It appears that 100 or so countries are going to stop using cluster bombs because of the detrimental effect of them on civilians, i.e. people. I'm not entirely sure what that means, even though the article at CNN went into detail.
What perplexes me is this: why is it okay to shoot someone (I haven't heard about not using bullets, etc.) and kill them but to simply maim is inhumane. There is a huge flaw in this logic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see cluster bombs used, either. My main concern is that, in being humanitarian and, oh, so politically correct, we ban the cluster bomb while the merchants of death devise some other way of killing and maiming those whose property they admire or whose way of life offends them.
Years ago, when I heard of the neutron bomb that ostensibly would destroy sentient life without destroying buildings, etc., I felt that humankind had truly lost its humanity. I am not being convinced otherwise, despite protestations to the contrary.
Killing is killing, maiming is maiming - does it really matter how it's done?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The wit and wisdom of the little known, but vastly loved Mother Darla.
About Me
- Mother Darla
- Hard to describe - take a chupicabra, put it in a blender with some fig jam and hit puree. Not exactly correct, but closer than you'd like to think.
Blog Archive
Blogs du Jour
2 comments:
Mother Darla--
There is more to the decision by 100 countries not to use "cluster bombs", more correctly known as Improved Conventional Munitions.
Most of them don't have them. It's not that they are particularly devestating to civilians--the sub-munitions are actually rather small--it's that they are very very effective, and give advantage to those countries that do have them.
The sub munitions do have a high dud rate--failure to detonate. One uses caution when moving across terrain that has been attacked with these munitions. And a submunition has an effective burst raious of about 15 feet. Less for the shape charge variety, which is designed to penetrate the thin armor on top of armored vehicles.
These munitions grew out af a desire NOT to use tacticle nukes. and when the US and NATO got then, they phased out the Tac Nukes, to avoid the widespread destruction and contamination, and the civilian suffering that would cause. These munitions are designed to break upformations of armored fighting vehicles and deployed troops--which could not previously be done with conventional bombs. Unless one used a WWII style saturation bombing--also hard on civilians.
But many third world nations are now building significant aromred forces from older NATO and Warsaw Pact machines. They don't care about civilian suffering, they are worried that the US, UK and Russian ability to destroy their armor from the air.
BTW--East Germany went it's own way, and developed thermobaric munitions, sometimes called "fuel-air bombs", that could be deployed in spaced series to generate explosions , under proper conditions, approaching the size and intensity of Tac Nukes.
And historically, there has been a move to limit the maining potential of weapons--the ban on lead slugs, hollow points and unjacked bullets. These have never panned out well--the 5.56 mm NATO round (fired by the M16, the modern Enfield of the UK and most other NATO countries is designed to wound, not kill. It 4 people to deal with a wounded soldier on teh battle field--you can ignore a dead one.
Whoa. Mr. Redneck. You say a lot. Thanks for the comment. Much to think about...
Post a Comment