weasel1962
New Member
Deleted
Last edited:
Should cluster munitions be banned?
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
Dangerous stuff...cluster bombs, both to the intended targets as well as during the aftermath.
There are several type of cluster munitions with different effects e.g. anti personnel, anti-tank etc. The greatest advantage is saturation of the target area to take out multiple targets. For eg if you overlap the weapons footprint of several munitions, you can get pretty dense footprints that can kill a lot of stuff. Having said that, the newest ones like the Sensor Fuzed Weapons are pretty high tech stuff, best used against armor. IMO, most cluster munitions are mostly useful in open terrain, desert, cold war scenarios etc and against "grouped targets" or "obscure targets" e.g. a convoy of tanks, vehicles etc.
If one envisages a possible full scale conflict against equal or more capable adversaries in the future, then cluster munitions are definitely useful. In the last few Allied/US conflicts, I believe almost no cluster munitions were used at all. If a division of armor is attempting to roll into town, you might need some of these to halt the onslaught.
There are of course alternatives to cluster munitions, but not all are quite as effective. The US has been doing tank plinking with laser bombs but if there are places for the tanks to hide, it becomes a lot more complicated.
If one can can advocate the use of "responsible" cluster munitions, it may be possible. For eg. having submunitions that will self destruct after certain period of time. Yet, there are always failure rates to contend with. Unfortunately, the ban on CM development would mean that no one other than the non-signatories will be able to develop and deploy such "smart" cluster weapons.
cheers
guppy
There are several type of cluster munitions with different effects e.g. anti personnel, anti-tank etc. The greatest advantage is saturation of the target area to take out multiple targets. For eg if you overlap the weapons footprint of several munitions, you can get pretty dense footprints that can kill a lot of stuff. Having said that, the newest ones like the Sensor Fuzed Weapons are pretty high tech stuff, best used against armor. IMO, most cluster munitions are mostly useful in open terrain, desert, cold war scenarios etc and against "grouped targets" or "obscure targets" e.g. a convoy of tanks, vehicles etc.
If one envisages a possible full scale conflict against equal or more capable adversaries in the future, then cluster munitions are definitely useful. In the last few Allied/US conflicts, I believe almost no cluster munitions were used at all. If a division of armor is attempting to roll into town, you might need some of these to halt the onslaught.
There are of course alternatives to cluster munitions, but not all are quite as effective. The US has been doing tank plinking with laser bombs but if there are places for the tanks to hide, it becomes a lot more complicated.
If one can can advocate the use of "responsible" cluster munitions, it may be possible. For eg. having submunitions that will self destruct after certain period of time. Yet, there are always failure rates to contend with. Unfortunately, the ban on CM development would mean that no one other than the non-signatories will be able to develop and deploy such "smart" cluster weapons.
cheers
guppy
Plenty of CBUs have been used in Afghanistan by the US, since 1998, and in Iraq, in all wars. In 2003, the new CBU-105 was first used in combat, with 6 bombs spreading some 240 SADARMs over an Iraqi tank column near Baghdad, as well as the CBU-107, which is essentially a flechette bomb.
Typical estimates give around 1500 air-launched CBUs average used in Kosovo, Iraq '03 and Afghanistan, each; with about 750,000 bomblets delivered in total. This does not include MRLS/ATACMS munition, which out of these three conflicts was only used in Iraq, or any Allied usage (pretty widespread with e.g. British munitions).
There are some other nations for whom this is far more significant as it's even more widespread, Germany for example. The ban removes Germany's primary "last-resort" heavy bombing weapon (MW1) from the ToE 10 years early. Also, Germany does not have any non-cluster MLRS rockets at all, for example.
As an aside, the treaty was signed down the road from where I work, we managed all the Satallite up and down links, was nice to be part of something historic!
The problem with cluster bombs is there persistance, unlike mines you cannot provide co-ords after the conflict (not that to many do!) for clearance teams.
The problem with cluster bombs is there persistance, unlike mines you cannot provide co-ords after the conflict (not that to many do!) for clearance teams.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
BAN WHAT?!? No no no they can't ban cluster bombs!!!! The U.S. Military has proved that cluster bombs are very deadly and useful in combat.
Lucky the U.S., Russia, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan(the largest makers of cluster bombs) will not ban cluster bombs.
Once you ban one weapon then someone will want to ban another weapon and another weapon.
To me these pointless treaties are nothing more than B.S. that undermine a countries ability to wage war. People just don't get it, in war people die its a sad fact of life and there will always be death in war there is no way around it.
Lucky the U.S., Russia, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan(the largest makers of cluster bombs) will not ban cluster bombs.
Once you ban one weapon then someone will want to ban another weapon and another weapon.
To me these pointless treaties are nothing more than B.S. that undermine a countries ability to wage war. People just don't get it, in war people die its a sad fact of life and there will always be death in war there is no way around it.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I believe its the people dying after the conflict has ended that has most people in a tizzy.
It is the persistence of CB's that are the problem, not there military utility.
Of course people die in war, its a nasty business, but its CB's laying dormant for months possibly years after being dropped that is a problem.
Someone who lays mines at least has the ability in a post conflict world to supply maps to clearance teams. That for me is why I don't think they should be banned. That is not possible with CB's and is why I'm happy to see them banned. If at sometime in the future it can be proved that CB's no longer persist, then that would be different.
I dont see that much sense in banning them. There are a lot of more dangerous thing in use - DU ammo, mines, even simple artillery shells.
Generally, even for mines in many / most cases maps are either not supplied or unavailable. They are much, much more dangerous than cluster ammunition.
Non-exploded artillery shells - they are about as dangerous, but proliferated much more. Should we bane them also?
Yes, CMs have lots of military utility. But so do nuclear weapons, of all shapes and sizes. Use a nuclear tipped air defense missile, so you don't need to invest in accuracy, and it will take out an entire flight, or an incoming ballistic missile attack. A division of armor? Just nuke them. That's a lot easier but can you imagine the world order today? You can't ban nuclear weapons but at least we can get countries to refrain from doing so.
The question is thus, can we attempt to get countries to use CMs responsibly? And with responsible use of CMs, will we be able to avoid leaving a legacy for future generations to contend with, even after the wars are over? I support the ban because it forces even the non signatories to think if there is a better weapon to get the job done, and to refrain from using CMs unless it is absolutely necessary.
cheers
guppy
The question is thus, can we attempt to get countries to use CMs responsibly? And with responsible use of CMs, will we be able to avoid leaving a legacy for future generations to contend with, even after the wars are over? I support the ban because it forces even the non signatories to think if there is a better weapon to get the job done, and to refrain from using CMs unless it is absolutely necessary.
cheers
guppy
I have no problem with cluster munition as long as one uses modern ones which have a dud rate of ca. 1% not like most of the stuff which is in use right now.
There are just situations were CM is needed even when these situations got less wiht the proliferation of PGMs.
Put some money into development of nearly dud free CMs and everything is ok.
There are just situations were CM is needed even when these situations got less wiht the proliferation of PGMs.
Put some money into development of nearly dud free CMs and everything is ok.
The dud rate is much higher than 1%, even with the modern CM.
I think CM should be banned, even now 300 vietnamese dies annually from unexploded ordenance, so far 4000 civilians have died from unexploded clusterbombs in Iraq (60% are kids), any many in Afghanistan too.
In August 2006 Israel dropped 1.000.000 Cluster Bombs over Lebanese civilian populated areas, which have let to many deaths including UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
One of the newest CBU's is M85, the manufactor claims that the dud rate is 1%, but in fact the dub rate is 10%, which is stated in the report from Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
I think CM should be banned, even now 300 vietnamese dies annually from unexploded ordenance, so far 4000 civilians have died from unexploded clusterbombs in Iraq (60% are kids), any many in Afghanistan too.
In August 2006 Israel dropped 1.000.000 Cluster Bombs over Lebanese civilian populated areas, which have let to many deaths including UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
One of the newest CBU's is M85, the manufactor claims that the dud rate is 1%, but in fact the dub rate is 10%, which is stated in the report from Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Norway and Denmark use a variant of the M85, the DM 1385, which has shown under trials to have a dud rate of ~1%.
Some of the reasons as to why there is a difference is due to the redesign, remarks from Rheinmetall:
"...the M85 has been improved/re-designed resulting in the designation DM1385. The following improvements have been implemented and approved / qualified through Bundeswehramt für Beschaffung (BWB). For all grenades DM1385, which were delivered to Denmark, our supplier IMI had made following improvements (compared to M85) in the delay element:
- chemical components were changed in mass.
- rolling pressure for the different component layers and also for the whole pryrotechnic element had been increased.
These changes yield to a better and stable burning rate. Grenade inspection results in firing confirmed these improvements."
The Norwegian test firings and Danish test firings (in Israel) showed the dud rates of these bomblets to be ~1%.
According to the Mine Action Coordination Center South Libanon (MACCSL) the majority the majority of the Israeli shell fired did not have a selfdestruct mechanism.
The Norwegian report assumes that the DM 1385 and the M85 are the same shell/bomblet, which is not accurate.
Nonetheless, DPICM/BB DM 662 with the DM 1385 (M85 family) bomblet, looks set to be fased out in DK.
Some of the reasons as to why there is a difference is due to the redesign, remarks from Rheinmetall:
"...the M85 has been improved/re-designed resulting in the designation DM1385. The following improvements have been implemented and approved / qualified through Bundeswehramt für Beschaffung (BWB). For all grenades DM1385, which were delivered to Denmark, our supplier IMI had made following improvements (compared to M85) in the delay element:
- chemical components were changed in mass.
- rolling pressure for the different component layers and also for the whole pryrotechnic element had been increased.
These changes yield to a better and stable burning rate. Grenade inspection results in firing confirmed these improvements."
The Norwegian test firings and Danish test firings (in Israel) showed the dud rates of these bomblets to be ~1%.
According to the Mine Action Coordination Center South Libanon (MACCSL) the majority the majority of the Israeli shell fired did not have a selfdestruct mechanism.
The Norwegian report assumes that the DM 1385 and the M85 are the same shell/bomblet, which is not accurate.
Nonetheless, DPICM/BB DM 662 with the DM 1385 (M85 family) bomblet, looks set to be fased out in DK.
Last edited:
DM662 and DM1385 is the same bomb 
The other one is DM642 or DM1383.
The dud rate of DM662 were 1,1% while the dud rate of 642 were 0,5%
Though most CBU's doesen't have a self-destruct mechanism and have a higher rate of dud.
The danish DM662 are getting phased out but the DM642 will still remain in stock.
But the most important is that 98% of all victims of cluster bombs have been civilians..
http://www.ndrf.dk/documents/groupp/SS07-Dullum.pdf
http://drk.dk/graphics/IHL EHL Folkeret/KlyngeBombeRapWEB.pdf (danish)
The other one is DM642 or DM1383.
The dud rate of DM662 were 1,1% while the dud rate of 642 were 0,5%
Though most CBU's doesen't have a self-destruct mechanism and have a higher rate of dud.
The danish DM662 are getting phased out but the DM642 will still remain in stock.
But the most important is that 98% of all victims of cluster bombs have been civilians..
http://www.ndrf.dk/documents/groupp/SS07-Dullum.pdf
http://drk.dk/graphics/IHL EHL Folkeret/KlyngeBombeRapWEB.pdf (danish)
Grand Danois
Entertainer
DM662/DM642 are the designations of the cargo munitions not the designation of the bomblets, iow they cannot be the same. What I said was that the Norwegian report does not differentiate between M85 and DM1385.DM662 and DM1385 is the same bomb
The other one is DM642 or DM1383.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. The DM642 carries the German produced DM1383.
Yes. The civilians suffer the most due to lingering effects. Using CMs is a matter of balance and responsible use. Using CMs to stop massed armour or infantry is OK in my book. Point targets or targets with no validation of enemy presence is not, i.e. indiscriminate use. So far there has only been few examples of responsible and balanced use.
Thanks for the links.
Weapons are banned either because of idealistic nonsense or because those proposing the treaty are using treaty to offset a vulnerability. All nations do this. In the case of CM, I think it's pure idealism and nonsense. Civilians are always hurt in wars and sometimes necessary targets. Before anybody thinks I'm a monster consider what nuclear weapons do in counter value strikes.
Any military arm has as an implied responsibility to minimize unnecessary collateral damage and should use means available to do so. However, this is always a secondary concern vs the objective unless the media is present and capable of turning a tactical victory into a strategic opportunity for the opponent by broadcasting the collateral damage. This makes CMs a double edged sword to be wielded carefully but wielded non the less.
Never give up the ability to do this...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow"]YouTube - Our Newest Baby Boy Expanded[/ame]
...makes massed mechanized forces obsolete against any opponent who can contest the air long enough to conduct CAS sorties.
-DA
Any military arm has as an implied responsibility to minimize unnecessary collateral damage and should use means available to do so. However, this is always a secondary concern vs the objective unless the media is present and capable of turning a tactical victory into a strategic opportunity for the opponent by broadcasting the collateral damage. This makes CMs a double edged sword to be wielded carefully but wielded non the less.
Never give up the ability to do this...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua3nLmE7Kow"]YouTube - Our Newest Baby Boy Expanded[/ame]
...makes massed mechanized forces obsolete against any opponent who can contest the air long enough to conduct CAS sorties.
-DA