Cluster bombs or land mines?

[D-IFF_ident]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7000083.stm

I'm still in and, therefore, not entitled to an opinion. But it's an interesting discussion to witness.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Of course you are entitled to an opinion. Service in the military of this country is voluntary and as such it is right and proper that you voice concerns over potentially illegal weapons you might be called on to use.

My opinion is that although I find mines distasteful by signing up to bans such as this we are just crippling our forces in their fight against people who have signed up to no conventions and will happily use every trick in the book to get what they want. How many besieged outposts in Afghanistan would have been a little less besieged if the ability to lay mines in dead ground was still in the armoury?

[Al R]

Come on.. 'potentially' illegal?

You may as well ask a serviceman to press for the banning of Landrovers as they can drive at 80 mph and potentially be illegal too. If the command is lawful, you do as you're told.

I agree with para 2.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

I do hope that these people will be lobbying just as hard to end the use of indiscriminate IEDs, car bombs, DIY rockets/mortars, and suicide bombers.

No. Thought not? Let's just fight with one hand tied behind our back to give the poor darling insurgents a chance. :mad:

[radicalrabit]

Sorry but you cant use a clean fight against a dirty enemy never worked in history and it isnt going to change. Saddam did what he said he was going to , took his best troops out of the fight hid them in the streets and is now using them efectively to fight a war the Americans and us cant possibly hope to win not now and not in a hundred years from now.
Sad but its true. It was an ill thought out war poorly planned well executed by our troops given what they had to work with , but as ever they are in the wrong place with the wrong kit for the wrong reasons. And for Afgan and any other stan you care to mention the story is the same.

[Fortyodd2]

I think we should get rid of them too - preferably, via a hard point on a Harrier and in the general direction of the Taliscum. :E

[FormerFlake]

It is no good having rules unless all parties play by them. You fight fire with fire not with good intentions.

[anotherthing]

Althoug landmines are a horrendous weapon and have many repurcussions for the populace after a conflict has ended, I have always been baffled how it can be right and proper to kill ones enemy using certain methods, whilst other methods of killing the enemy seem to be frowned upon.

[Load Toad]

It's a degree of horror thing. All death is not equal.

If you wanted to kill me for instance in a battle or such - please give me a bullet in the head. If I have to go that way sounds better than burning alive, being stabbed, burnt with acid, bleeding to death, being eaten by rats, having my stomach slit open, the insides pouring out being eaten by rats as I slowly die watching the scene unfold before me....

You get the picture?

It is the degree of cruelty. It ain't good but some is less horrific.

[Squirrel 41]

First, it been illegal in the modern era to cause unnecessary suffering, and it's worth remembering that one of the first arms control treaties banned dum-dum bullets in the late 19th Century.

The second point is that weapons have to be discriminating - it's never legal to target civilians, though some level of collateral damage may be inevitable.

Landmines can cause unncessary suffering and won't always be discriminating. And unexploded cluster submunitions will also be problematic.

However.... the legality or illegality depends how you use them. And therefore they shouldn't be made illegal per se.

The OVERIDING point is this: we are fighting a war against a determined, resourceful, and in some cases, fanatical, foe. But we are ultimately saying that our conception of a better Iraq/Afghanistan is better than our opponents, and part of this is upholding higher ideals - including international law. The moral high ground is as important as actual high ground, and defending it also costs lives.

Let's engage in the debate and win it on the quality of our argument.

S41

[Phil_R]

I would have thought that any unexploded munition was potentially as dangerous as an unexploded cluster submunition (obviously with variances down to the style of fusing, etc). Also, the only cluster munition (display models) I've ever seen were painted bright colours, as they were intended to be a dissuasion to go somewhere rather than an unpredictable danger once you had.

It strikes me that this is two separate issues. Landmines are fairly horrible, though. Don't know if anyone saw the Palin, but you really shouldn't have to have landmine safety classes in your junior schools.

Phil

[Pontius Navigator]

Phil, you have a point about colour.

True mines like the claymoor would be totally ineffective if painted in flower power colours. They are however 'spot' weapons for command or tripwire detonation and easy to plot accurately.

OTOH the Russian butterfly type mine, made of plastic to evade mine detection, self-coloured to avoid detection, and scattered along trails etc and totally unplotted is something else again.

A BL755 with its cluster munitions scattered everywhere will have done its primary job on delivery. A secondary function will be to upset anyone moving into or through the area. It will be obvious where that area is so they would achieve their effect if they were painted flame orange.

What about delayed action munitions? You can drop a bomb with a DA fuse up to 2 days. If it fails at any time them it may still go bang years in the future.

[Load Toad]

So we are up for 'The Day the Battlefield Turned Day-Glo'?

[M609]

Also, the only cluster munition (display models) I've ever seen were painted bright colours, as they were intended to be a dissuasion to go somewhere rather than an unpredictable danger once you had.

Which is why kids tend to want to pick them up in the first place.

I see the argument about fighting on equal terms with Taliban etc, but I cannot support the use of cluster munitions in a foreign country not directly attacking my own. Would you send your kids to play in an area where cluster munitions are present? People in Kosovo, Afhanistan and Iraq have no choice. :suspect:

[OFBSLF]

It's a degree of horror thing. All death is not equal.Huh? So how is getting blown up by an anti-personnel mine more of a horror than getting blown up by a 500 lb JDAM?

Blown up is blown up and dead is dead.

[Cyclone733]

Mr Conway said: "It's a con. I think it's an attempt to try to secure a short-term advantage. "

I had the distinct impression the idea of weapons systems was to provide an advantage. Hence the lack of the bow and arrow regiments.

I'm voting for a ban on Cars and other road vehicles due to their high risk (over 3000 deaths per year) any chance of tagging that on the back of the anti-mine deal?

[Roadster280]

If dead is dead, and the means to that end is irrelevant, then why were things like chemical weapons and napalm disowned?

Cluster bombs and minefields are intended to deny ground to the enemy, potentially forcing them into areas where own troops have a reception party laid on. Nothing wrong with that militarily, but the fluffy bunny postwar period is made all the harder.

Why not devise a self-inerting weapon? Thus we military types can maim the enemy should they be stupid enough to ignore the "minefield" signs, and when the shooting match is all over, the weapons harmlessly degrade. I'm thinking of say a waxed cardboard mine, or quickly biodegradeable plastic that self-inerts after say 6 months. Another alternative would be a radioactive mine (say a dab of Tritium) to aid detection and clearance, but laid in sufficient numbers to be practically unclearable in battle.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Why not devise a self-inerting weapon?

Many of the more modern cluster munitions are equipped with munitions that can be remotely detonated or made inert. A large problem however, comes from devices that have a fuze that fails when it was supposed to function and leaves the munition unstable and unable to be remotely dealt with.

Another alternative would be a radioactive mine (say a dab of Tritium) to aid detection and clearance, but laid in sufficient numbers to be practically unclearable in battle.

If the weapon used is an area denial weapon then "battle" is not an issue and therefore anything that assists in locating them is counterintuitive.

[OFBSLF]

Roadster280: I ask again, how is getting blown up by a mine worse than getting blown up by a bomb or artillery round?

[Airborne Aircrew]

I ask again, how is getting blown up by a mine worse than getting blown up by a bomb or artillery round?

Mines that can be set off by humans are anti-personnel mines, (anti-tank etc. tend not to allow themselves to be initiated, (read: wasted), by a human. Anti-pers weapons are designed not to kill and, often, not even to do critical damage. The aim is to maim as badly as possible to ensure that the man does not come back to the fray, ever. This is because a dead man takes two men to manage, (they dig the hole, document him and drop him in), the death, (I know there's more to it than that nowadays). A severely wounded man takes up a lot more assets. The intent is to bog down the B echelon with people going backwards and the amount of time and effort expended on them.

Bombs and Artillery rounds are designed to explode and cause the maximum damage possible... A close call with one of these is usually fatal.

[Pontius Navigator]

psychologically dead is the past, gone and final.

wounded however is a visible and constant reminder of vulnerability

[Maple 01]

Yes please, both, let's not risk our own people because someone sitting safely at home feels a bit squeamish

[OFBSLF]

Anti-pers weapons are designed not to kill and, often, not even to do critical damageI'm quite skeptical of such claims.

Anti-personnel mines are typically quite small and light, so that they can be easily transported, placed, and are hard to detect. The downside is that they are less lethal than larger devices.

Nevertheless, even if you are correct and they are specifically designed to maim and not kill, why does that make them "evil"? Personally, I'd rather be alive and using a prosthetic leg to get around than be dead.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Anti-personnel mines are typically quite small and light, so that they can be easily transported, placed, and are hard to detect. The downside is that they are less lethal than larger devices.

Wrong...

Take a look around here for some typical early AP weapons... You'll note that they are often large, cumbersome devices. You will also notice that it states for some that they are designed to maim not kill.

I will say, for Maple's benefit since I'm unsure of where his post is going, that I am all in favor of such weapons. Though I will put a rider on that. They must be deployed accurately and it should be general knowledge amongst all friendly forces as to their location... Because there is nothing worse than being maimed by your own weapons...:sad:

[Pontius Navigator]

Anti-personnel mines like Claymore are indeed to designed to wreak havoc in their line of fire. They are usually deplyed defensively around one's own perimeter, under direct control and can be recovered afterwards.

They can also be set on trails to deter pursuit. The downside here is that they can catch own forces if the original pursuers evade the trap.

Area or trail denial weapons OTOH are designed to sterilise an area. Mines like the Russia butterfly were never intended to kill. To kill they would need to be larger and thus more easily seen. Their small size makes it difficult to spot but limits their damage to limb amputation.

The Germans in WWII had trip mines, teller mines etc that were designed to spring up and burst at about b:mad:k height. They were designed to incapacitate rather than kill outright.

I ask again, how is getting blown up by a mine worse than getting blown up by a bomb or artillery round?

The other factor is that bombs, shells and bullets are direct effect weapons and might be termed hot kill weapons. Fired at a legitimate target their lethality is expended when the fragments stop moving.

Booby traps, mines etc are indescriminate in that they are not hot fire weapons and effectively kill in cold blood.

Submunition dispensers are hot kill weapons when they function as indeed are bombs and shells. The problem is how to deploy area denial weapons that can be neutralised later.

If troops deploy traditional grenade tripwire traps, are these illegal?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Submunition dispensers are hot kill weapons when they function as indeed are bombs and shells. The problem is how to deploy area denial weapons that can be neutralised later.Submunition Dispensers dispense... The submunitions themselves are either "area destruction" weapons or "area denial" weapons. Area destruction, (as you pointed out - when they function as advertized), submunitions are "hot kill weapons"... You aim them, "fire" them and they destroy the target, (which might be a grid square). Area denial are the "cold kill weapons" and are the ones everyone gets "wound up" about. These are submunitions that are deployed with no specific target. They are placed to prevent the free use of a geographic location by the enemy. They do nothing until triggered.

As an aside, Claymores can, equally well, be set up as booby traps... and therefore are also somewhat indiscriminate... In fact, in jungle training, there is an unmanned ambush based around Claymores that can kill the enemy and, (to some extent), clean up the trail afterwards... :E

Another neat little trick is placing trip flares at head height in trees alongside a trail with the top facing horizontal along the axis of the tripwire.. The chap that trips it gets a nice warm ear... Think of it as a favor... ;)

If troops deploy traditional grenade tripwire traps, are these illegal?Define "illegal" in war... I'd suggest that it is defined by "not getting caught". I was taught that White Phosphorus grenades were not to be used in an anti-personnel manner. When questioned, the same instructor stated:-

If you have an enemy trench in front of you with two enemy in it and all you have is a WP... Use it...

When it comes down to it the only point of going to war is to win and troops in the field will do whatever they must in order to stay alive - and they can't be blamed nor punished for that... Note: the "stay alive" phrase. Now, if the two warring sides have a treaty that says they agree not to use weapon X then they should both abide by it. If one side has treaties with other countries but not their opponent, (because they have none with anyone else), then no treaty should be enforced on either side.

Just my 2c...

[Maple 01]

I will say, for Maple's benefit since I'm unsure of where his post is going, etc

All I meant is that I'm all in favour of UK forces having access to landmines and Cluster munitions - some genius on ARRSE a while back was trying to get people to sign-up for CBs to be outlawed - personally I like a bit of runway denial and don't see why our guys have to risk getting stuffed by the opposition so someone in the UK can take the moral high-ground.

Yes there is a responsibility with their use but UK forces tended to plot their minefields rather better than our Argentinean colleagues for example, also we generally tidy-up after the event. I haven't seen many of our recent target nations following "the rules" for a "clean fight", nor would they abandon mines and CB so why would we be expected to?

[Airborne Aircrew]

Maple:

Ahh... Ok, I was a little unsure of whether you were for or against... We are in full agreement... We need to do whatever it takes to give our men and women every advantage despite political correctness and "warm and fuzzy feelings". Yes, we should minimize the subsequent damage caused by what we did but only after the goal has been achieved.

Yes, I read what the man said on ArRSe and, while clearly he was a man with a lot of experience in the subject from both sides of the issue, I believe he would call for cluster "bombs" ;) if he was pinned down and they were the best solution...

[Phil_R]

Surely there is an excellent case for weapons which can be used to deny the enemy a runway without damaging it, in order that you don't completely bugger up whatever splat of land it is you're having a punch-up about.

Phil

[Airborne Aircrew]

Runways aren't really an issue in the cluster munitions/no cluster munitions argument... Because large numbers of civilians tend not to be allowed around the kinds of runways we would wish to deny access to.

These weapons are used to either deny a choke point, (a route an enemy _must_ traverse to advance - or even to withdraw in some cases), to the enemy or, by denial of the surrounding land with these weapons, force him into a choke point so he can be destroyed. It's what remains that they did not detonate themselves in areas where innocent civilians will subsequently travel through with some regularity that causes concern.

[OFBSLF]

We need to do whatever it takes to give our men and women every advantage despite political correctness and "warm and fuzzy feelings". Yes, we should minimize the subsequent damage caused by what we did but only after the goal has been achieved.I am in violent agreement with that. If I was in firebase Zulu in B***f***istan, I'd sure want a bunch of mines outside the wire.

[Double Zero]

Phil-R

I think you're referring to things like JP233, which had a delayed action / mine option.

Probably a good deterrent against the bad guys but initial damage was minimal - was it retired due to the Convention/s, or the fact it proved, predictably, virtually suicide to use ?

I spent a few weeks, months, probably totalling a year or so on Test Ranges; while I was there 2 ordnance experts were killed trying to clear cluster bomblets.

Agree the people our forces are facing will not flinch from using any nasty weapon they can get their hands on - all I could suggest would be a time-based de-activation, and good mapping / clearance by our forces if & when it's all over.

[Airborne Aircrew]

while I was there 2 ordnance experts were killed trying to clear cluster bomblets.

clearance by our forces if & when it's all over.

Unfortunately, all too often, those two statements will coincide...

[Phil_R]

> or the fact it proved, predictably, virtually suicide to use ?

Storm shadow variant?

Phil