Cluster Bomb Treaty

Quote:

---

More than 100 countries attending a conference in Dublin, Ireland formally adopted a treaty Friday to ban cluster bombs -- a large, unreliable and inaccurate weapon that often affects civilians long after the end of armed conflict.
.....
Though some of the biggest makers of cluster bombs, including the United States, Russia, China and Israel, were not involved in the talks and have not signed the accord, organizers predicted that those nations would nevertheless be pressured into compliance.

---

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...aty/index.html

So, is it really worth anything if the biggest users of cluster bombs aren't signing on?

What is the difference between a terrorist leaving a bomb on the ground to blow up children and a government leaving a bomb on the ground to blow up children?

Apparently (according to two separate UK news networks) the same countries didn't sign the equivalent treaty for land-mines, but they still abide by it.

Once most countries have signed up to something like that, it is hard for the remaining countries (even big/powerful ones) to justify not following the agreement - even without the political pressure they might get (which I suspect would be fairly large).

As usual, not everything in that report is entirely correct, as follows:

10% - 40% dud rate is incorrect. US munitions run around 10%, and Russian/Chinese dud rates are considerably less.

Some are deliberately designed not to go off. Typically, you have impact, timed delay and anti-disturbance. More and more, the anti-disturbance models are self sterilizing (they safe themselves after a set time), although there are still models out there that do not have that feature.

Cluster bomb fields, while nasty, are not nearly as bad as minefields. For one thing, they are on the surface. They generally contain a lot more metal than landmines, making detection far easier. They aren't boobytrapped, other than the design itself. No hidden charges, no secondaries, etc.

Despite the pressure I doubt the US will give up its cluster bombs because they rely on them too much. For instance, if we can't drop a couple cluster bombs to go after a set of vehicles, then we'll have to drop a 500 pounder, 1 for each vehicle. There goes the neighborhood.

*FAR* more areas are off limits because of unexploded munitions from WW1, WW2 than what has been caused by clusters. Ask France and Belgium how much of their shared border is uninhabited. Millions of acres here in the US are contaminated, some with housing areas directly on top of them today. Most of the national parks are contaminated as well (thats why they are national parks, no humans can live on that land)

Finally, all the stories about kids getting blown up ? This will be callous (sp?), and I'm bound to get a few nasty remarks... but it's all about good parenting.

Millions of acres of the US are contaminated with what? Did we mine Yellowstone to keep those bison from overrunning us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Millions of acres of the US are contaminated with what? Did we mine Yellowstone to keep those bison from overrunning us?

---

Bulk explosives, bombs, clusters, mines, projectiles up to 14", grenades, rockets, rocket fuel, blood, blister and nerve agents, the list goes on. I even found Zyklon-B (the stuff the Germans used in the death camps) in downtown Minneapolis once, just a couple miles from the Metrodome.

Nope, cannon in case the Indians got frisky.

Back when the indians were an issue, the most dangerous bomb we had was a form of case shot. I realize we have many contaminated areas all across the US, and that some of these resulted from military applications, but I'd have to see some sources before I'd be willing to believe the national parks were chosen for that reason. We have plenty of military reserves around the country, and most of the national parks don't actually restrict peoples movement. Further, all the national parks enshrine a unique geological, and often biological, area. If they are actually covert military reserves, that would suggest that the military was seeking out locations of unique geologic interest as locations for military testing. That seems improbable.

The thing with known minefields, can't you just drive a bulldozer or steamroller through a minefield and clear it during a lunch break?

http://www.bandar.com.au/images/support/steamroller.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I realize we have many contaminated areas all across the US, and that some of these resulted from military applications, but I'd have to see some sources before I'd be willing to believe the national parks were chosen for that reason. We have plenty of military reserves around the country, and most of the national parks don't actually restrict peoples movement. Further, all the national parks enshrine a unique geological, and often biological, area. If they are actually covert military reserves, that would suggest that the military was seeking out locations of unique geologic interest as locations for military testing. That seems improbable.

---

Generally, the Army/Navy would get land from Dept of Interior, Bureau of Land Management of Bureau of Indian Affairs, or they would purchase it outright. Then they would bomb the crap out of it for up to 50 years. Then, if they thought it was too dirty for humans to live on it, they would clean the surface, slap a restriction on the land and turn it over to the Dept of Interior. In order to make sure that humans didn't build or live on the land, they would often turn it into a national park. Jefferson Proving Ground (now Big Oaks National Refuge) is the latest example. Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, Sandy Hook National Seashore, Camp Hale, Dolly Sods, Assateague National Seashore are others.

I don't think the military deliberately chose national parks either. All I am saying is that some (not all) of the parks have a past.

Some of the current military bases act as refuges for rare plants and animals, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxer

The thing with known minefields, can't you just drive a bulldozer or steamroller through a minefield and clear it during a lunch break?

---

Unfortunately not.. each kind of mine has a certain kind of trigger mechanism.

Some are designed to ignore vehicles (which they don't have enough payload to damage), but not humans (which they have enough payload to injure).

The injure part may sound odd, but in terms of war makes a lot of sense. If someone is still alive you help them stay that way, so in theory you can take 3 soldiers out of the battle with a relatively weak device - the one who was hit, and the two people who carry them off the battlefield.