Cluster bombs vs SMArt bombs

[Slytovhand]

Hey.

My GetUp group has sent me an email requesting that I send a message to our PM to ban the SMArt 155 bombs that we are acquiring (pls google for the bomb, and here's a link to an argument against... here
(http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:EzLM-XbHr4IJ:www.wilpf.int.ch/~wilpf/disarmament/clustermunitions/Wellington%2520Conference08/Sensor%2520fuzed%2520and%2520SMArt%2520submunition s_an%2520unproven%2520technology.doc+smart+155&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=au&client=firefox-a)), as there is a conference in Dublin at the moment about banning all cluster bombs.

I get this email, and immediately think "Damn right!!".. then decide to go looking at this thing.

Basically, it deploys, detaches into 2 'submunitions' and uses 3 different sensors to find a target, and seeks it out and blows it up. Or... if it doesn't find it, apparently it's got a self-destruct in it (I haven't found info on that though :( ).

I, personally, would prefer to see all our munitions like that... as better targetting equals less civilians killed or injured.

Thus... the ban on this would actually make things a little worse, not better. This is the campaign (http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/BanTheBombs&id=346)



So.. the question is... would you sign it?

Slyt


Edit: I should point out, that I am totally against normal indiscriminate cluster bombs... and mines.... and...well, actually, against all weapons for that matter... can't wait til humanity gets its shit together.....

[lordlundar]

I've seen some new designed artillery (Excalibur if I remember right) which is the type of a typical artillery shell (one shell having one charge) but it has a GPS chip and fins, which allows it to be fired at a higher trajectory and on initial tests hit it's target within 3 feet at maximum range. This is my definition of a smart weapon, one that when fired, you can be assured it will hit it's target and little else. As well with it's higher trajectory, it can be fired in an urban environment more safely.

Any weapon that splits is a cluster weapon, not a smart weapon, and cluster weapons, irregardless of the guidance, is designed for indiscriminate destruction. I see no purpose for this weapon that Excalibur or a single bomb equivalent cannot do better in large numbers.

The argument for this weapon is that it can it multiple targets at once, but there is missile and artillery technology that renders this obsolete at production and are safer for both sides in a conflict. Precision weapons with pinpoint guidance can do more in a fight than cluster weapons. And with new technology, cluster weapons in all forms are being rendered obsolete, so I see no reason to keep this around. It's nothing more than a cluster bomb with a name that makes people feel better.

[Vagabond]

Even with so-called "smart" bombs, mistakes can be made. Bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_bombing_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China_embas sy_in_Belgrade)

I am against indiscriminate killing, however, I don't believe in limiting the tools available to you. For example, there is such a thing as a 'paint can opener', however most of use use a screwdriver and damage either the screwdriver or the paint lid in most cases. I would rather have this tool available to use under the appropriate conditions, than be seeking an alternate when I could have used the appropriate tool for the job.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's fair to say that, even on modern battlefields, there's plenty of target areas with 100% or at least 99.9999999% hostile personel you need dead. Cluster bombs fit the bill to well to get rid of. The problem stems from using them where something else is needed. It's getting the the point where the JDAM system and similar are delivering pinpoint accuracy, so it's not like we're hurting for something to use.

[Vagabond]

I also wonder how long before those 'hi-tech' weapons we have can get hijacked.
If they are able to get a live predator feed - LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html) - then I wonder how long before they can rig up something to either fry a crucial circuit, or throw a bomb off-target?

[Hobbs]

There's little to fear of a fired ordinance being 'hijacked.' The systems that control the ordinance are usually self-contained, and only operate from the signal of the aircraft they're fired from. As for frying a circuit etc., that's the point of counter-measures; ie. flares, ECM (electronic counter-measures) and those have been around for years.

I do find the option of being able to fire one bomb and take out multiple targets. It's a force multiplier. I think the people behind the ban don't understand modern warfare at all.

[Tanasi]

My experience tells me not to deny our forces any weapons they can use to protect themselves and us. Cluster bombs and mines are area deniablity weapons that are cheap and in most cases easy to deploy. Why risk a soldier's life to keep an enemy out of an area when mines will do the job? I know not all mine fields are marked and civilians get blown up all the time but that doesn't elminate the weapons effectivness and I say that having been blown up twice by mines.

[Hobbs]

This discussion is about precision munitions. Mines are another matter entirely. There's actually an international treaty against them, yet Congress has yet to ratify it.

[Skelly]

This discussion is about precision munitions. Mines are another matter entirely. There's actually an international treaty against them, yet Congress has yet to ratify it.
Personally, I see mines as a good thing on many occasions. They do help in keeping the neighbours in check. The border between Finland and Russia is probably still heavily mined, and for a good reason. Invading your neighbour suddenly turns a bit harder when there's a relentless death buried for your troops and tanks all along the border...

[Hobbs]

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."

[elsporko]

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.

[Hobbs]

I find it fortunate you're not influencing US military strategy. You sound oddly familiar...you're not by chance a 2nd Amendment-waving Canadian, are you? O_o


LOAC comes from both customary international law and treaties. Customary international law, based on practice that nations have come to accept as legally required, establishes the traditional rules that govern the conduct of military operations in armed conflict. Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land,” and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law. This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, all persons subject to US law must observe the United States’ LOAC obligations. In particular, military personnel must consider LOAC to plan and execute operations and must obey LOAC in combat. Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

[Boozy]

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.

Ignoring how callous an attitude that is, what you propose is a useless tactic at best, a dangerous one at worst.

Ther population of Afghanistan had no interest in going to war with the US. They were being held hostage by their illegitimate government, the Taliban.

The people of Iraq had no interest in going to war with the US, either. Hell, Al Qaeda didn't even have a foothold there until the US invasion.

At this point, killing Afghan and Iraqi civilians merely foments hatred where none existed before. The Iraqi father who saw his son's arm blown off by an American bomb would not be out of line to swear vengeance, even though he had harboured no real resentment towards the US before that point.

[lordlundar]

The problem is that mines are indiscriminate weapons.

And, if you look up the history of mines, you'll find more than a fair share of areal deployed mines designed with bright colours and similar traits to make people think they're toys.

[AdminAssistant]

I know it's just a TV show, but I highly recommend you watch Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations episode about Laos. Where he talks to people who have lost limbs from unexploded munitions dropped by Americans during the Vietnam War. Innocent civilians, who weren't even alive at the time in some cases, are losing their lives or limbs because of our garbage. :( It's sickening.

[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. (http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_lochnagar.htm) 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. (http://www.webmatters.net/france/ww1_lochnagar.htm) 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.

[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" :rolleyes: 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 :eek:) 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.