UK Bans Dumb Cluster Bombs
 

BBC: Britain bans 'dumb' cluster bombs

The UK is to stop using cluster bombs that lack self-destruct mechanisms to reduce the risk of civilian casualties, Defence Secretary Des Browne has said. The weapons, known as "dumb" cluster bombs, will be withdrawn immediately and destroyed, said Mr Browne. He said the move meant the UK was the first world power to abandon their use...........

In February, at a conference in Norway, the UK, which has used cluster bombs in Kosovo and Iraq, joined 45 other nations in pledging to ban cluster bombs by 2008. The US has rejected a ban.

In a written statement to MPs, Mr Browne said: "It is our duty to make sure our forces have the equipment they need to do the job we ask of them. At the same time, we should strive to reduce civilian casualties to the minimum. Military commanders are first to point out that modern conflicts are, in large part, about winning hearts and minds. This is an important decision. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do. We hope that other countries will now follow suit."

The MoD said the UK would immediately stop using the RBL 755 aerial-delivered cluster munition and the Multi Launch Rocket System M26 munition. More than 28 million sub-munitions will be destroyed, said the MoD.

Simon Conway, of the Cluster Munition Coalition, said the UK must ban all cluster bombs. "Smart means precision guided and the cluster munitions that the UK wants to retain are not precision guided. "As long as the UK retains them, the unacceptable threat to civilians will remain."

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "All cluster munitions are indiscriminate and there are serious concerns that even so-called smart munitions have a significant failure rate, making them a dangerous remnant of conflict."

When they say 28 million submunitions will be destroyed does that mean then all?

Why can't they just say no more will be produced and well just use the stock up?

Total waste of money in the face of PC AGAIN.

Well unless it's your kid that gets it's feet blown off of course.

I am looking forward to hearing the Taliban’s response to this new policy. Will they follow suit and also pledge to protect civilians during their military campaigns?
Of course I agree that civilians need protection but without the USA on board, our gesture is but a drop in the ocean.

Don't have any idea how many we have, but they must contribute to the overall war stocks and, presumably, will need replacing with something else, whether it be PGM or dumb. Any bets on the budget announcing an increase in defence spending as a result of this unilateral humanitarian gesture? No, didn't think so!

28 million? Someones going to have fun disposing of them.

Umm, so - with no gun on the Typhoon and no dumb weapons of any other kind... what are we supposed to use on the insurgents of the future (I'm thinking Afghanistan type ops)?

Harsh language?

the bit that made me laugh was des brown thinking we are a world power!!!:}

This might be way out of left field, but I thought it was accepted the Typhoon does have a gun now...

Yes, but no rounds unless they ask nicely is my understanding

I don't think being as bad as the terrorists helps with the ultimate aim of stopping terrorist activities. What do you think?

Well lets just replace them with bomblets that do self destruct

Since even basic digital cameras now have a (sort of) facial recognition mode, why not add the technology to the bomblets so that they explode only when they identify someone we don't like. And no, they don't all look the same.

I've got a picture of The Strife here - who do I address it to?

Anyone that has actually spent any time in a country plagued with UXOs from CBUs or artillery or whatever (or indeed anti personell mines as well) can only be for a ban like this.

I've had the 'pleasure' of giving first aid to a kid that stepped on an UXO, it puts things into perspective. That was 5 years after the war was over and CNN left. :oh:

I don's see the yanks joining this initiative though. :ugh:

Load toad,

Sorry the irony was wasted on you.

Don't worry too mucg people, we haven't had the ROE to drop CBUs since Kosovo (I think) so no capability lost. We stopped training with them years ago.
Mead Pusher

We have PLENTY of dumb bombs left in stock and use them quite often.

> We have PLENTY of dumb bombs left in stock and use them quite often.

Can't they be used as the basis for Paveway? I understood it was a bolt-on kit.

Phil

Phil, indeed they can. Not only that, so can the Inert rounds. Half a ton of bomb hitting a tank, even a 50 ton tank, at 500 kts will more than scratch the paint!

CBUs
 

<<International Law Rant Mode: ON>> :cool:

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. :sad:

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