Cluster bombs or land mines?
 

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.

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?

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.

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:

Lesson we dont seem to learn
 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Two points, if I may...
 

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

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Roadster280: 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.