<<International Law Rant Mode:
ON>>
As I understand it, the ban is for RBL-755 becuase the bomblets themselves do
not self-destruct after a period; meaning that they can kill non-combatants and pose a risk for years to come. If this means that we will retrofit them with a self-destruct mechanism to reduce the post-conflict risk, then this must be a good thing, IMHO.
It's also clear that the laws of armed conflict - and the recent improvements in the implementation and enforcement of them - is making it much more diffcult to use CBUs and submunitions of any sort much more difficult - the challenge, as ever, is to discriminate between combatants and civilians and not to inflict disproportionate damage.
However, I do not believe that banning CBUs outright is per se a good idea - there are some types of target (e.g. vehicle compounds) where the use of CBUs as area weapons is both proportionate and discriminating - and where
failing to use area weapons would mean many more discrete targets and many more missions required to successfully prosecute them, with concommitant increased risk to civilians and aircrew alike.
The real challange is getting the users of CBUs to use them within the law - and it is the
ILLEGAL MISUSE - indeed,
CRIMINAL ILLEGAL MISUSE[/B] of CBUs by some states (e.g. Israel in Lebanon, summer 2006)
that makes it much more difficult for the political argument to be made to retain these useful, if not wholly unproblematic, weapons.
<<International Law Rant Mode:
OFF>>
S41