Cluster bombs vs SMArt bombs

[Nyoibo]

There is no such thing as a just war. In war you should do as much damage to the civilians as you do to the military to make sure nobody wants to go to war with you. Its too bad America has forgotten this.

Actually no, America hasn't forgotten this, America along with every other country knows that that is the stupidest way to wage a war, provided the war is kept between the militaries there is no problem, once it starts targeting civilians then the civilians become another fighting force, The U.S. learnt that the hard way in Vietnam.

[elsporko]

What we learned in Veitnam is that you can't effectivly fight a war when you aren't allowed to go on the offensive. Civilians were targeted all the time in WWII and that helped us win.

[Hobbs]

No, that's not what helped us win. Yes, we were not allowed to go on the offensive, but the targeting of civilians wouldn't have helped. What really happened is our initial bombing campaign was restricted in hitting targets that, in hindsight, would have impeded the North Vietnamese from waging war.

[elsporko]

I think North Koreans would have found it difficult to support the war effort if we killed them all with bombing before they could go into the south.

[Hobbs]

Now you're talking genocide, which just about everyone will tell you is a war crime.

[Gravekeeper]

I think North Koreans would have found it difficult to support the war effort if we killed them all with bombing before they could go into the south.

I must admit at times I have trouble taking your opinions seriously as I can't help but wonder if you're farking with us. >.>

Even if you can ignore all of the moral and humanitarian concerns of directly attacking civilians, its still a strategic error. Directly attacking civilians galvanizes public opinion in that nation against you and causes them to directly support their cause ( See: Terrorism ) or nation. One of the biggest problems with Iraq was that the very act of invading Iraq, regardless of the reason, created a surge in extremist recruits and thus more terrorists/insurgents. If you're locked in a war of beliefs with an enemy, you don't go right ahead and confirm to the people the caricature that the enemy is painting you with.

Directly related to that, in modern combat, is the increase in urban combat or mixed combat areas where combatants are directly intermingled with civilians. Making Smart weapons a necessity to avoid civilian casualties and thus increased civilian resistance. Which gives you yet more insurgents.

[Skelly]

The problem is that mines are indiscriminate weapons. Children and non-combatants being killed by these devices during the Bosnian War and other conflicts in the 1990's was the reason for the ban. For me, it conflicts with my idea of a Just War in that the use of mines can be seen as a contrary to the definitions of a Just War; "...the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."

Which is why you try to limit their use to where they are going to do the best job, such as a border or a no-mans-land. Enemy tries to walk past the border, and "bang", there goes his leg or the tracks of a tank. Mining areas where civilians congregate is evil though, but mining a border is merely sensible.

[lordlundar]

Mining areas where civilians congregate is evil though, but mining a border is merely sensible.

Slight problem with that. Borders fluctuate (especially in wartime) and communities arise where there's resources needed, not by imaginary lines. So what might be a battlefield today can be a town in the future, but the mines are still there. There's a particular grouping of mines in France that are parked right below a town that wasn't there when they were set in place. Still very volatile, and enough explosive power to literally wipe the town off the map if they go off.

Found it. The Lochnagar Mine at La Boisselle. There's actually 3 more like this one, one with more explosive material than the other ones combined.

That's the problem with mines. they don't know an innocent from an enemy and are still able to go off LONG after the battle has ended.

[Skelly]

Slight problem with that. Borders fluctuate (especially in wartime) and communities arise where there's resources needed, not by imaginary lines. So what might be a battlefield today can be a town in the future, but the mines are still there. There's a particular grouping of mines in France that are parked right below a town that wasn't there when they were set in place. Still very volatile, and enough explosive power to literally wipe the town off the map if they go off.

Found it. The Lochnagar Mine at La Boisselle. There's actually 3 more like this one, one with more explosive material than the other ones combined.

That's the problem with mines. they don't know an innocent from an enemy and are still able to go off LONG after the battle has ended.

All of it is true, and all of the things I said still holds true as well. Mines are a cheap way if you need an extra layer of defenses to keep a neighbour in check. The fact that the French or whomever it was who planted those huge charges didn't set them off, or that various bands of thugs threw them out everywhere in the Balkans without marking it on maps has no relevance to what I said - mining the border is sensible. I'd do that too, and 10 times as much if needed.

[Tanasi]

Unexploded ordinance from the War of Northern Agression is still turning up. If I remember correctly last year a collector found a 20# unexploded shell complete with fuse. As he was cleaning it, it went off and kilt him and that stuff is nearly 150 years old. During the battle of the Wilderness the Confederates burried artillery shells with pressure fuses (they were called torpedoes then) and those are still turning up.
Some countries militaries have become profit centers because they provide sappers that are highly trained and very very good at their jobs. Kuwait hired the Pakistani and Bagladeshi armys to clear millions of mines the Iraqis left. NATO hired the Pakistani's to do the same thing in the former Yugosalvia area.
Mines of all types have their purposes and are still very relivent in today's warfare because they are force multipliers. If I can deny my enemy this area to use with some mines then I don't need to put my soldiers in that area. Unfortunately UO deaths are a part of war and the peace afterwords.

[Hobbs]

Actually, one could contend that mines are against the Hague Conventions which regulate the application of Armed Force, the use and legality of weapons, and the minimization of unnecessary suffering. An area can be controlled more effectively and without the use of putting troops on the ground to deploy mines with the use of RPV's (Remote Piloted Vehicles).

NATO hired the Pakistani's? I don't remember that, but I'd like some proof. My uncle did work in clearing UD's in Eastern Europe, and he certainly wasn't Pakistani.

[Tanasi]

Actually, one could contend that mines are against the Hague Conventions which regulate the application of Armed Force, the use and legality of weapons, and the minimization of unnecessary suffering. An area can be controlled more effectively and without the use of putting troops on the ground to deploy mines with the use of RPV's (Remote Piloted Vehicles).

NATO hired the Pakistani's? I don't remember that, but I'd like some proof. My uncle did work in clearing UD's in Eastern Europe, and he certainly wasn't Pakistani.

When you have limited forces mines are a force mutilplier. As I said area denial. Some of our arial droped mines have a time count down, after it's been reached they detonate. Other can be detonated via a radio signal. The "Rockeyes" are colored blue not to get unsuspecting to pick them up but to warn them off.
Naturally I can't find it at this time. I remember the story was mostly about the PA using that Aardvark mine clearing armored vehicle. It has a big chain flail on the front of it that spins. The chains strike the ground and set off the mines. This is WWII technology but it was a big thing for the PA since they were still using close your eyes and stomp method. Thank your uncle for me, a sapper is a hell of a way to make a living. From what I've been told it's not if you get blown up but just when.
The first time I was blown up was a ration can, grenade and trip wire, the second time was a bouncing betty.

[Hobbs]

I think bouncing betty's are pretty much illegal now, though.

[lordlundar]

mining the border is sensible. I'd do that too, and 10 times as much if needed.

And when the border changes, then what? The mines are still there, and are more a threat to innocent civilians than enemy forces.

Like I said before, borders move, loyalties change, but those mines are still going to be there, as big of a threat 30 years later than they were the day they were laid. The only difference is to whom they are a threat to.

[elsporko]

Unexploded ordinance from the War of Northern Agression is still turning up. If I remember correctly last year a collector found a 20# unexploded shell complete with fuse. As he was cleaning it, it went off and kilt him and that stuff is nearly 150 years old. During the battle of the Wilderness the Confederates burried artillery shells with pressure fuses (they were called torpedoes then) and those are still turning up.
Some countries militaries have become profit centers because they provide sappers that are highly trained and very very good at their jobs. Kuwait hired the Pakistani and Bagladeshi armys to clear millions of mines the Iraqis left. NATO hired the Pakistani's to do the same thing in the former Yugosalvia area.
Mines of all types have their purposes and are still very relivent in today's warfare because they are force multipliers. If I can deny my enemy this area to use with some mines then I don't need to put my soldiers in that area. Unfortunately UO deaths are a part of war and the peace afterwords.

War of Northern Aggression? I hope you're trying to make a joke and don't seriously call it that.