Cluster Munitions - Dublin Diplomatic Conference

[Aontan 0]

The fight to ban the bombs

Like landmines, cluster munitions can kill and maim for years after their initial use, but unlike mines they are still neither banned nor regulated by an international treaty.

The conference in Dublin saw renewed momentum for a global ban, as more than 100 nations - but not the world's top users and stockpilers - gathered to finalise an anti-cluster munitions treaty.

The so-called Oslo process began three years ago and is modelled on the campaign against land mines, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 and led to a full ban in 1999 Ottawa Treaty.

Watch RTÉ Europe Editor Sean Whelan's report on the effect of cluster bombs in Serbia.

Watch RTÉ Foreign Editor Margaret Ward's report on the consequences of cluster munitions in Laos.

What they are
A category of ordnance - usually delivered via a bomb, shell or missile - which spreads small 'bomblets' over a wide area. In their various forms they can be used to kill enemy troops, destroy dispersed weapons systems and pit runways with craters.

The first major use of cluster bombs was during World War II, when they were widely used by both sides.

In recent years, the weapons have notably been used by Israel, during its brief war with the Lebanese group Hezbollah in 2006, and by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why they are controversial
Like most bombs and shells, cluster munitions make no distinction between civilians and soldiers within their range, which can be over several hundred metres.

However groups opposed to cluster bombs say that between five and 40% of the bomblets fail to explode on impact, and can remain hidden for years after a conflict has ended.

In such cases, they have the same effect as mines, making farmland unusable and causing long-term danger for civilians.

Furthermore, many bomblets are brightly coloured, attracting children and exploding when they are picked up.

Civilians are still being killed by both landmines and cluster munitions used during the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975, as well as in those from more recent conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, the former Yugoslavia, central Asia and other regions.

Casualties
According to the UNDP, more than 13,000 people are known to have been killed by cluster bombs around the world since 1965. The majority of those killed were in Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

However, the true figure is believed to be much higher. A large majority of victims were civilians, and around a quarter of those were children.

During the same period the weapons have been used in warfare by 18 countries or armed groups. 77 nations continue to hold them in their arsenals.

Proposed ban
The draft convention obliges that signatories never:
1: Use cluster munitions;
2: Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;
3: Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention.

Signatories would have six years to destroy their stockpiles.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0519/cluster.html

quote>

[Easy Bakes 253]

Wont that effect arms sales?

[DanWalker8 3]

I dont know, if you are at the point of war - you better be able to make your point!

[fern244 1]

Good to see Ireland doing this.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: DanWalker8 I dont know, if you are at the point of war - you better be able to make your point!quote>

we still have the nuclear bomb

[hym 358]

Yeah, except "so does everybody else" (I know that's not totally true, but you see my point), and they do sort of have a nasty fallout issue with radiation and whatnot. This is why countries are working on developing weapons with a similar explosive power, but none of the nuclear issues.

[patriots_1228 51]

basically, a small nuclear war would make tons of land inhabitable, destroy much of the ozone, and probably screw the two nations for life.

[belfastuniguy 18]

we still have the nuclear bombquote>

Unfortunately....

UK seeks cluster bomb exemption

By Sangita Myska BBC News

The cluster 'bomblets' can act as landmines if they fail to detonate

The UK government is to join more than 100 nations in Dublin this week for talks that campaigners believe could lead to the most significant disarmament treaty for a decade.

If successful, supporters say the negotiations will decide the wording for an international agreement to ban cluster bombs that 'cause unacceptable harm to civilians'.

These munitions have been used in battle for more than 40 years in 30 countries, and were last deployed by the Israelis in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Cluster bombs are made up of a big container which opens in mid-air and drops hundreds of individual sub-munitions or "bomblets" over a wide area. They usually explode once they hit their target.

See how cluster bombs work

It was the enormous damage caused to civilians during the month-long conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that led a number of governments, led by Norway, to back the Oslo Process, which aims to come up with a treaty by the end of 2008.

The Dublin meeting, set to begin on Monday, is the penultimate step.

The types of cluster munitions we intend to retain are legitimate weapons with significant military value Defence Secretary Des Browne

And while the UK government has s

[Yoman3 5]

Its a weapon of war, only way to stop it is to outlaw war....and well that isn't happening any time soon. Its a rather effective weapon also. One munition now can take out an entire company of tanks. So a B-1 bomber dropping 30 or so can destroy an entire armored front. Over 1000 tanks. Seems like a quick way to end a war, which is probably better for the people.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Yoman3 Its a weapon of war, only way to stop it is to outlaw war....quote>

The same way we stopped war so that we wouldn't use gas against each other, or halted it a bit when the great powers decided that it was enough for them to have the nuclear toys?

Seems like a quick way to end a war, which is probably better for the people.quote>

Do they also think that the long term destruction is good for them? Do they think it's better for their children, maybe born long after the conflict, to die since the war only lasted three years instead of five?

[Nerd_Guy 4]

"Dumb" cluster bombs may be able to be phased out, but "smart" cluster bombs, like the American Centrifuge Weapon which realses a lot of bomblets, each individually GPS guided.  Bomblets are gurenteed not to miss. 

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I think that the ban is a good idea, the same way banning gassing troops was banned. Due to that, all our troops don't have to wear gas masks every time they go to war.

The more nations sign it, the better

[belfastuniguy 18]

Bomblets are gurenteed not to missquote>

Technology is never perfect..it is made by man and as such they can not be guaranteed to fall on the specific target. Has been seen many times that 'smart' bombs have missed.

[nazaguy 0]

Why are cluster bombs even needed. Won't just plain bombing them do the trick?

[JanYpe 17]

Well sure it would. You don't really need a gun to kill a guy either, a bow and arrow will work too. It's just not quite as effective and devastating.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Agreed. Even if a gun ban is signed into law, murderers will kill with knives, which are less interceptable; but that's another debate....

[Aontan 0]

Draft convention ban on cluster bombs

Wednesday, 28 May 2008 20:27

An international conference being held in Dublin has accepted a draft convention to ban the use of cluster munitions.

The conference attended by more than 100 nations, though not the United States, agreed on the draft at its meeting this evening.

Campaigners have described the agreed text as a major achievement.

They say the main manufacturers and stockpilers of the munitions will be forced to accept a ban if one is agreed at the conference at Croke Park.

130 countries are working to agree a treaty that would be widely supported.

However, the weapons' main producers and stockpilers - including the United States, Russia and China - are against any such treaty move and are not represented at the conference.

Story from RTÉ News:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0528/clusterbombs.html

quote>

[Yoman3 5]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Yoman3 Its a weapon of war, only way to stop it is to outlaw war....quote>

The same way we stopped war so that we wouldn't use gas against each other, or halted it a bit when the great powers decided that it was enough for them to have the nuclear toys?

Seems like a quick way to end a war, which is probably better for the people.quote>

Do they also think that the long term destruction is good for them? Do they think it's better for their children, maybe born long after the conflict, to die since the war only lasted three years instead of five?quote>

Thats an entirely different can of worms. Both chem, bio, and nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, not only would the effects be bad on the enemy, they would be bad on everyone, and would effect the planet globally.

And yes, I do think it is better for the children long after the conflict is over to pick up one of the less than 1% (in modern munitions, not just smart bombs. The issue isn't hitting the target anyway, its making sure every munition explodes), of the payload that failed to detonate, and tragically be killed, rather than many more than would be killed by that be killed in another two years of war.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Yoman3 Thats an entirely different can of worms. Both chem, bio, and nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, not only would the effects be bad on the enemy, they would be bad on everyone, and would effect the planet globally. quote>

They're weapons of wars, even when only used as deterrents.

And yes, I do think it is better for the children long after the conflict is over to pick up one of the less than 1% (in modern munitions, not just smart bombs. The issue isn't hitting the target anyway, its making sure every munition explodes), of the payload that failed to detonate, and tragically be killed, rather than many more than would be killed by that be killed in another two years of war.quote>

You do. Many would disagree with you, as the risk of unexploded devices hidden every cripples efforts to restore society. "Many" more killed aren't necessarily a higher prize than a secure society in the following decades. It's not even a tragic; life is cheap in war. That's why they exist in the first place.

Also, the 1% figure probably stems from the manufacturers best tests, not from field testing. It's like saying that this car uses 0.55 l / km and not reading the fine print below.

[Yoman3 5]

They aren't weapons of war, because once you graduate to using nuclear weapons, biological, or chemical, it is no longer war. Its a nuclear / bio / chem holocaust.

And I think a body count of 1 after as opposed to 10 during a war is much better. And that 1% is field performance by weapons used in combat. You seem to be selling cars with fighting a war....I think that they are two very different things, and cannot be compared. You can cut corners on building a car and maybe it won't sell. You cut corners on munitions or weapons, and people die. Its not as though militaries want there to be duds. They don't, because your troops might have to move through the ground taht the cluster bomb hit over and there are still a few left.

I'm going to end my debate here, as it is clear that we have two very different views.

[Aontan 0]

Cluster bomb treaty formally adopted

Friday, 30 May 2008 22:16

The international treaty banning cluster munitions has been formally adopted by 111 countries at Croke Park.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin addressed a closing ceremony to the two-week Dublin conference at midday today.

The treaty (read in pdf) was agreed on Wednesday night. It will be signed by the countries involved in Oslo in December.

Mr Martin was to hand a copy of the treaty to the Deputy Foreign Minister of Norway, who will take it to Oslo. States have to ratify the text after it is signed on 2-3 December.

The treaty outlaws the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions. It also provides for victim welfare and clearing contaminated areas.

Politicians and campaigners insisted it was a hugely significant pact despite the absence of key powers like the US, China and Russia.

Read more about the fight to ban cluster bombs.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre insisted the treaty would stigmatise the use of cluster bombs among those countries keeping their stockpiles.

'We have an ambitious result. I believe this has a norm-setting function. If the purpose is to win hearts and minds, do you win hearts and minds by not distinguishing between a military target and civilians?'

Major powers 'bound to notice'

Mr Støre said the text would have been better had the world's major producers and users of cluster bombs attended.

'It would have been better if they were all here but the approach we have chosen is the realistic approach and it was not realistic to have them here,' he said.

'Would the world be better off if we dropped the whole thing because they are not here? The answer is no. They are bound to notice what we are saying,' he said. 

Cluster munitions are among the weapons posing the gravest dangers to civilians, especially in heavily bombed countries like Laos, Vietnam and Afghanistan. 

Dropped from planes or fired from artillery, they explode in mid-air, randomly scattering bomblets, with many civilians having been killed or maimed by their indiscriminate, wide area effect.  

They also pose a lasting threat as many bomblets fail to explode on impact. 

Norwegian Deputy Defence Minister Espen Barth Eide said that countries wanted their military actions to be seen as legitimate, and compared the potential impact of the Dublin text to the 1997 Ottawa Treaty on landmines.

'With the landmine treaty, the US did not sign it but we don't really care because they behave as if they have signed it because they recognise they are morally outlawed,' he said. 

The cluster munitions treaty requires the destruction of stockpiled munitions within eight years - though it leaves the door open for future, more precise generations of cluster bombs that pose less harm to civilians.  

The treaty was welcomed by the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), an umbrella group of non-governmental organisations, which hopes it will stigmatise cluster munitions.  

'It's going to be politically impossible now for any country to  use this weapon, we believe, without suffering the sort of backlash  that is going to be too high a political price to pay,' CMC  coordinator Thomas Nash said. 

Soraj Ghulam Habib, whose legs were blown off seven years ago by a cluster bomb in Afghanistan, said he now felt his suffering was not in vain. 

'Victims need a lot of support and now work can be done to make victims self-reliant, not let them be like beggars on the street,' the 17-year-old said. 

'I want to save their lives and I hope that cluster munitions will never again be used by any states.'

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0530/cluster.html

quote>

Still no sign of the US, Russia or China (among others) signing it, though...

[Yoman3 5]

Hmm, I saw a very good article about this. From both view points.

---

111 nations, but not US, adopt cluster bomb treaty

By SHAWN POGATCHNIK – 21 hours ago

DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) — Chief negotiators of a landmark treaty banning cluster bombs predicted Friday that the United States will never again use the weapons, a critical component of American air and artillery power.

The treaty formally adopted Friday by 111 nations, including many of America's major NATO partners, would outlaw all current designs of cluster munitions and require destruction of stockpiles within eight years. It also opens the possibility that European allies could order U.S. bases located in their countries to remove cluster bombs from their stocks.

The United States and other leading cluster bomb makers — Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan — boycotted the talks, emphasized they would not sign the treaty and publicly shrugged off its value. All defended the overriding military value of cluster bombs, which carpet a battlefield with dozens to hundreds of explosions.

But treaty backers — who long have sought a ban because cluster bombs leave behind "duds" that later maim or kill civilians — insisted they had made it too politically painful for any country to use the weapons again.

"The country that thinks of using cluster munitions next week should think twice, because it would look very bad," said Espen Barth Eide, Deputy Defense Minister of Norway, which began the negotiations last year and will host a treaty-signing ceremony Dec. 3.

"We're certain that nations thinking of using cluster munitions won't want to face the international condemnation that will rain down upon them, because the weapons have been stigmatized now," said Steve Goose, arms control director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, who was involved in the talks.

However, the treaty envisions their future use — and offers legal protection to any signatory nation that finds itself operating alongside U.S. forces deploying cluster bombs, shells and rockets.

The treaty specifies — in what backers immediately dubbed "the American clause" — that members "may engage in military cooperation and operations" with a nation that rejects the treaty and "engages in activities prohibited" by the treaty.

It suggests that a treaty member could call in support from U.S. air power or artillery using cluster munitions, so long as the caller does not "expressly request the use of cluster munitions."

The treaty also contains promises to mobilize international aid to cluster bomb-scarred lands such as southern Lebanon, where a 2006 war between the militant group Hezbollah and Israel left behind an estimated 1 million unexploded "bomblets."

The pact requires treaty members to aid explosives-clearance work and provide medical, training and other support to blast victims, their families and communities.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the treaty would not change U.S. policy and cluster munitions remain "absolutely critical and essential" to U.S. military operations.

He said U.S. officials in the State and Defense departments were studying whether the treaty would eventually oblige American bases in Europe to withdraw cluster munitions.

Goose said this decision would be up to individual U.S. allies. The treaty, he noted, requires nations that ratify it to eliminate all cluster weapons within their "jurisdiction or control."

He said most NATO members were likely to conclude that U.S. bases were operating under their jurisdiction and order U.S. cluster munitions to be removed or destroyed, while Germany and Japan were most likely to permit the weapons stocks to remain.

U.S. defense analysts said the treaty drafters do not appreciate the importance that the world's most powerful militaries place on cluster munitions. They doubted that the treaty would force any American retreat on the matter, noting that a majority of U.S. artillery shells use cluster technology.

"This is a treaty drafted largely by countries which do not fight wars," said John Pike, a defense analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org.

"Treaties like this make me want to barf. It's so irrelevant. Completely feel-good," he said.

Asked whether U.S. forces would ever ban or restrict cluster-bomb technology, Pike said, "It's not gonna happen. Our military is in the business of winning wars and using the most effective weapons to do so."

Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic security programs at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said he expected U.S. forces to keep using shells, rockets and bombs that break apart into smaller explosive objects because they have 10 times or more killing power than traditional munitions, particularly against troops in exposed terrain or in foxholes.

Government and military spokesmen in other cluster bomb-defending nations were similarly dismissive of the treaty.

"Russia will not ban cluster bombs and land mines," Lt. Gen. Yevgeny Buzhinsky said earlier this week in Moscow. "We stand for evolutionary development of these weapons. Russia's Defense Ministry objects to radical and prohibitive measures of this kind."

The treaty spells out future requirements for legal cluster weapons.

Each would have to contain no more than nine weapons inside, known formally as "submunitions." Each submunition must weigh at least 8.8 pounds, or four kilograms, have technology that allows it to identify a specific human or armored target, and contain electronic fail-safes to ensure that any duds cannot detonate later.

Patricia Lewis, director of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, said the weight rule represented "a very neat and clever way of closing off a loophole."

"In the future, things weighing less than four kilograms could be designed that would give a large explosive impact, so the idea is to prevent future developments," Lewis told reporters in Geneva, Switzerland.

But U.S. analysts derided the conditions as illogical.

Both Oelrich and Pike said it would be technically possible to design new cluster munitions that meet all of the treaty's criteria — but questioned why the treaty sought to limit the number of devices per shell, rocket or bomb.

Oelrich said the treaty's insistence on electronic fail-safes ignored the possibility of producing submunitions encased in metals that rapidly deteriorate when exposed to sun or moisture, depending on the theater of war.

"I don't see the point of the `nine' thing," Oelrich said. "What difference does it make how you package the submunition? What matters is the performance of the submunition on the ground. And nobody in any military wants duds."

Pike said if other countries insist on shells, rockets and bombs that contain no more than nine submunitions each, the military logic would be inescapable.

"It would just mean I'm going to have to shoot more of them!" he said with a laugh.

Associated Press writers Foster Klug in Washington, Mike Eckel in Moscow and Frank Jordans in Geneva, Switzerland contributed to this report.

---

I think that statements such as:

"We're certain that nations thinking of using cluster munitions won't want to face the international condemnation that will rain down upon them, because the weapons have been stigmatized now," said Steve Goose, arms control director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, who was involved in the talks.

Are just arrogant, countries aren't going to stop using a third of their arsnel and some of the best weapons because in the words of another man quoted, John Pike, "a treaty drafted largely by countries which do not fight wars."

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

Are just arrogant, countries aren't going to stop using a third of their arsnel and some of the best weapons because in the words of another man quoted, John Pike, "a treaty drafted largely by countries which do not fight wars."

quote>

Erm, Yoman...  Cluster bombing is actually not a very effective technique.  Especially in the current war, where targets and civilians are almost always in close proximity to each other.  You kill innocents and waste a lot of munitions doing so.  Guided munitions are more efficient at eliminating their target, and produce less collateral damage.

My thoughts?  If you don't know exactly where the bad guy is, you really shouldn't be trying to drop bombs on him.

I hope the US eventually signs this treaty.  Between bomblets and landmines, we might as well be using pocket nukes--we're leaving the battlefield just as uninhabitable.

-ACE

[Yoman3 5]

Originally posted by: ACEfanatic

Originally posted by: Yoman3

Are just arrogant, countries aren't going to stop using a third of their arsnel and some of the best weapons because in the words of another man quoted, John Pike, "a treaty drafted largely by countries which do not fight wars."

quote>

Erm, Yoman...  Cluster bombing is actually not a very effective technique.  Especially in the current war, where targets and civilians are almost always in close proximity to each other.  You kill innocents and waste a lot of munitions doing so.  Guided munitions are more efficient at eliminating their target, and produce less collateral damage.

My thoughts?  If you don't know exactly where the bad guy is, you really shouldn't be trying to drop bombs on him.

I hope the US eventually signs this treaty.  Between bomblets and landmines, we might as well be using pocket nukes--we're leaving the battlefield just as uninhabitable.

-ACEquote>

Depends on the situation really. In a dense urban environment they aren't nearly as effective I agree, but all weapons are degraded somewhat. In open ground however they are much more effective.

And by Pocket Nukes do you mean suitcase nukes? Think thats the Russians.

EDIT - Smallest American warhead ever was the W54, for the Davy Crockett recoiless rifle. Small enough to fit in a suitcase. And a backpack version was made.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

Depends on the situation really. In a dense urban environment they aren't nearly as effective I agree, but all weapons are degraded somewhat. In open ground however they are much more effective.

And by Pocket Nukes do you mean suitcase nukes? Think thats the Russians.

EDIT - Smallest American warhead ever was the W54, for the Davy Crockett recoiless rifle. Small enough to fit in a suitcase. And a backpack version was made.quote>

"Pocket nukes" was an exaggeration.  No warhead has been produced at that scale.  (The nuclear artillery shell is small enough, yes, but incredibly heavy.  Realistically you'd need something in the range of a .5 kT payload, which is not possible with traditional plutonium fission bombs.)

------

Anyway, yes, cluster bombs are effective on open ground, but the only times modern war is fought on open ground is between highly organized militaries.  I can only think of four nations which would fight us on those terms, of which two have the technological base against which cluster bombs are useful.  (Honestly, high-yield bombing is more for anti-material use than anti-infantry.  Bit of a waste of munitions otherwise.)

It's neither humane nor ethical to use cluster bombs, just as it isn't to use landmines.  You're not only killing innocents directly, you're leaving the battlefield contaminated with derelict explosives that could kill people months, years, even decades after the war is over.  How terrible would it be to live somewhere where a wrong step could lead to you losing a leg, and arm, or your life, for no fault of your own?

I'm deeply disappointed that the US is not a signatory of this ban.  What's the point of supposedly having the moral high ground if we fail to pay even lip-service to it?

-ACE

[belfastuniguy 18]

supposedly having the moral high ground quote>

Please.....America lost that a long time ago. Some Americans still believe they have it though.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

supposedly having the moral high ground quote>

Please.....America lost that a long time ago. Some Americans still believe they have it though.quote>

Thus... "supposedly."

-ACE

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Whilst a ban of cluster-munitions in unconventional warfare would be acceptable, such is not the case. Problem is, with out the big 3 on board with this treaty, it will go no where. There are always alternatives, such as self-destructing unexploded munitions that would not cause harm years and years down the road, as opposed to just letting them sit there. They could be tagged, and any unexploded bomblets could be spotted and detonated without fear of collateral damage.

[mightygoose 92]

its all very well banning them on paper, but when poo hits the fan in a real large scale war its every man for himself, your telling me the US doesnt have stockpiles of various nerve gasses they just arent telling anyone about. course they do, and anyway the majority of nations likely to be involved in war are nowhere to be found in the list of nations.... its kinda like pushing for no swimming laws in the sahara..... utterly pointless political posturing....