The Usual Suspects - The W#nker Nations

[ykickamoocow 0]

111 Nations, Minus the U.S., Agree to Cluster-Bomb Ban

More than 100 countries reached agreement Wednesday to ban cluster bombs, controversial weapons that human rights groups deplore but that the United States, which did not join the ban, calls an integral, legitimate part of its arsenal.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose personal intervention Wednesday led to final agreement among representatives of 111 countries gathered in Dublin, called the ban a "big step forward to make the world a safer place."

In addition to the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan -- all of them major producers or users of the weapons -- did not sign the agreement or participate in the talks.

The weapons consist of canisters packed with small bombs, or "bomblets," that spread over a large area when a canister is dropped from a plane or fired from the ground. While the bomblets are designed to explode on impact, they frequently do not. Civilians, particularly children, are often maimed or killed when they pick up unexploded bombs, sometimes years later.

In staying away from Dublin, U.S officials argued that the talks were not the right forum in which to address the issue and that cluster bombs remain an important part of the country's weaponry. "While the United States shares the humanitarian concerns of those in Dublin," said Navy Cmdr. Bob Mehal, a Pentagon spokesman, "cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility, and their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners at risk."

The U.S. military says that it keeps the weapons in its arsenal as a defense against advancing armies, a strategy closely linked to conventional Cold War approaches to conflict, and that it has not used the bombs since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S. officials argue that technological advances will ensure that future cluster bombs reliably explode or quickly disable themselves, so they will not be a hazard to civilians later.

Israel carried out the largest recent use of cluster bombs, dropping large numbers on southern Lebanon in its 2006 war with Hezbollah militiamen. Many of the bombs did not explode immediately and have left a lasting humanitarian hazard.

Advocates of the ban said they hope the agreement, which was supported by rich nations and poor from Scandinavia to Africa, will have the same effect as the 1997 ban on land mines, reducing use even among non-signatory countries.

Simon Conway, co-chair of the Cluster Munitions Coalition, said that Burma is the only nation still using land mines and that the United States has not planted a single one since the ban went into effect.

Already, controversy over cluster bombs has led the United States to stop exporting them for now -- a law that went into force this year bars the foreign sale of cluster bombs that have less than a 99 percent detonation or disabling rate, conditions that current versions of the weapons do not meet.

And as a matter of policy, the NATO alliance does not use cluster munitions in Afghanistan.

The Dublin meetings were part of a process begun in February 2007 in Oslo. The nations met again in Lima, Peru, in May 2007; Vienna in December; and Wellington, New Zealand, in January.

"We decided not to go to Oslo," Stephen D. Mull, acting assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, told reporters last week, "because we don't want to give weight to a process that we think is ultimately flawed, because we don't think that any international effort is going to succeed unless you get the major producers and the users of these weapons at the table."

This Story

111 Nations, Minus the U.S., Agree to Cluster-Bomb Ban

Remnants of War: Cluster Bombs in Lebanon

The United States argues that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is a more appropriate forum in which to talk about cluster munitions with major world powers at the table, Mull said.

Rachel Stohl, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, said the Pentagon gets "nervous" over discussions on restricting use of a weapons system it has in its arsenal and has used in previous conflicts.

She said the fact that in the past five years no situation has arisen in which U.S. forces have needed cluster bombs should show that they are not critical to modern warfare.

"The fact that these 100-plus countries have been able to come together and develop a convention text signifies that the rest of the world is ready to move forward with international agreements that are pro-humanity," Stohl said. "In the end, the victims of cluster munitions have won."

The Convention on Cluster Munitions, as approved in Dublin, calls on signatories to stop producing and using cluster bombs and to destroy all stockpiles within eight years.

Despite pleas from Washington, Britain endorsed the plan, along with other close U.S. allies and members of NATO. But the United States will no doubt welcome a provision that allows states that adopt the treaty to "engage in military cooperation and operations with States not parties to this Convention." That would let signatories partner with the Americans in military and humanitarian operations, despite U.S. use of cluster munitions, without penalty.

Conway said that although the United States did not attend the conference, it worked behind the scenes. This provision, he said, was "undoubtedly the product of U.S. pressure."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8052803176.html

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

I think that Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and the United States should all be ashamed of themselves for not signing this agreement. It really does show which nations are inferior due to their use of these horrible weapons.

THE W#NKER NATIONS

Russia

China

Israel

India

Pakistan

United States of America

[Jean Todt 4]

I understand your Frustration Ykick! Am surprised to see my country on the list too! Its mainly because that the current Gov't and the past have weapons deals with the so called super powers. India can develop their own weapons, but these guys here are paid so less even the local banana vendor earns more! Thus end up going abroad. I don't see why India needs such weapons nor any other countries. But its war, and there are no rules. All that speach ' we would ensure the safety of civilians' is all bull.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yup it's mainly the usual culprits. At least Britain didn't cave in to American pressure as usual.

[duest 0]

I have no problems with the use of this type of munition. They have a legitimate use - as is explained in the article. We're talking war here! It isn't glamorous. It's no sunshine and lollipops exercise. When the situation arises where you would want to use this weapon, you are trying to maim or kill an advancing force as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That's what it does.

Unfortunately, some civilian casualties both during and post war are inevitable. It's not pretty, but it's reality. Banning cluster bombs isn't going to fix that. The battlefield will just be carpeted with more conventional bombs, some of which will not go off until three years later when a kid happens to kick it.

You can wish this sort of thing away as much as you like, but at some point you're going to have to take the cruel trip back to the real world.

[Jenson_Rules 0]

What a surprise to see Russia, Israel, and the USA's names down the list of countries to not sign the agreement.

[lyka 0]

I understand your Frustration Ykick! Am surprised to see my country on the list too! Its mainly because that the current Gov't and the past have weapons deals with the so called super powers. India can develop their own weapons, but these guys here are paid so less even the local banana vendor earns more! Thus end up going abroad. I don't see why India needs such weapons nor any other countries. But its war, and there are no rules. All that speach ' we would ensure the safety of civilians' is all bull.

I don't think this is the reason at all. Look at the other countries on the list that have refused to sign this agreement. China and Pakistan.Those are big enough reasons considering the relationship India has with China and Pakistan. Not saying it is right but I understand India's stand.

[AutoRacer5 0]

I have no problems with the use of this type of munition. They have a legitimate use - as is explained in the article. We're talking war here! It isn't glamorous. It's no sunshine and lollipops exercise. When the situation arises where you would want to use this weapon, you are trying to maim or kill an advancing force as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That's what it does.

Unfortunately, some civilian casualties both during and post war are inevitable. It's not pretty, but it's reality. Banning cluster bombs isn't going to fix that. The battlefield will just be carpeted with more conventional bombs, some of which will not go off until three years later when a kid happens to kick it.

You can wish this sort of thing away as much as you like, but at some point you're going to have to take the cruel trip back to the real world.

Sir, can I please buy you a beer for what you just said?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I have no problems with the use of this type of munition. T

Explain that to the mother who's child's leg has just been blown off. What if it was your kid/wife/mother?

Its all very well dismissing it as you do, but then you are not on the receiving end of them. These weapons are different, from say guns as their effects last much longer and it is invariably children or innocent people who feel their impact.

Technology is such these days that these weapons are not necessary anyway.

I am pleased that someone does give a sh*t and is trying to act with some compassion in getting them banned.

And I'm dismayed that anyone could take such an ignorant and heartless stance as you have. Shame on you.

[Schumikonen 2]

I have no problems with the use of this type of munition. They have a legitimate use - as is explained in the article. We're talking war here! It isn't glamorous. It's no sunshine and lollipops exercise. When the situation arises where you would want to use this weapon, you are trying to maim or kill an advancing force as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That's what it does.

Unfortunately, some civilian casualties both during and post war are inevitable. It's not pretty, but it's reality. Banning cluster bombs isn't going to fix that. The battlefield will just be carpeted with more conventional bombs, some of which will not go off until three years later when a kid happens to kick it.

You can wish this sort of thing away as much as you like, but at some point you're going to have to take the cruel trip back to the real world.

This is true, if they don't use cluster bombs they will use other kind of weapon to get the same effect o one even worse like the Fuel Air Bomb, there is not much to do in some situations but to use what you have available at the moment, collateral damage will always exist, what we need is a better way to clear the area once the war is over adn make a law that makes country that use cluster bombs be responsible for the cleaning, the same way that a country is now responsible for the reconstruction of the country they attack if they do it without the UN authorization.

[Schumikonen 2]

Explain that to the mother who's child's leg has just been blown off. What if it was your kid/wife/mother?

Its all very well dismissing it as you do, but then you are not on the receiving end of them. These weapons are different, from say guns as their effects last much longer and it is invariably children or innocent people who feel their impact.

Technology is such these days that these weapons are not necessary anyway.

I am pleased that someone does give a sh*t and is trying to act with some compassion in getting them banned.

And I'm dismayed that anyone could take such an ignorant and heartless stance as you have. Shame on you.

That is never going to happen, you may have countries that will stop using them but others will use it or another group like terrorist, thoses gruops are getting better thecnologies even the FARC had or have some plutoniun in their hands, it sounds good to ban all weapons but that is not going to happen.

[Rainmaster 7]

I bet you wouldn't call them w#nkers to their faces though.

I do agree that these weapons should be banned.

[Oli 1]

All bombs are designed to kill. Banning one of them isn't going to make a whole lot of difference. In any case, in the event of a war involving one of these countries I can't imagine them saying "oh- we can't possibly buy any of these bombs to defend ourselves; we signed a treaty.". If it's required, it will be used.

I think it's more a PR exercise for the leaders concerned than anything else. How many of these 111 countries produce this weapon? How many are/have recently been at war? I'd bet that several don't even have permanent armies. Most of those that do (and have signed) have the luxury of relying on America to bail them out in the event of a war.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Most of those that do (and have signed) have the luxury of relying on America to bail them out in the event of a war.

Apart from those that America is dropping their clusters bombs on....

And yes of course all bombs kill. The difference with these is that they spread many tiny bomblets, each capable of killing or maiming. These are usually made of plastic, can be brightly coloured and some look like boxes or toys. It is for this reason that so many innocent children get injured or killed by them, usually months or years after they were dropped.

[Jean Todt 4]

Explain that to the mother who's child's leg has just been blown off. What if it was your kid/wife/mother?

Its all very well dismissing it as you do, but then you are not on the receiving end of them. These weapons are different, from say guns as their effects last much longer and it is invariably children or innocent people who feel their impact.

Technology is such these days that these weapons are not necessary anyway.

I am pleased that someone does give a sh*t and is trying to act with some compassion in getting them banned.

And I'm dismayed that anyone could take such an ignorant and heartless stance as you have. Shame on you.

Well said!

Biggest problems for all the countries are not outside, but within. India atleast for example has problems within itself, I don't think Pakistan or China for that matter is that big threat. I do not want to comment about other countries like I have did in past. I wish my country was not in the list. I am ashamed by the fact that my country gives in to some so called super powers and occupation forces.

[Max Mosley 2]

I think no one here is a pacifist, but nowadays some forms of weaponry are too indiscriminate to be used (perhaps unless absolutely necessary to ensure a nation's survival). Presumably everyone agrees with that in principle, because otherwise we'd just nuke any country we don't like, so the american military's arguments are far too simplistic. No change there anyway.

[Oli 1]

Apart from those that America is dropping their clusters bombs on....

I can't find any definitive list of who has signed up and who hasn't, but even if, say, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea etc had all signed up, do you really think they'd keep their promise? An agreement is only as good as the trustworthiness of the countries who sign it, and I don't trust any of them much.

My point is not that I don't want to see the number of civilian casualties reduced (I do), but that a piece of paper isn't going to make it work. The US didn't ban landmines, and was condemed for that, but their use has dropped and most of them now have self-destruct mechanisms built in to prevent them lying around for years. The same thing is happening with clusters as time goes on, but they're never going to be banned completely because they perform a very important function within the field of war.

I do agree that pressure should be put on those countries who use them to use self-destruct mechanisms, and to reduce their use unless absolutely necessary, but I don't think the US should be condemned just because it didn't sign a meaningless treaty which any of the signees would break in a heartbeat if it was in their interest.

[ecapdeville 0]

How many cluster bombs have been dropped in USA territory?

How big is the bomb market today?... USA cant stop producing those things...its a big money income.

[duest 0]

Explain that to the mother who's child's leg has just been blown off.

And you can tell the families of your non-returning soldiers that they are dead because people like you sent them into battle ill-equipped.

What if it was your kid/wife/mother?

Of course I wouldn't be happy. I never said it's a good thing. I never said I wish this sort of thing upon anyone. I did however try to keep things in perspective of the real world.

Technology is such these days that these weapons are not necessary anyway.

Please cite examples.

And I'm dismayed that anyone could take such an ignorant and heartless stance as you have. Shame on you.

My stance isn't ignorant nor heartless, it is realistic. Yours appears to be overly idealistic.

[ecapdeville 0]

My stance isn't ignorant nor heartless, it is realistic. Yours appears to be overly idealistic.

Is that real that only 11 countries (wich by a strange coincidence are weapon producers, so they obtain big money with them) over ALL the other 111 countries...thinks that way.

and sometimes you are so REAL, that HURTS.

[Schumikonen 2]

What about banning Suicide Bombers and terrorist attacks? thoses weapons kill children too and I bet they have killed a lot more than Clusters Bombs has. We know the nations that support this kind of behavior and we do anything to stop them some of us even support this kind of things, you can't just deal with this kind of situation with a simple rule banning the weapon, we have people today luching rockets to civilians in a daily basic just becuse they want to and I am not talking about collateral damage, I am talking about using civilians an indiscriminate target, they just luch the rockets hoping to hit someone, anyone and what is UN and all thoses 111 countries doing about it?

[Silver_Arrows 0]

No surprise to see the USA and Russia on there at all. The Americans have never been any good at looking after any world interests unless they get something out of it themselves, and for my money the russians are just totally untrustworthy.

I have no problems with the use of this type of munition. They have a legitimate use - as is explained in the article. We\'re talking war here! It isn\'t glamorous. It\'s no sunshine and lollipops exercise. When the situation arises where you would want to use this weapon, you are trying to maim or kill an advancing force as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That\'s what it does.

Unfortunately, some civilian casualties both during and post war are inevitable. It\'s not pretty, but it\'s reality. Banning cluster bombs isn\'t going to fix that. The battlefield will just be carpeted with more conventional bombs, some of which will not go off until three years later when a kid happens to kick it.

You can wish this sort of thing away as much as you like, but at some point you\'re going to have to take the cruel trip back to the real world.

That is pure baloney, there is no need for cluster bombs at all. They are nothing more than an indiscriminate killing tool, with no accuracy guarantee at all. Bombs may be nasty, but they are easier to control.

[ykickamoocow 0]

What about banning Suicide Bombers and terrorist attacks? thoses weapons kill children too and I bet they have killed a lot more than Clusters Bombs has. We know the nations that support this kind of behavior and we do anything to stop them some of us even support this kind of things, you can't just deal with this kind of situation with a simple rule banning the weapon, we have people today luching rockets to civilians in a daily basic just becuse they want to and I am not talking about collateral damage, I am talking about using civilians an indiscriminate target, they just luch the rockets hoping to hit someone, anyone and what is UN and all thoses 111 countries doing about it?

Cluster Bombs are one of the most indiscriminate weapons around. There is no way of telling what or who they will hit. At least with other forms of bombs they have a reasonably high amount of accuracy and precision so civilion casualties can be limited.

[duest 0]

Is that real that only 11 countries (wich by a strange coincidence are weapon producers, so they obtain big money with them) over ALL the other 111 countries...thinks that way.

and sometimes you are so REAL, that HURTS.

You have misread that. 111 nations have signed the agreement.

It's not surprising that the producers of such weapons would be reluctant to sign such a treaty, not just for the obvious financial motivation. It also makes sense that those who produce such weapons see them fulfilling a necessary role in their arsenal.

---

Incidentally, I believe the linked article is slightly inaccurate. My understanding is that the agreement reached allows for the future use of cluster bombs. One proviso is that they have a self destruct capability. I consider this a good thing.

[Medilloni 6]

Crazy thread! Posts from Meani Wan, Duest, Murray, Oli all make so much sense, and certainly, this type of thread leaves much open to interpertation!

As a parent I'd love to see them banned (and yes, there's no guarantee that whoever signs the paper will abide!), I've seen mines that have stayed for years with horrific, sad results, even though we thought we'd got them all, and sometimes at the expense of soldiers lives too. Clusters are far worse than the mine problem.........

But as a (ex) soldier, I want the best weapons possible on demand - I don't want to die, I don't want my mates to die. The more efficient weapons we have, the fewer soldiers get injured or maimed (and they have family too...), the better the weapons the sooner the conflict is over, the better the weapons (and the army/navy/airforce etc) the better chance that another country doesn't want to fight you. One thing I am certain of, is if we weren't allowed to use them, then we go against Syria, Iran etc, we'll be at a huge dissadvantage and many young guys won't go home. Every soldier is a mother's son.

Weapons that leave potential disaster behind are common, whether they are clusters, mines or other unexploded devices and I'm surprised more technology hasn't been used to better render them useless/easier to find after a period of time - it's certainly available.

But where do we draw this line of using weapons that only have a shelf life of the conflict duration? That's a tough one.

As for finger-pointing at who does and doesn't sign the agreement, well, if we're going to judge others then maybe we need to take a cold look at ourselves and our history first. There's no Brownie Points to be won here, wherever you're from

@Oli, good post sir.

..........but even if, say, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea etc had all signed up, do you really think they'd keep their promise? An agreement is only as good as the trustworthiness of the countries who sign it, and I don't trust any of them much.

My point is not that I don't want to see the number of civilian casualties reduced (I do), but that a piece of paper isn't going to make it work. The US didn't ban landmines, and was condemed for that, but their use has dropped and most of them now have self-destruct mechanisms built in to prevent them lying around for years. The same thing is happening with clusters as time goes on, but they're never going to be banned completely because they perform a very important function within the field of war.

I do agree that pressure should be put on those countries who use them to use self-destruct mechanisms, and to reduce their use unless absolutely necessary, but I don't think the US should be condemned just because it didn't sign a meaningless treaty which any of the signees would break in a heartbeat if it was in their interest.

[Quiet One 15]

I didn't bother reading the whole thread. I seem to have lost the motivation lately.

Anyways, just because I'm bored, I will pull o ut of my a## some thoughts:

So, you are scared (oh, no, of course, you are fierce and you are on the top of the world) and you want more guns, more invasions, more bombings.

So why do you cry "why, god, why???" when you get some too? Oh yes, let me guess: you never started anything. Before 9/11 you were spreading peace and love all around the world. Or before the Gulf war. Maybe Nam? Korea?

We live in a world full of hatred. You think that you can somehow win this war. Cavemen do not seem so primitive, now.

Wimps.