Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

An end to cluster bombs?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • L'Etranger
    Veteran Moorcockista
    • Dec 2003
    • 4772

    An end to cluster bombs?

    Global cluster bomb ban comes into force today!


    Oh, sure ... guess who's not signatory to the treaty!
    The US, China and Russia!

    In the comments to this article on the BBC page you'll find this one:
    I wholly support the use of any weapon that will assist the soldiers of my country to defeat the enemy. Cluster bombs, napalm, landmines, whatever it takes. As a former Army JAG lawyer, who taught law of war classes, I recognise that every weapon has the potential to be misused. Logically, a cluster bomb is no more inhuman or immoral than a rifle or a bayonet.The most inhuman crimes I can think of have been committed in Africa with machetes. Ban those, why don't you.
    Andrew, Santa Cruz, USA


    He completely ignores that it has become a strategy to injure the civilians of the enemy to force the troops to give up. It isn't only obscenely cynical, but hasn't worked in WW2 nor in Viet Nam nor in the Middle East at any time, excluding the atomic drops in Japan 1945.
    Google ergo sum

  • Rothgo
    Champion of the Unbalanced
    • Aug 2006
    • 6663

    #2
    He misses the greater point that you can aim a machete at a particular foe. Cluster bombs are indiscriminate, unless you can guarantee there are no non-combatants in a rather huge area. As for landmines, when you've no idea who or why or when they will eventually detonate... And this idiot got a degree?

    Comment

    • L'Etranger
      Veteran Moorcockista
      • Dec 2003
      • 4772

      #3
      Under some regimes you got/get a degree for having the correct political disposition.
      Google ergo sum

      Comment

      • opaloka
        digital serf 41221z/74
        • Jun 2006
        • 3746

        #4
        Here's the list of signatories and ratifications:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent...#Ratifications

        The treaty seems to be primarily European, in the sense that the only countries who ratified it and also have much in the way of cluster munitions are in the EU and UK. Not to be too cynical but I suspect that if UK didn't have an equally effective means of doing the exact same thing that cluster bombs do then they wouldn't have ratified.

        Comment

        • Mespheber
          Guardian of the Grail
          • Jun 2006
          • 411

          #5
          Originally posted by L'Etranger View Post
          He completely ignores that it has become a strategy to injure the civilians of the enemy to force the troops to give up. It isn't only obscenely cynical, but hasn't worked in WW2 nor in Viet Nam nor in the Middle East at any time, excluding the atomic drops in Japan 1945.
          What about 9/11?

          Joke apart, you ignore current terrorism/resistance (definition dpending on which side one is) since 19th century, if we include in it irish history and so on. Attacking civilians is considered as legitimate since Ludendorf (not the best reference, I know) who wrote that in an industrial society they are part of the war support. In democratic society, considering that governement are representatives of population who are no longer subjects, they are targets as well as soldiers. Also, new form of guerilla make hard to distinct ennemies from civilians in direct action. In Israel as well as it was the case in Vietnam, soldiers are oredered to shoot any target in action because ennemies no longer wear an uniform on the battlefield.

          About Hiroshima, the result is questionnable if we consider that traditionnal bombing using incendiary bombs were already destroying major cities, including half of Tokyo. It was just a matter of time before Japan surrending, but USA had invested 2 billions in Manhattan Project and did want to use it, they just used the "soldiers sparing life" as an excuse. Until now, this nation remain the only one which have used the atomic bomb against another population in purpose.

          IMO, those who try to have "clean wars" are just loonies. There is war and peace, defeat or victory and the right to invent History for the winner. The question should be is it possible today to have a winner?

          By the way, today is polish uprising anniversary.
          Free the West Memphis Three

          Comment

          • zilch
            Hisashiburi
            • Aug 2006
            • 644

            #6
            An end to cluster bombs?

            Why stop with cluster bombs ?
            http://final-frame-final.blogspot.com/

            Comment

            • L'Etranger
              Veteran Moorcockista
              • Dec 2003
              • 4772

              #7
              Originally posted by opaloka View Post
              Here's the list of signatories and ratifications:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent...#Ratifications

              The treaty seems to be primarily European, in the sense that the only countries who ratified it and also have much in the way of cluster munitions are in the EU and UK. Not to be too cynical but I suspect that if UK didn't have an equally effective means of doing the exact same thing that cluster bombs do then they wouldn't have ratified.
              These lists always bear surprises, don't they? I wonder why have the Faroe Islands been exempted if the "motherland" Denmark has signed?
              Do they test these things on sheep there, or how are we to interpret this?
              Google ergo sum

              Comment

              • Guzzlecrank
                Reconstructulator
                • Aug 2009
                • 1234

                #8
                Originally posted by L'Etranger View Post
                In the comments to this article on the BBC page you'll find this one:
                ...The most inhuman crimes I can think of have been committed in Africa with machetes. Ban those, why don't you.
                Andrew, Santa Cruz, USA
                I'm not too sure that clown has--or ever had--a license to practice law in the US. In addition to the comments others have made, I'd add that this alleged "JAG" seems to have conveniently overlooked the inhuman crime of the Holocaust. Add that to his focus on African-on-African violence (to the exclusion of all other war crimes and atrocities committed on any other continent), and I think it's clear where his biases lie.

                Comment

                • opaloka
                  digital serf 41221z/74
                  • Jun 2006
                  • 3746

                  #9
                  Well, we yanks take our weapons seriously and a lot of people can't see the difference between saber and musket and a cluster bomb, to them it's a sacred principle instead of what was a practical if somewhat retro way to have an army when you didn't have any money (the idea came from dear old blighty in fuedal times, when all the yeomen had their own bows and owed service to the king.)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X