built to detonate on impact. That it fails to do this means that subsequent performance of the weapon is as a result of it's incorrect operation. The resolution bans landmines, not 'things that can explode.'

Saying OMG TEH CUSTLER BOMBZ IT TEH LANDMINEZ!!!!!11111111 doesn't make it true.

Well, that would depend upon the variety of CBU used. There are varieties which are intended to seed an area, randomly, with self-righting anti-personnel mines.

In this specific case, it would not be unexploded ordinance/munitions but rather an area which is mined and (most likely) not cordoned and clearly marked with signage, as is required for mine fields by the Geneva conventions on warfare.

They do not act as landmines, they act as unexploded munitions. A land mine is built to detonate upon triggering by personnel or vehicles, whereas a bomblet is built to detonate on impact. That it fails to do this means that subsequent performance of the weapon is as a result of it's incorrect operation. The resolution bans landmines, not 'things that can explode.'

Saying OMG TEH CUSTLER BOMBZ IT TEH LANDMINEZ!!!!!11111111 doesn't make it true.

The MLRS is capable of launching not only bomblet ordinance, but also scatmin. AS90 is capable only of launching bomblet (and conventional munitions). The AS90 fires at a smaller target area, but all 12 rockets from a MLRS will take out a grid square. I think the point is that you only fire them if you 'absolutely positively want to kill every last mother fucker in the room' (Jackie Brown) and that therefore the lethal nature of a bomblet round is dependant purely on it's user. Napalm on the other hand is carried by the wind and distributed in a much more haphazard way. My own opinion is that the US have far more WOMD than Iraq ever had, but it seems that 'Might is Right' at the moment. Bush is too childish to know better, but really Blair has let himself and us down by backing 'W'.

Ahem!

Since when have I ever gone:
"OMG TER CLUSTER BOMBZ IT TER LANDMINEZ!!!!!!!!111111111111"
?

Ahem!

Since when have I ever gone:
"OMG TER CLUSTER BOMBZ IT TER LANDMINEZ!!!!!!!!111111111111"
?

Red Herring

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Please try to address what I actually say.

Each cluster bomb leaves around 10-50 unexploded bomblets. These act as landmines, sometimes itentionally, sometimes not. I would say that in both cases, they are on the borders of legality at the best - it is for this reason I would support a proposal banning cluster bombs and clearing up that technicality.

So, because sometimes bombs do not explode, cluster bombs, a specific type of bomb with a failure rate not significantly different from any other type of munition, should be banned, even though you cannot show me that any nation on NS has ever used them in the first place, cannot show these weapons having harmed children on NS, cannot show these weapons having damaged the environment on NS, and have no IC evidence of any of the claims you're making?

You posted quickly.

1. Can you show me the failure rates for other munitions? I don't really doubt you, but I want to see the evidence anyway.
2. I will get evidence of cluster bombs being used on NS, but...

Search No More
As part of our ongoing quest to keep the forums in some kind of reasonable shape, the keyword search facility has been disabled. Hopefully this is temporary.
You can still search for forum posts by author name.
Once I have shown that cluster bombs have been used in specified areas, that would mean that there would have been children injured, the environment damaged, etc.

[Standardised failure rates are a little hard to come by, since the failure is generally determined by the construction of a bomb's fuse rather than what type of bomb it actually is. This is why all articles start with 'In <conflict theatre>, <weapon> had a failure rate of...']

Human rights watch actually says the classic CBU cluster bomb is the very least of your worries anyway:

>The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) with M77 submunitions has had a failure rate of 16 to 23 percent. Each standard volley of twelve MRLS rockets would likely result in more than 1,200 explosive duds.
>155mm Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition (DPICM) artillery projectiles with M42 and M46 submunitions have had a failure rate of 14 percent.
>Rockeye CBU-99/CBU-100 air-dropped bombs with Mk 118 submunitions. This Vietnam-era cluster munition was used extensively in the 1991 Gulf War and has accounted for a very large percentage of the explosive duds subsequently encountered. Almost 20 percent of the cluster munition duds found in Kuwait in 2002 were from Rockeye bombs.
>The CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition with BLU-97 submunitions had a failure rate of at least 7 percent in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. More than 10,000 air-dropped CBU-87s with more than 2 million submunitions were used in the Gulf War; more than 1,000 with over 200,000 submunitions were used in Afghanistan.

Bear in mind also that the two rates quoted from CBUs are older models; most likely the failure rates have improved, since a bomblet that doesn't go off on target is a waste of material. Obviously, the fuses used in the bombs are the determinaing factor; WW2 V-1 bombs, having three individual fuses [2 impact and a tilt switch] have a fantastically low rate, whereas single-fused artillery tends to have a high rate.

Indeed, there's no reason why simply improving fuses can't be done to all weapons, other than straightforward cost issues, as the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation has noted:

VVAF believes that the most effective way to reduce the harm from ERW is to make munitions more reliable - to lower the rates at which they fail to detonate as intended. Existing technology is available to reduce significantly the failure rates of fuzes (the devices which detonate the munitions), at additional - but not excessive - cost. For example, recent improvements in engineering have reduced the failure rates of some U.S. unitary munition fuzes to about one percent, or 10 per thousand, at a cost of about $200-$300 per fuze.

While improvements to fuzes can reduce munition failure rates, the most reliable fuzes also incorporate an independently activated self-destruct feature. The self-destruct feature is not dependent upon the terrain or conditions in which the munition is employed, therefore it is highly reliable.

VVAF proposes to eliminate high-failure munitions - those that fail at a rate greater than three per thousand. Recent engineering developments in the U.S. and abroad have demonstrated that this is an achievable goal. By setting this as the international standard, the amount of unexploded munitions left on the battlefield could be reduced by as much as 97 percent.

['ERW' is 'Explosive Remnants of Warfare,' or unexploded ordinance.]

Human Rights Watch article: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/03/cluster031803.htm

VVAF article: http://www.vvaf.org/security/backgrounder.html

Also, there is a pretty big problem with this resolution in NS terms; I've never see a nation deploy cluster bombs on the forums, much less against a nation with the kind of poor education that would make them a big risk [most landmine casualties are in signposted minefields, caused by the people killed not being able to read the warning signs]. So, first you have to explain why cluster bombs are a problem on Nationstates.

Just a reminder, AFAIK (I am not willing to search for that damn thread, much less to work myself through the 30 pages of bitching with a few IC posts) I (As Endless Crimes) used them in the mediterranean war against Jace Infantry forces... So, there would definitely be knowledge about them. And considering the amount (a few hundred bombers) and the area (south- east spain), civilian casualities are definitely possible. I think Jace even mentioned civilians being hit, although i`m not sure. Could be some other attack, too.

[I read this thread ~ Dez. 25th, but hadn`t the time to respond. Forgive the unwanted bump, but i wanted to say this :P]

We agree with the creator of this forum.