More than 100 nations have reached an agreement on a treaty which would ban current designs of cluster bombs.

Diplomats meeting in Dublin agreed to back an International ban on the use of the controvrsial weapons following 10 days of talks.

But some of the worlds main producers, including United States, Russia and China-oppose the move.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7423714.stm

I really need to address this issue. I am a dyed in the wool liberal but I just do not understand the idea of limiting war or "limited engagement" or going to war with less than everything you have. War is ugly, people die. Prettying it up and making it "nice" does not make sense to me.

That may be, but producing weapons that kill in a zone rather than a target is killing for killing sake.

Landmines would be in the same bracket.

When Elephants Fight Only The Grass Gets Hurt.

When Elephants Fight Only The Grass Gets Hurt.

There ya go. When humans fight and take weapon technology to new heights,
everything gets hurt or maimed or killed.

More than 100 nations have reached an agreement on a treaty which would ban current designs of cluster bombs..........


Immediately after reaching the end of that first sentence, the thought came to me-- "Gee. I wonder which nations could possibly be against such a measure".

<gasp!!!!>

The U.S. is one of them?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig fucking surprise.

Immediately after reaching the end of that first sentence, the thought came to me-- "Gee. I wonder which nations could possibly be against such a measure".

<gasp!!!!>

The U.S. is one of them?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig fucking surprise.

Is it a big surprise that most if not all of the 100 countries that are against cluster bombs don't even have them? I bet the Aztecs were against horses and gunpowder.

Is it a big surprise that most if not all of the 100 countries that are against cluster bombs don't even have them?

The *big surprise* to me is that there could be human beings on this planet so unrelievedly murderous and as callous as to build, use or deploy cluster bombs in the first place.

_______________________

The most cold-blooded, murderous people involved in the Iraq conflict are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military-industrial and war media complexes – at the soulless pinnacles of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.

Echo raises an interesting point.

I think there are several reasons for the increased use of limited engagement, however, none of them are humanitarian.

Let me preface this by saying that when push comes to shove, there really are no limits to warfare. The mere existence of nuclear weapons is enough proof of that. But lets look at things in context.

Historically, the idea of limited engagement is the oldest form of combat. In ancient times, a group of warriors would engage in a symbolic battle that would determine whose side would be the winner. However, as societies grew, things became more complicated, leading to the development of armies. Along with this, came the ideas of expansion and conquest.

At this point, it was no longer enough to defeat an enemy in battle, you had to take away their ability to mount any kind of resistance, rebellion, or counter attack. You had to crush them. Additionally, it came to that the stakes were winner take all, and so if you wanted to win, you threw everything you had at your enemy to gain victory. You engaged in Total War.

Still, during this period, the only real deciding factor was the size of your armies. Whoever had the bigger force usually won, and that was that.

So what changed? Technology.

Enter the second wave of limited engagement:
First off, infrastructure and civilian technological advances started to shape up the modern world. Along with this modernity came complexity. Now, as a conquering power, it no longer became advantageous to completely crush the enemy because it only provided hassles during occupation. Troops have to be supplied and economies have to remain in tact to continue to fuel growing empires. Having to rebuild a city from the ground up after you capture it completely negates the reason for capturing it. Now, there were notable exceptions to this, but more often than not, this was done to make a point, and the occasion was rare anyway.

Still, armies during this time were still fairly large, from the 1400s all the way up through the second world war. But over this period, a change was happening in the way warfare was conducted. Gradually, our technological capacity for destruction began to outweigh actual numbers. This is especially apparent in the first world war. Machine guns, tanks, and nerve gas could completely offset the balance of power.

After the great war, the major powers realized the destructive capacity of these weapons and banned them at the Hague convention. Unfortunately, the desire to win trumped the desire for humanity during the second world war, and weapons with even greater destructive capacity were created.

After the horror of the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, the biological weapons used on the Chinese, and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we finally realized our destructive potential. Now, it was no longer necessary to muster an army of millions to destroy the enemy, all you'd need is a dozen guys in a B-52. Worse, these weapons were spreading, and if we were not judicious with their use, we'd all kill each other. Limited engagement was no longer about humanitarianism, but survival. Using these weapons became both unnecessary and potentially catastrophic.

So how does this relate to cluster bombs?

For the first part, they're unnecessary. In the age of asymmetric warfare, we don't need to level a village to take out a house. In fact, it works against our long term goals. In Vietnam and Korea, indiscriminate killing of civilians drove many to the cause of the enemy, making final victory impossible. We've gotta stay on everybody's good side lest we turn friends into enemies.

Leading into this, warfare has become much more fragmented now. The enemies we fight today are not vast empires with huge infrastructures and command chains. We're not fighting governments anymore. Militant groups with low tech weaponry operating outside of government influence are the main enemy now. There's no infrastructure to destroy. There's nothing to level. Finally, there is no final victory. Total War depends on crushing your enemy until he can no longer put up a fight. Now, that kind of victory is completely impossible.

Rest assured, despite the ban, we'll all keep our aces in the hole, just in case. Legislation like this will just make countries think twice before using these weapons. It makes them ask, "Is the short term gain of using these weapons worth the loss of our allies?"

Hope this was somewhat enlightening :)

The *big surprise* to me is that there could be human beings on this planet so unrelievedly murderous and as callous as to build, use or deploy cluster bombs in the first place.

they work as advertised. sure, they aren't as up close and personal as the preferred Socialist method, a bullet behind the ear, but you can't have everything.

Strange how some people defend the existance of WMDs.

Strange how some people defend the existance of WMDs.
you're confusing a battlefield weapon with a legitimate use (airfields) with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Maybe the same conference can ban IED's also. And maybe, you can convince the folks that use them that they cant be in their arsenal anymore.

Think thats a feasible idea?

Maybe the same conference can ban IED's also. And maybe, you can convince the folks that use them that they cant be in their arsenal anymore.

Think thats a feasible idea?
those would be land mines..

you're confusing a battlefield weapon with a legitimate use (airfields) with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Im not confusing anything, thanks.

I think we should let the leaders of the waring countries get in the octagon ring and beat the crap out of each other. Winner takes all. No innocent civilians or young impressionable adults loosing their lifes for the the current assholes (read - president) political agenda.

Instead of an outright ban on cluster bombs, a better idea would be an agreement on where they can be used. Dropping them on a village would undoubtedly cause civilian casualties, but I see no problem with dropping them on an enemy base in the middle of nowhere.

... young impressionable adults loosing their lifes for the the current assholes (read - president) political agenda.Is anybody else sick of hearing that same dumb shit?

Im not confusing anything, thanks.
then i suppose you're willing to support a ban on car bombs?

Instead of an outright ban on cluster bombs, a better idea would be an agreement on where they can be used. Dropping them on a village would undoubtedly cause civilian casualties, but I see no problem with dropping them on an enemy base in the middle of nowhere.

A reasonable point, tho wouldnt it be easier to sign up and ban them.

then i suppose you're willing to support a ban on car bombs?

Of course, why would I not be, tho I dont think any standing Army use car bombs, do they ?

... young impressionable adults loosing their lives for the the current assholes (read - president's) political agenda.

Is anybody else sick of hearing that same dumb shit?

No doubt the 50+ million ConservaFascist supporters (i.e., Republicans) in this country --along with you, seemingly-- would be included in the group that (not surprisingly) "does not like to be reminded of" the so-called 'dumb shit' that you're talking about.

For everyone else, it is a simple statement of the facts.

then i suppose you're willing to support a ban on car bombs?
Depends which type of car bomb you're talkin' about. :p

Of course, why would I not be, tho I dont think any standing Army use car bombs, do they ?
has the IRA stood down completely yet?

Depends which type of car bomb you're talkin' about. :p
:) Well, certainly not the ones made famous by a warmongering country in Europe somewhere, that's for sure....

No doubt the 50+ million ConservaFascist supporters (i.e., Republicans) in this country --along with you, seemingly-- would be included in the group that (not surprisingly) "does not like to be reminded of" the so-called 'dumb shit' that you're talking about.

For everyone else, it is a simple statement of the facts.
So you must think Jester's a dumb shit then, right? You know, you're as repugnant as you are tactless and wrong, Freethinker, but then again, you weren't exactly educated at a catholic university or West Point, so......

So you must think Jester's a dumb shit then, right?

No. Since you seem to have a bit of trouble with reading comprehension, I will reiterate.

What I said was the he seems to be a member of that group of people who cannot bear to be reminded that there are thousands of (as Echo stated) young impressionable adults who are losing their lives for the the current asshole's (read; the B*sh Administration's) political agenda.

____________________________________

The most cold-blooded, murderous people involved in the Iraq conflict are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military-industrial and war media complexes – at the soulless pinnacles of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers’ lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.

For the record, I meant presidents, leaders, kings, Mullahs or anyone else in charge of a country that wants to go to war. I was NOT referring to our current asshole in the white house, I was referring to all assholes who run countries and throw young lifes away.

Geese you neocons are so touchy about heir bush. Get over it, he is soon to be gone.

I was NOT referring to our current asshole in the white house, I was referring to all assholes who run countries and throw young lifes away.


If you were not referring to him, you damned well should have been.

Do you know anyone else --any other world leader in the past eight years-- who has thrown away more young lives (in the pursuit of a power-mad agenda) than the current occupant of the White House???

He's thrown away over 4000 American lives, and caused the deaths of countless tens of thousands [actually, it's hundreds of thousands, but I do not want this line of argument to get sidetracked] of people in the Middle East. That's going to be a tough record to crack.

What I said was the he seems to be a member of that group of people who cannot bear to be reminded that there are thousands of (as Echo stated) young impressionable adults who are losing their lives for the the current asshole's (read; the B*sh Administration's) political agenda.

For the record, I meant presidents, leaders, kings, Mullahs or anyone else in charge of a country that wants to go to war. I was NOT referring to our current asshole in the white house, I was referring to all assholes who run countries and throw young lifes away.

Geese you neocons are so touchy about heir bush. Get over it, he is soon to be gone.
1. I don't need someone on the internet to remind me of the lives being lost.

2. What I said had nothing to do with George Bush. What I meant is that I'm sick of hearing that people in the military are mindless zombies, brainwashed by their government. Get a fucking reality check.

What I said had nothing to do with George Bush. What I meant is that I'm sick of hearing that people in the military are mindless zombies, brainwashed by their government. Get a fucking reality check.
I'm glad you and I were on the same page. Apparently, it was too heady a concept for the "intellectuals" around here... :rolleyes:

What I meant is that I'm sick of hearing that people in the military are mindless zombies, brainwashed by their government. Get a fucking reality check.

Being that I spent over 5 years in the Air Force I resent that you would twist what I wrote around and try to make it out to be an insult to our military personnel. They are NOT dumb, or mindless zombies They are young and impressionable. There is a big difference between being young and impressionable and being a mindless zombie.

Why do you think governments focus on enlisting/drafting/recruiting people under 22. Because people that age don't have a well developed sense of their mortality. People that age feel indestructible. They are easier to manipulate than older people and have not fully developed a sense of self.

Why do you think governments focus on enlisting/drafting/recruiting people under 22. Because people that age don't have a well developed sense of their mortality. People that age feel indestructible. They are easier to manipulate than older people and have not fully developed a sense of self.
and lets see how many 35 y/os out there can carry a 70lb rucksack while functioning on 2 hrs of sleep:rolleyes:

has the IRA stood down completely yet?

Yeah, their all living in New Jersey.

Yeah, their all living in New Jersey.
poor bastards:(

Not really. They could have ended up in a shithole called Michigan.

What I meant is that I'm sick of hearing that people in the military are mindless zombies, brainwashed by their government. Get a fucking reality check.

If you cannot comprehend that those who take up guns and march off to war to die for God and Country have been brainwashed by the society they live in, then sir I humbly suggest that it is you who is in dire need of a *reality check*.

_______________________

“The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: ‘It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war.’ Then the few will shout even louder…Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it...Next, statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”________Mark Twain

It is in the interests of military senior saff to continue the fear among the American public,fear generated by the White House, not AQ.

It is in their interests to see the Government wage war in foreign lands, it makes their self importance seem more, and their jobs secured for life.

Not really. They could have ended up in a shithole called Michigan.
between Newark & Detroit, i'd only pick Detroit because swimming across the river gets you Canada instead of NYC.

Oh Canada, that place you dont like right.

Oh Canada, that place you dont like right.
nah, we just pick on each other. trust me-if you were stuck in Detroit, you'd consider swimming the Detroit River too. ore freighters be damned!

Well Canada is regarded as the 5th best standard of living in the world, so it wud be worth the swim.

Well Canada is regarded as the 5th best standard of living in the world, so it wud be worth the swim.
5th? i would have put it at #2..right behind Burton, Michigan:D

i'd go visit more, but shortly after i got out of the army, i spent 36 hours in detention getting explained to that "Canada is a foreign country" by 2 uniforms, and 6 suits.

Sounds interesting.

If you cannot comprehend that those who take up guns and march off to war to die for God and Country have been brainwashed by the society they live in, then sir I humbly suggest that it is you who is in dire need of a *reality check*.

Sure FT, whatever you say. Good job making degrading generalizations about people you obviously have very little association with. Keep it up.

A reasonable point, tho wouldnt it be easier to sign up and ban them.
It would be easier, but why ban such an effective weapon when the problem can be rectified by implementing new rules?

It would be easier, but why ban such an effective weapon when the problem can be rectified by implementing new rules?

Can it? It seems to me that the problems with these weapons are inherent in their design, and also, rules tend to be the second casualty of war, right behind your battle plan.