PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Cluster bombs or land mines?
View Single Post
Old 19th September 2007 | 16:56
  #17 (permalink)  
Roadster280
50 Countries Visited
20 Anniversary
Veteran: Army
 
Joined: Aug 2005
: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 3
From: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
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.
Roadster280 is offline  
Reply