COMMENTARY: Cluster behind the cluster ban

"Steel On Target"....As much and as fast as you can....Destroy the bad guys quickly and violently....There is no "civilized" weapon of war....War by it's very nature is death sanctioned by political and military leaders of soverign countries....Terrorism has no rules....Terrrorist use every violent means at their disposal to randomly kill and main their victims....Those feel good jerks who wish to "civilize" war or weapons are just plain liberal morons!!!...

Cluster weapons are extremely utilitarian anti-personnel armaments. We routinely carried them on fighter missions during the Vietnam war. The complication cited in the article is real and can be addressed by weapons engineers. For instance, perhaps the bomblets can be designed with a lapsing mechanism so that they become inert after a period of time.

"By the company they keep shall ye know them...." In opposing this treaty we find ourselves in the company of five foreign countries with indifferent to appalling human-rights records. All the Western democracies save ours have signed this treaty. All our democratic allies have forsworn the future use of these cruel and revolting devices. They obviously belive that Western civilization can survive without these weapons. They will also be legally constrained from supporting US units equipped with these weapons. By failing to sign the treaty we may have turned our back on future joint military operations with civilized nations. The cluster-weaponary in the US arsenal has a statistical failure rate of between 40% (The US military) and 65% (Humanitarian NGOs). "Improved" munitions which are due to be phased-in to replace the existing weapons are projected to have a failure rate of "only" 10% to 20%(depending on terrain - unfortunately, technology can't ensure their use is confined to concrete surfaces!). The battlefield legacy of these devices will endure to kill and maim the innocent and unwary (frequently children) long after the conflict has ended and the soldiers have gone home. It is significant that Mr Bay attempts to impugn the motives of the people who sponsored this treaty rather than engage with their arguments. His reliance on personal invective makes one suspect that he knows the case for these weapons doesn't stand close scrutiny. By the way, what would Mr Bay, nelsondeu, and aero think of someone who scattered high-explosive booby traps around the area in which their children play?