Catholic Online has an interesting article about the moves to ban the use of cluster bombs:
The recent fighting in Lebanon underscores the need to put another weapon, namely cluster bombs, on the list of prohibited weapons. Cluster bombs are capsules that open up to distribute bomblets over a wide field. Like land mines, they remain long after the battle is over. Children are often their victims, because their small size and often colorful appearance easily draw a child’s attention. Supposedly designed for close combat situations, they can be used as antipersonnel weapons to clear wide areas of civilian population.
Cluster bombs are horrific weapons - but no more so than machine guns, or heavy artillery. Like cluster bombs, machine guns and heavy artillery are weapons of mass killing which can never be certain of only hitting legitimate military targets. The Catholic Church has a long and quite honorable history of trying to curtail the inhumanity of war - indeed, waaaay back when, the Church attempted to ban the use of cross bows when they were the WMD of their day. There has been only one thing wrong with all attempts to control weaponry - they don't actually work.
I understand fully the motivation behind such attempts - just as I understand the motivation behind gun control; it is a desire to see less carnage in the world. This is a good and honorable end, but it is an end which cannot be reached by human agency. It isn't that we shouldn't try to ameliorate the horrors of war but that we must be prepared to be pushed to the limit by enemies who are trying to intensify the horrors of war in order to make civilized people tremble at the prospect of war. Ever since the French Revolution proclaimed a levee en masse and Clausewitz systemised the philosophy of total war, one group of wicked people after another have attempted by use of frightfullness to bend all peoples to their will.
If we were to ban cluster bombs, then all we would do is make our horrific enemies even more eager to attack us, as they would have one less thing to worry about in terms of retaliation. As long as we are faced with people who delight in killing, we must keep at hand the means of killing even faster - I hate to even write such a thing, but war is a cruel, hard activity which we should not engage in...but in order for their to be any safety for anyone, those who can defend must do so. If you were to strike me on the cheek, my hope is that I would have the strength and courage to smile and turn to you the other - but if I were to see you striking someone else, then I feel it is my duty, as a Christian, an American and a man, to prevent you from doing it. And if the only means which will work are a cluster bomb, then that is what I will have to use.
Posted by Mark Noonan at September 27, 2006 07:34 PM
Comments
Hmm... I've always been under the impression that cluster bombs blew up once they hit the ground. Only "staying around" if they were duds or misfires. Did I miss something?
As for weapon control, it's a nice idea in theory, but in practice only those who follow the rules actually go through with it. In certain areas it can work, because only certain people can make them. Like smart bombs and nuclear weapons. They're easier to control, but as Iran and N. Korea proves if you want to break the rules you can.
Which is always my biggest argument in the gun control debate. Who follows the laws? Law abiding citizens. Who breaks the law? Criminals. Who are the ones with guns when all law abiding citizens give up theirs? Criminals.
Or even better yet, for those who think the police will keep you safe ask yourself. What is the average response time for a police officer to your neighborhood hmm? I live TWO BLOCKS from a police station and the average response time to my area is over 5 minutes. That's a long time if someone is coming after me or mine. How long are you willing to wait for help and can you hold out that long?
Posted by:
Gozer at September 27, 2006 07:51 PM
My impression of this whole situation is that if you are truly fighting "the good fight" in war, then you want to try and minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. I'm not going so far as to say that we should completely ban the use of cluster bombs in combat... yet... I'm simply saying that we should try to move towards more accurately targeted and precise weapons, instead of merely ones that due massive amounts of random damage.
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at September 27, 2006 08:18 PM
My impression of this whole situation is that if you are truly fighting "the good fight" in war, then you want to try and minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. I'm not going so far as to say that we should completely ban the use of cluster bombs in combat... yet... I'm simply saying that we should try to move towards more accurately targeted and precise weapons, instead of merely ones that due massive amounts of random damage.
Where the hell have YOU been Frawg? JDAMs have a CEP of only 13 meters, which means 50% of the time they will land within 13 meters of the target, with GPS available. That's the reason why the bad guys are scared s**tless...'cause we can pretty much hit the target we paint, and we don't need nukes for the most part.
BTW, the CEP for a Trident II warhead is 90 meters, compared to 100 meters for the MX. between 220 to 275 meters for the LGM-30 Minutman III, and a whopping 2 miles for the Titan II (which is why bombs had to be HUGE back in the 60s...as in 9 MEGATONS...to take out the target).
It is this increase in accuracy for all our conventional and non-conventional weapons systems which threatens the status quo of the rest of the planet.
One more thing: in war, people DIE. Get used to it.
Posted by: Macker at September 27, 2006 09:39 PM
Mark--would you approve of the use of land mines? Chemical and biological weapons? Nukes? They are "means of killing even faster," right?
Posted by: Wyckyd Sceptre at September 27, 2006 11:47 PM
I would not want to be stationed along the Korean DMZ WITHOUT landmines. In a situation like that, landmines serve as a deterrent to aggresive action. They have served such a funtion in Korea for fifty years.
Posted by: Kahn at September 28, 2006 12:06 AM
I like Rumsfeld's view on using cluster bombs. I don't remember the exact quote, as it was during the early stages of Afghanistan, but it went something like this...
Fifth Columnist Reporter: "Why is the U.S. military dropping deadly cluster munitions in areas where al-Qaeda freedom fighters may be hit?"
Rumsfeld: "We are dropping cluster bombs on al-Qaeda because we want to kill them."
RUMMY FOR PRESIDENT!
Posted by:
Gullyborg at September 28, 2006 01:21 AM
I support the use of any weapon that kills Islamofascists.
Posted by: Bob Arctor at September 28, 2006 01:32 AM
RUMMY FOR PRESIDENT!
Seconded! Why isn't he on the straw polls? That man really knows how to fight a war -- with extreme prejudice!
Posted by: Bob Arctor at September 28, 2006 01:35 AM
Wyckyd,
Chemical weapons are ineffective in a military sense - the experience of the First World War proved that...they are terrible weapons, but they have never, not even once, led to battlefield victory. But if an enemy were to unleash chemical weapons on us, what are we to do? We have to have some deterrent available which would make such a thing unthinkable - and our deterrent is nuclear weapons.
Land mines, on the other hand, are yet another weapon which when used properly are morally acceptable in so far as war is ever morally acceptable - on the other hand, like all human implements, land mines may be used improperly and become completely immoral weapons. Its the difference between an army sewing a minefield as part of a recognised defensive network and terrorists sewing mines in clearly civilian areas.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 28, 2006 03:06 AM
Wyckyd Sceptre, would you approve of using a +2 Majick Broadsword against Orcs? I think you're commenting at the wrong blog.
Posted by: Bob Arctor at September 28, 2006 06:42 AM
Mark: "Its the difference between an army sewing a minefield as part of a recognised defensive network and terrorists sewing mines in clearly civilian areas."
Cluster bombs essentially sew minefields -- on average about 15-20% of the bomblets contained in a cluster bomb don't explode immediately. But they do if they are later disturbed. As the article said, they are colorfully painted and are about the size of soda cans. So they're kid magnets. There have been thousands of deaths in places where they have been used -- in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. And unfortunately, many of them were dropped in civilian areas. I read an estimate the other day that it will take 10 years to rid southern Lebanese villages of all the bomblets. Along the "Highway of Death" between Kuwait and Iraq, over 2000 civilians have been killed after the fact by remaining bomblets. We've dropped them in various neighborhoods in Baghdad, Fallujah, Tal Afar, Ramadi, and various other places. Is that morally acceptable?
Posted by: Ricorun at September 28, 2006 01:31 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Hmm... I've always been under the impression that cluster bombs blew up once they hit the ground. Only "staying around" if they were duds or misfires. Did I miss something?
As for weapon control, it's a nice idea in theory, but in practice only those who follow the rules actually go through with it. In certain areas it can work, because only certain people can make them. Like smart bombs and nuclear weapons. They're easier to control, but as Iran and N. Korea proves if you want to break the rules you can.
Which is always my biggest argument in the gun control debate. Who follows the laws? Law abiding citizens. Who breaks the law? Criminals. Who are the ones with guns when all law abiding citizens give up theirs? Criminals.
Or even better yet, for those who think the police will keep you safe ask yourself. What is the average response time for a police officer to your neighborhood hmm? I live TWO BLOCKS from a police station and the average response time to my area is over 5 minutes. That's a long time if someone is coming after me or mine. How long are you willing to wait for help and can you hold out that long?
My impression of this whole situation is that if you are truly fighting "the good fight" in war, then you want to try and minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. I'm not going so far as to say that we should completely ban the use of cluster bombs in combat... yet... I'm simply saying that we should try to move towards more accurately targeted and precise weapons, instead of merely ones that due massive amounts of random damage.
Mark--would you approve of the use of land mines? Chemical and biological weapons? Nukes? They are "means of killing even faster," right?
I would not want to be stationed along the Korean DMZ WITHOUT landmines. In a situation like that, landmines serve as a deterrent to aggresive action. They have served such a funtion in Korea for fifty years.
I like Rumsfeld's view on using cluster bombs. I don't remember the exact quote, as it was during the early stages of Afghanistan, but it went something like this...
Fifth Columnist Reporter: "Why is the U.S. military dropping deadly cluster munitions in areas where al-Qaeda freedom fighters may be hit?"
Rumsfeld: "We are dropping cluster bombs on al-Qaeda because we want to kill them."
RUMMY FOR PRESIDENT!
I support the use of any weapon that kills Islamofascists.
Seconded! Why isn't he on the straw polls? That man really knows how to fight a war -- with extreme prejudice!
Wyckyd,
Chemical weapons are ineffective in a military sense - the experience of the First World War proved that...they are terrible weapons, but they have never, not even once, led to battlefield victory. But if an enemy were to unleash chemical weapons on us, what are we to do? We have to have some deterrent available which would make such a thing unthinkable - and our deterrent is nuclear weapons.
Land mines, on the other hand, are yet another weapon which when used properly are morally acceptable in so far as war is ever morally acceptable - on the other hand, like all human implements, land mines may be used improperly and become completely immoral weapons. Its the difference between an army sewing a minefield as part of a recognised defensive network and terrorists sewing mines in clearly civilian areas.
Wyckyd Sceptre, would you approve of using a +2 Majick Broadsword against Orcs? I think you're commenting at the wrong blog.
Mark: "Its the difference between an army sewing a minefield as part of a recognised defensive network and terrorists sewing mines in clearly civilian areas."
Cluster bombs essentially sew minefields -- on average about 15-20% of the bomblets contained in a cluster bomb don't explode immediately. But they do if they are later disturbed. As the article said, they are colorfully painted and are about the size of soda cans. So they're kid magnets. There have been thousands of deaths in places where they have been used -- in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon. And unfortunately, many of them were dropped in civilian areas. I read an estimate the other day that it will take 10 years to rid southern Lebanese villages of all the bomblets. Along the "Highway of Death" between Kuwait and Iraq, over 2000 civilians have been killed after the fact by remaining bomblets. We've dropped them in various neighborhoods in Baghdad, Fallujah, Tal Afar, Ramadi, and various other places. Is that morally acceptable?