Cluster bombs vs SMArt bombs

[Greenday]

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

It's actually what the American Civil War is called in the South. It's EXTREMELY common.

[Arcade Man D]

It's actually what the American Civil War is called in the South. It's EXTREMELY common.

Despite the fact that the CSA fired the first shots on a legal Union fort. If you accept that the CSA was a legal secession, then that was an act of war. If you do not accept that, then there was no legal right for the attack on Fort Sumter in the first place.

But that's enough on that hijack.




As for "just war", the first rule of warfare is that you can never win a war until you convince the populace that the war should end. And "total war" does not do that. Sherman's march through Georgia did more to cement the Civil War in the minds of Southerners as "the War of Northern Aggression" than any other action, just as a quick example.

[Hobbs]

I live in Texas and haven't heard it called that either; though I know that was the 'old tyme' term for the war.

To play Devil's advocate, mines killing civilians, though a bad thing, isn't necessarily an illegal thing, if you get my meaning. There's no outward international law that civilians can't be killed, or that civilian buildings can't be attacked.

[lordlundar]

To play Devil's advocate, mines killing civilians, though a bad thing, isn't necessarily an illegal thing, if you get my meaning. There's no outward international law that civilians can't be killed, or that civilian buildings can't be attacked.

That's splitting the hair pretty thin. You're saying "sure, I'll terrify my populace by making them nervous about where they can live long after I've made peace with my enemy, but there's no LAW that says I can't." Not exactly the way to inspire confidence in your leadership capabilities.

My beef has nothing to do with a legal ramification, but a logistical one. You see, too many military commanders (and armchair commanders for that matter) justify using mines as a tactical decision, much like you are now. The problem is that they're not looking beyond the battle. Sure you might not want THEM having the territory now, but after the battle and people want to get on with their normal lives, there huge swaths of territory that YOU can't use either, because it's too dangerous. Might as well irradiate the area for 100 years for all the difference it will make.

[Hobbs]

That's splitting the hair pretty thin. You're saying "sure, I'll terrify my populace by making them nervous about where they can live long after I've made peace with my enemy, but there's no LAW that says I can't." Not exactly the way to inspire confidence in your leadership capabilities.

My beef has nothing to do with a legal ramification, but a logistical one. You see, too many military commanders (and armchair commanders for that matter) justify using mines as a tactical decision, much like you are now. The problem is that they're not looking beyond the battle. Sure you might not want THEM having the territory now, but after the battle and people want to get on with their normal lives, there huge swaths of territory that YOU can't use either, because it's too dangerous. Might as well irradiate the area for 100 years for all the difference it will make.

Let me reiderate that I'm not condoning the use of mines in warfare. I was merely stating how people tend to rail about the Geneva Convention etc as legal precedent for not using them. That said, nothing in the GC excludes using mines.

[Tanasi]

Ideally if you plant mines on your own territory then after hostilities have ceased you mark the fields and then clear them at a later date unless the mine's continued presance is part of the security stratagy.

[elsporko]

It's actually what the American Civil War is called in the South. It's EXTREMELY common.

Thats why I said I hoped it was a joke since

1. Losers don't get to pick what a war is called.

2. The south started the war.

[protege]

Yep, even though the South started the Civil War, they're blaming the North for being "aggressive" Seriously, you lost, get over it

Back to land mines.. When most of them were deployed, they were used to keep someone out. Problem is, that they don't go away by themselves--they're still being uncovered (and occasionally detonated unintentionally ) in former war zones.

[Hobbs]

Mexico lost the Mexican-American War....they Still call it the 'War of American Aggression'

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I wonder if japan calls the pacific campaign of WW2 the 'conflict of American aggression'...

Still and all though, mines are debatable, but there's plenty to back them up especially when used responsibly.

Cluster bombs though, why the hell not?

[lordlundar]

Still and all though, mines are debatable, but there's plenty to back them up especially when used responsibly.

When you show an example of them being used responsibly then I'll give it weight. Though responsible use also consists of thinking of the results of after the battle.

Cluster bombs though, why the hell not?

Twofold actually. The days of setting military encampments away from civilian outlets are gone, and cluster bombs, like other mass destruction weapons carry a huge risk of civilian casualties. Granted they're not AS destructive as a nuke, MOAB, or biological weapon (which can even be considered a "smart" WMD because it doesn't damage property) but the result is the same, indiscriminate killing. Precision weapons are a lot more effective in the current war environment when you're trying to convince the populace you're the "good guys". A single shot in a key area can be so much more effective than a lot of explosions that can kill friend, neutral, or foe just the same. The same way how a sniper can be as much if not more effective in an engagement than 30 guys lobbing grenades.

The other reason is that not all the charges of a cluster weapon (even "smart" ones) detonate, leaving exposed shells that are just as life threatening as mines, only not deployed as a "deterrent". Yes, other weapons do this as well, but you don't notice it with a cluster weapon as much as a conventional weapon because of how many charges do work. But those charges are still live, and just like mines, stay live for LONG after the battle is over. A long term risk for a short term solution and not one that seems to be worth it.


Oh, and as for the guided and remote control systems being "hacked"? Guess what, the same can be said for the "smart" cluster weapons. And when they get compromised, usually by someone who doesn't give a damn about the populace, guess what's gonna happen.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Responsible use:
Army builds border base and places mines around the perimeter. The field is clearly marked. When they pull out, they disable and/or collect the mines before leaving.

Also, It's laughably narrow-minded to assume that cluster bombs are worthless in modern warfare. Even with all the urban conflict, there's still plenty of rural fighting and more than enough entirely hostile targets to hit. While less common than before, the enemy still presents massed, unmixed targets. Cluster bombs are perfectly suited to this task and perform it with efficiency.

We're not talking about what kinds of targets clusters should be used on, we're talking about the banning of an entire type of weaponry simply because of it's effective radius. There's no reason to ban clusters, because of urban warfare because they aren't used in urban warfare. A strike of any kind barring the most miniscule of precision bombs is inadvisable in urban areas, so we don't use them unless there's a whole building with nothing but hostiles, or a parking lot full of hostiles and no one else.

Precision weapons have their uses, devastating weapons have their uses in more or less every scenario. It only makes sense to have access to everything you could need in case you do.

High-quality munitions (like, say, ours) have gotten to the point where a lack of detonation is pretty freakin' rare on a per-case basis. The law of large numbers means there will be unexploded ordnance of all types if used enough. So what if one or two submunitions from a cluster don't go off? somewhere else an entire smart bomb hasn't gone off either. A few unexploded submunitions are about as dangerous as one unexploded precision weapon, so if that's your argument, we shouldn't use either.

Fuck, by that standard we shouldn't even fire mk19s, throw frag grenades or flashbangs. We throw a lot of those, chances are there are some that didn't go off. (a flashbang can seriously fuck you up if you're dumb enough to pick one up and it goes off.) Unexploded ordnance is more or less at the bottom of the list when it comes to whether or not to shoot something at someone. During any following occupation, you tell people to keep an eye out and clean it up yourself. Easy-peasy.

[elsporko]

Mexico lost the Mexican-American War....they Still call it the 'War of American Aggression'

I've never heard it called that, but they at least have an excuse, America was the aggressor in that war. Now if Americans were calling it the War of Mexican Aggression it would just look retarded.

[Tanasi]

Cluster bombs, land mines and sea mines should be kept in the US military inventory simiply because they are effective weapons.

Enemy unit encamps in a area, sew the approaches and escapes with mines and until they're cleared that enemy is where you left them. Keep them pinned to one spot or area you've eliminated that unit's effectiveness.

I know of their effectivness from first hand experience both on the giving and receiving ends. I don't blame the VC that planted the explosives that got me he was doing his job, just like I was doing my job when I set up some Claymores and grenades with trip wires. That's war.

If you want to get rid of mines and cluster bombs then invent a more effective, cheaper alternative that doesn't involve boot on the ground. It's that simple.