US to keep using cluster bombs
 

Pentagon puts off planned ban on use of cluster bombs

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has put off indefinitely a planned ban on using certain cluster bombs, which release explosive sub-munitions, or bomblets. The U.S. military considers them a legitimate and important weapon, although critics say they kill indiscriminately and pose hazards to civilians. A 2010 international treaty outlaws the use of cluster bombs, but the U.S. is not a signatory.

The George W. Bush administration declared in 2008 that after Jan. 1, 2019, the United States would continue its use of cluster bombs only if they met a performance standard of failing to detonate 1 percent or less of the time. That standard is important because armed and unexploded cluster munitions left on the battlefield pose a long-term hazard to civilians.

Tom Crosson, a Pentagon spokesman, said that despite efforts to develop more reliable, and thus safer, cluster munitions, the U.S. military has been unable to produce bombs with failure rates of 1 percent or less. He said it's unclear how long it might take to achieve that standard, and thus the Pentagon concluded in a months-long policy review that it should set aside the 2019 deadline and allow commanders to authorize the use of the weapons when they deem it necessary.

The new policy drew immediate criticism. Mary Wareham, arms division director for Human Rights Watch, said there is no compelling reason for the use of cluster munitions. "The U.S. says it can't produce 'safe' cluster munitions, so it has decided to keep using 'unsafe' ones," she said. "We condemn this decision to reverse the long-held U.S. commitment not to use cluster munitions that fail more than 1 percent of the time, resulting in deadly unexploded sub-munitions." Her organization is chair of the Cluster Munition Coalition, an international campaign seeking to eliminate cluster bombs.

A new Pentagon policy approved Thursday erases the 2019 deadline and asserts that the weapons are legitimate, not necessarily a humanitarian hazard, and important for wartime attacks on "area targets" like enemy troop formations. The new policy authorizes commanders to approve use of existing cluster bombs "until sufficient quantities" of safer versions are developed and fielded. "Safer" means meeting the 1 percent failure standard or developing bombs equipped with a self-destruct mechanism or that can be rendered inoperable in 15 minutes or less by the exhaustion of their power source.

The policy does not define what qualifies as "sufficient quantities" of safer weapons, and it sets no new deadline........

Salute!

Oh yeah, dispensed thousands of the suckers during my tours in SEA.

Our problem then was the early versions that had submunitions which had poor fuzing and would also hang up in trees/bushes. Then, the clever Vee would collect the things and make IED's. We solved most of the problem with "spin-armed" fusing devices that needed to spin up to "x" RPM, and then exploded when slowong down below "x" RPM. Not only was it almost impossible to make a booby trap, but the things would not exploded until passing thru the trees/bushes. I liked them for trucks on the Trail as they would bouce onto and uder the trucks before exploding. Got 5 on one pass in early 1968.

The concern for collateral casualties is valid, and it's also a concern for friendly troops that move onto the battle field shortly after the enemy has "dispersed". Personally, I liked nape better for personnel, but you have to get close be be accurate, and that's not conducive to your health.

Just thots from an old warrior.

Gums....

What am I missing....anything that efficiently kills the enemy is what it is all about in war.

There is no way to put sugar coating on mass killing.

We forget what war is supposed to be about....killing enough of the enemy and destroying both his ability and will to fight.

Whatever gets us to that point with the least number of our side being hurt or killed is the only criteria we should consider.

Someone said..."if you find yourself in a fair fight....you have failed!".

We had no scruples in mass bombing of civilians during WWII did we?

We won decisively due to that and other methods....meaning unlimited war...not this silly assed ROE thing we have adopted.

Limit collateral damage by all means...it is good practice to do so.

Different conflicts require different tactics and strategy....and our weapons have to be varied and fit for the task.....Cluster Bombs have a valid place in the arsenal and in the conduct of hostilities.

We have Nukes....and they make concerns about Cluster Bombs seem just so much PC silliness.

SAS - "what am I missing" - maybe the countless UXBs that pose a threat to innocent people for decades after hostilities have ended?

Nice dishonest headline, ORAC.
The US uses cluster bombs for certain targets, but from my memory of actual usage, has not actually dropped/fired one since about 2003; and it was either MLRS/ATACMS shot. (I admit that my memory may be reaching back to Desert Storm, but there were certainly appropriate targets for that munition during 2003).
The most recent use of cluster munitions that I recall was the IDF in 2006 that got a whole lot of people wound up, during the fight on their northern border with Hezbollah. I don't recall reading of them being used in Gaza, but that may be faulty memory.

The US retains the cluster bomb in its inventory for those situations where it fits. That makes sound military sense. I heartily concur with President Bush's initiative regarding improving the quality standard, though it may make that munition more expensive to produce. Better is better. I agree with keeping the option open until they improve the tech/reliability. The likelihood that there will be a situation where their use is warranted, in the near term, is rather low. Mary Wareham can go and suck a fart.

The conventional munitions I saw used from the Air vis OIF and OEF (this is PPRuNe, not Artillery R Us) did not include cluster munitions. I'll defer to those red legs who know the details better.

If there have been cluster munitions used by US forces vs ISIS/Deash/Various Al Qaeda friends since the 2010 withdrawal from Iraq, I'd like to see evidence of it. (It is quite possible that I missed a summary with such information/data). In the main, the situations where that's the better idea have been few and far between in the present cases of never ending operations.

Are cluster bombs allowed under the US constitution second amendment? After all, they are just "arms".

@TrimStab You win the prize for this week's stupid question from a troll. Please contact the local dustman for your award.

Well if they want to keep using them, depending on the shelf life, they’ll have to buy them from the Russians......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-them-anymore/ Why the last U.S. company making cluster bombs won’t produce them anymore

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/20...t-isis/128646/

....”In February, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, then-commander of U.S. Forces Korea, warned that the loss of cluster bombs could deplete the U.S. military’s stockpile in the Pacific. “We must maintain an adequate quantity of critical munitions to ensure alliance supremacy in the early days of conflict on the Peninsula,” Scaparrotti said at a Feb. 24 House Armed Services Committee hearing. The general said the problem is “further amplified by the approaching loss of cluster munitions due to shelf life expiration and the impending ban.”......

When it gets important enough you use whatever you need- gas, cbombs, napalm, barrel bombs, willie peter, A bombs.... Col. Kurz........

Area denial . . . simples

Salute!

Hey, Wolf-man, maybe go easy on Trim. I think he was being sarcastic.

I appreciate the comments from SAS, but don't think he ever "pulled the trigger" during his time in II Corps.

About 80% or so of the missions I flew were CAS. Some involved hitting the enema as they were climbing over the fence, some when they were forming up a few hundred yards out, others along the Trail as we covered the SOG guys and the Hmong. As a Sandy, we dropped CBU along the chopper route in and out in order to cut down the groundfire. Ditto for Ranch Hand spray mission escort.

I was fortunate to fly most missions in direct support of my grunt friends and our "allies" on the ground. It made things a lot easier when the enema were shooting at them and at me! Heh heh. So no remorse about pulling the trigger or hitting the bmb/RX button.

We did our best to drop CBU pods and such in a river or the sea or well away from the battle to minimize collateral damage and possible use of UXB submunitions. Don't think the other guys had any such procedures.

Gums recalls....

gums, the risks of unexploded munitions from the CBU's are not just to civilians, unlike the dishonest article linked to begin this thread.

A very good friend of mine commanded a fuel truck company in an FSB during desert storm. (Let's say he had about 4 days of no sleep, among other things). A few days after the shooting stopped, his Humvee, with him and his driver in it, encountered an unexploded bomblet that blew up. Mostly damaged the Humvee, but I think J__ soiled his trousers. His driver ended up with a broken bone do to the accident.

It could have been worse.

I've done a lot of jungle trekking in the SEA region as it becomes more accessible to tourists. Last year, when in Quảng Bình Province a couple of boys were killed whilst ploughing a field by UXO. Reported to be a cluster bomb. Casualties still quite common evidently and the statistics horrific if accurate. The rivers in this area are spectacular and disappear in to limestone kharst caves. The locals called one, the river of blood and gasoline, where the trail crosses the Song Con river. The whole area is still a mess, though when trekking, the 15 foot cobras were a bigger fear if surprised.

Paradox I guess, the Vietnamese still have mines made of old CBU's and aren't signatory to the Mine Ban treaty.

Salute!

TNX for update, Gnadenburg.

I have a hard time thinking CBU bomblets are still a threat after 40 years. I would think the many dud bombs we dropped are a bigger problem. If we screwed up with our switches or the fuze itself was bad, there would be a chunk of steel with 175 pounds of tritonal there. Thinking MK-82.

One reason I resist going back is just the threat of the zillions of UXB. I would dearly love to prowl the Trail that I searched all those years ago, looking for a truck moving south.

In terms of density, the Euopean targets prolly have more UXB concentrated. In 'nam, the concentrations were along the Trail at various "choke points". In-country, we had a few big fights, but the UXB were cleared fairly quickly after 1975, and mostly after 1972.

Sad thing, war, but only the dead will know the end of war.

Gums...

Gburg,

We have to also consider that the Japanese and French along with the Viet Minh, Viet Song, and NVA all planted mines in addition to our own mines and Cluster Bombs.

It is a very pretty place....and I have been back twice now as a paying tourist rather than being a paid tourist.

Except for some medical issues....I would have gladly retired there.

Gums,

The old saying is the empty drum makes the most noise.

I am confused as to how we managed to lose the war with you fighting it.

For you information.....I managed to get to all four Corps Areas, Cambodia, Laos.

Plus medevac'd after getting shot down on my second Tour.

So do spare me your horse**** please.

Salute!

No pissing contest, SAS.

I know about your tours from previous posts on other threads. I was and am impressed, as you are one of the few here that speaks from actual experience in that sad time for us.

I am contributing because I haven't seen anyone here speak that ever dropped or dispensed CBU. Unlike the Chinook, both types I flew could shoot back with serious ordnance.

respectfully, Gums sends...

All gentlemen and ladies are invited to retain a sense of humor and the comradery of the profession of arms as this discussion continues ...

ie handbags away please.