View Full Version : End of the cluster bomb......... well, the first steps
WHEATLEY007
May 28th, 2008, 03:13 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7423714.stm
Hopefully an unwatered down agreement will be reached for the banning of cluster bomb use for about 100 countries, with others that could one day follow the lead. I for one, hate the use of weapons that are indiscriminate in their killing. Just look at the countless lives ruined in Asia and Africa and the middle east, long after a conflict has ended.
Penguin
May 28th, 2008, 04:50 PM
Getting bombed sucks. This is not going to change. It doesn't matter if they're cluster bombs or JDAMs. They are not surgical instruments, they are sledgehammers.
Banning cluster bombs is just a way for everyone to feel really good about themselves, congratulating themselves for insisting that war be fought cheap and clean, just like in the movies.
Cheeto
May 28th, 2008, 05:54 PM
This may sound like a pussy statement, but I will be glad for the day when we decide to ban blowing each other up and instead only blow up aliens that are invading.
Faceman
May 28th, 2008, 06:03 PM
or zombies.
divium
May 28th, 2008, 07:33 PM
Who needs cluster bombs anyway? MOABB ftw.
MeleeMe?
May 28th, 2008, 08:25 PM
This may sound like a pussy statement, but I will be glad for the day when we decide to ban blowing each other up and instead only blow up aliens that are invading.
Why do you hate Mexicans so much?
Rob
May 28th, 2008, 09:38 PM
This may sound retardedly obvious, but I thought it necessary based on the lack of comments indicating understanding of this...
Banning clusterbombs has little to nothing to do with the sort of regulation of what's acceptable styles of warfare. It's about the post-war. Like landmines, the unexploded bomblets plague the locals for years to come when they step on them.
This, like the ongoing efforts to ban landmines, is a terrific thing. I hope it doesn't get watered down.
Burris
May 29th, 2008, 12:16 AM
Ban land mines, bye bye Finland.
Penguin
May 29th, 2008, 12:44 AM
This may sound retardedly obvious, but I thought it necessary based on the lack of comments indicating understanding of this...
Banning clusterbombs has little to nothing to do with the sort of regulation of what's acceptable styles of warfare. It's about the post-war. Like landmines, the unexploded bomblets plague the locals for years to come when they step on them.
This, like the ongoing efforts to ban landmines, is a terrific thing. I hope it doesn't get watered down.
No, that much was perfectly obvious. However, banning cluster bombs will hardly put EOD out of a job. I maintain that it is still little more than "feel-good" lawmaking designed to make war more palatable. I mean, after all these years our militaries are still stuck with FMJ ammo because awhile back some people thought that expanding ammo was too meeeeeeean.
Rob
May 29th, 2008, 12:57 AM
This may sound retardedly obvious, but I thought it necessary based on the lack of comments indicating understanding of this...
Banning clusterbombs has little to nothing to do with the sort of regulation of what's acceptable styles of warfare. It's about the post-war. Like landmines, the unexploded bomblets plague the locals for years to come when they step on them.
This, like the ongoing efforts to ban landmines, is a terrific thing. I hope it doesn't get watered down.
No, that much was perfectly obvious. However, banning cluster bombs will hardly put EOD out of a job. I maintain that it is still little more than "feel-good" lawmaking designed to make war more palatable. I mean, after all these years our militaries are still stuck with FMJ ammo because awhile back some people thought that expanding ammo was too meeeeeeean.
Banning clusterbombs has little to nothing to do with the sort of regulation of what's acceptable styles of warfare. It's about the post-war. Like landmines, the unexploded bomblets plague the locals for years to come when they step on them.
Penguin
May 29th, 2008, 01:03 AM
Rob, are you being deliberately dense? You can't have a postwar phase without having a goddamn war first. If this was a treaty saying something ridiculous and obvious like "You can't drop cluster bombs on your enemy after they've surrendered" then yeah, being a stickler about that detail would make sense. War and postwar are inextricably linked simply because you can't have one without the other. This goes for politics too (ohnoes collateral damage!).
Besides, unexploded bomblets are hardly going to wait until the war's over to arm themselves and say "Better wait for some dumbass kid to come along and get his shot at making an AP article!" EOD remains a problem during the war too.
Rob
May 29th, 2008, 01:15 AM
Same question, back at you.
Why use something that's a known and serious hazard to postwar populations at all? It's not as though they're any more effective than say, I don't know, a big fucking bomb in the first place. And they continue to maim people for literally generations to come. If I can paraphrase, what makes your** war so much more important than the generations who have to live there after you've** finished bombing it?
**not your obviously, as a general phrasing
Penguin
May 29th, 2008, 06:49 AM
Why use something that's a known and serious hazard to postwar populations at all?
The problem is that "at all" qualifier. All explosives are a known and serious hazard to postwar populations. Eliminating ordnance that might fail to go off in a timely fashion and pose a hazard later basically means sticking to nothing but small arms, and no grenades of any kind. Generally yes, it's easier to police the howitzer shells and air-dropped bombs that didn't go off... if you notice the unexploded ordnance in the first place.
It's not as though they're any more effective than say, I don't know, a big fucking bomb in the first place.
It depends on what you're trying to destroy. Drop a big fucking bomb on an airfield? Fine, you made a crater. Congratulations, a winner is you. Now watch as that crater is quickly filled in and the runway is made operational again within hours. Oops. Now try again with cluster bombs, chewing up as much of the runway. Shallow holes, yes. But hundreds of them. That's gonna take longer to fix.
Vehicles also tend to be more resistant to the "one big fucking bomb" thing than people.
And they continue to maim people for literally generations to come. If I can paraphrase, what makes your** war so much more important than the generations who have to live there after you've** finished bombing it?
That's the price you pay when you go to war. There is collateral damage and no matter what you do, even if you never even think of using a cluster bomb, the aftereffects last for generations.
I know it's trite, but I blame movies. Even the supposedly "gritty, realistic" ones rarely even scratch the surface. The way people seem to see it... Soldiers die, and hey, that sucks but it's okay because that's what they do, but civilians, supposedly, never die. Or if they do, it's because the Bad Guys deliberately killed them, which is all the more reason for the Good Guys to ruthlessly slaughter the Bad. It's an easy way for the public to satisfy their high-minded bloodlust: The Bad Guys deserved it, and the Good Guys were all doing Good's work so any who died were Heroes with a capital H.
Rather than even try to force our collective illusion on reality (that never works out well, just look at the Bush Administration), it'd be better to penetrate the illusion with stark reality. If you decide to unleash the monster, you should do so knowing what that monster does, and be damn sure your conscience can deal with it.
AFG
May 29th, 2008, 10:48 AM
Area Denial Weapons FTL?
Invig
May 29th, 2008, 04:42 PM
war = bad. Dont do it, and if you do... If ya got it, drop it!
If you dont understand this then you dont understand just how horrible all war really is.
Cheeto
May 29th, 2008, 05:47 PM
war = bad. Dont do it, and if you do... If ya got it, drop it!
If you dont understand this then you dont understand just how horrible all war really is.
Even though I would consider myself a peaceful guy (to a point, I will not initiate violence, but I will end it), I actually agree with this. Short of nuclear, bio, chem weapons, if war is absolutely the only option you have left short of your own death, then use every horrible weapon you have to end it QUICKLY. This is the same way I go about a fist fight. I will not start it, but if you start it, I know how, and I WILL break your wrist/arm/knee to end it quickly.
Ska Wars
May 30th, 2008, 09:50 AM
Whoa whoa whoa guys, we can still use these in Worms though yeah?
Ginger Lord
May 30th, 2008, 11:15 AM
Gonna do nothing really without the big three countries (US/Russia/China) getting rid of theirs too. Same goes for Israel.
Cheeto
May 30th, 2008, 02:03 PM
Whoa whoa whoa guys, we can still use these in Worms though yeah?
Fuck the cluster bombs in Worms. Banana bomb ftw.
Penguin
May 30th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Whoa whoa whoa guys, we can still use these in Worms though yeah?
Fuck the cluster bombs in Worms. Banana bomb ftw.
+eleventy billion
HS the Whap
May 30th, 2008, 10:47 PM
I know exactly what this poster is talking about. When I want my killing to be done, I want it to kill the guy I'm aiming for. I'm for precision, but I need a mathematical degree of certainty. Its why I am for the removal of cluster bombs from every arsenal of war; and the inclusion of tatical nuclear cluster bombs.
Fenris Wolf
May 30th, 2008, 11:39 PM
I know exactly what this poster is talking about. When I want my killing to be done, I want it to kill the guy I'm aiming for. I'm for precision, but I need a mathematical degree of certainty. Its why I am for the removal of cluster bombs from every arsenal of war; and the inclusion of tatical nuclear cluster bombs.
I like your ideas and would like to subscirbe to your newsletter, sir.
Penguin
May 30th, 2008, 11:51 PM
I know exactly what this poster is talking about. When I want my killing to be done, I want it to kill the guy I'm aiming for. I'm for precision, but I need a mathematical degree of certainty. Its why I am for the removal of cluster bombs from every arsenal of war; and the inclusion of tatical nuclear cluster bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
AFG
May 31st, 2008, 06:34 AM
I know exactly what this poster is talking about. When I want my killing to be done, I want it to kill the guy I'm aiming for. I'm for precision, but I need a mathematical degree of certainty. Its why I am for the removal of cluster bombs from every arsenal of war; and the inclusion of tatical nuclear cluster bombs.
repped
Koobazaur
May 31st, 2008, 08:50 AM
I remember when they had the 3rd party progs for worms where you could modify weapon stats.
Bananabomb with 200 minibananas
Ooooh the joy XD
HS the Whap
May 31st, 2008, 05:58 PM
I know exactly what this poster is talking about. When I want my killing to be done, I want it to kill the guy I'm aiming for. I'm for precision, but I need a mathematical degree of certainty. Its why I am for the removal of cluster bombs from every arsenal of war; and the inclusion of tatical nuclear cluster bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
That, sir, is the American Dream in missile form.
Cheeto
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV
That, sir, is the American Dream in missile form.
American phallic superiority!
/me fucks the commie terrorists with a mushroom cloud spooging titanium penis
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.