Nations sign the ban on cluster bombs.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You need to read more, before you open your mouth.

So, why don't you agree?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Seriously, you guys are awful for defending clusterbombs

**** you, hippy.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher


There's no one in this thread who has designed or dropped cluster bombs.

Pretend that because one is or was in the military and understands the issue in detail is a fallacy, especially when said person was in the Navy and not an aviator.

You call yourself an expert in things that you don't have 100% knowledge of also ... several people here have been in field artillery, which would certainly involve more knowledge than you or I have of cluster bombs and general artillery strategy [which is pretty similar to bombing, and given that both use cluster bombs, is quite appropriate] I'd think.

I certainly don't mind or want to discourage the discussion ... I just find it amusing that some people don't accept others' actual field knowledge as meaningful, but then disparage others in other discussions for not having meaningful field knowledge. That's all.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


**** you, hippy.

okay I'm a hippy, thanks for telling me.

[snoopy369]

I think the interesting moral question is, given (positive military value from cluster bombs) versus (negative value from civilian deaths from cluster bombs), how do we make a moral choice between those two options? Not what is the choice given particular values for those two, but under what set of logical rules do we make that choice given we are comparing two unlike values (military value versus moral value). How to we weigh (military value) versus (moral value)? Is it "lives saved" versus "lives lost", directly (or 2:1 or 3:1, say, valuing a soldier's life less than a civilian's)? In that case, is a cluster bomb that is 'safer' (which intelligently deactivates, for example) acceptable if it causes less than (say) 5 civilian lives lost per bomb but saves at least 25 military lives (valuing military lives at 1/5 of a civilian life), but one that risks 10 civilian lives not acceptable? Or is there some other comparison that needs to be made other than simply 'lives' (say, making war more difficult to prosecute)?

I think it is ridiculous to argue virtually unprovable facts (how effective are cluster bombs) when nearly none of us have ANY knowledge of the subject, and those that do are certainly not subject matter experts, when we do not have a meaningful means of comparison even were we to come to an agreement on the effectiveness of cluster bombs.

For the record, I think that it is illogical to argue that cluster bombs have no practical use; I think the military has enough intelligent people that if they had no benefit, they simply wouldn't use them. But I make no attempt to quantify the actual effectiveness or 'lives saved', either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by snoopy369
For the record, I think that it is illogical to argue that cluster bombs have no practical use; I think the military has enough intelligent people that if they had no benefit, they simply wouldn't use them.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


**** you, hippy.

If you just admit that you get a hard on whenever a child gets a leg or arm blown off, we would at least have respect for your blantant honesty.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You call yourself an expert in things that you don't have 100% knowledge of also ...

I've never claimed to be an expert in this field. I've explicitly said the opposite in this very thread, if you would care to actually read what is written.

[quote]

several people here have been in field artillery, which would certainly involve more knowledge than you or I have of cluster bombs and general artillery strategy [which is pretty similar to bombing, and given that both use cluster bombs, is quite appropriate] I'd think.

Name one person who posted who has fired a cluster munition or dropped a cluster bomb, or admit you are wrong.

I certainly don't mind or want to discourage the discussion ... I just find it amusing that some people don't accept others' actual field knowledge as meaningful

It's not amusing, and it's not their field knowledge.

It's in the interest of the usual suspects here to continue arguing in favour of the military-industrial complex for various reasons: they're in the military or they're heavily invested in it. In some cases, like Lonestar, it's both.

You confuse bias with experience.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the interesting moral question is, given (positive military value from cluster bombs) versus (negative value from civilian deaths from cluster bombs), how do we make a moral choice between those two options? Not what is the choice given particular values for those two, but under what set of logical rules do we make that choice given we are comparing two unlike values (military value versus moral value). How to we weigh (military value) versus (moral value)? Is it "lives saved" versus "lives lost", directly (or 2:1 or 3:1, say, valuing a soldier's life less than a civilian's)? In that case, is a cluster bomb that is 'safer' (which intelligently deactivates, for example) acceptable if it causes less than (say) 5 civilian lives lost per bomb but saves at least 25 military lives (valuing military lives at 1/5 of a civilian life), but one that risks 10 civilian lives not acceptable? Or is there some other comparison that needs to be made other than simply 'lives' (say, making war more difficult to prosecute)?

I think it is ridiculous to argue virtually unprovable facts (how effective are cluster bombs) when nearly none of us have ANY knowledge of the subject, and those that do are certainly not subject matter experts, when we do not have a meaningful means of comparison even were we to come to an agreement on the effectiveness of cluster bombs.

For the record, I think that it is illogical to argue that cluster bombs have no practical use; I think the military has enough intelligent people that if they had no benefit, they simply wouldn't use them. But I make no attempt to quantify the actual effectiveness or 'lives saved', either.

I'm getting real tired of your strawmen.

No one has argued that they have no practical use. People have argued that they do not enable the military to do anything they cannot do now. They can still destroy a column of tanks without dropping cluster bombs which litter the countryside with "dud" munitions that explode when some poor soul steps on them in the near or far future.

I'll thank you to actually give respect to the argument's given here, because right now you're just pretending.

[Patroklos]

It is not optimal

According to who?

nor can it be produced in mass quantities for the military?

Are you under the impression that the military produces the equipment it uses? Considering I can take a GPCP right now and order a hundred of the damn things online, I fail to see your point.

Seriously, you guys are awful for defending clusterbombs

Nothing you said is unique to cluster bombs.

Do you imagine that the munitions the Belgians are removing are solely cluster bombs, or soley of Isreali origin for that matter?

[Naked Gents Rut]

If you just admit that you get a hard on whenever a child gets a leg or arm blown off

I'm not a sexual deviant like you.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

[MrFun]

Is that the best you have, Drake?

Seriously, your total lack of concern about the deaths of unarmed civilians in this argument is somewhat disturbing.

When the military has other effective weapons they can use, I wouldn't think our military will completely fall apart if we ban cluster bombs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
According to who?

You can't have it both ways, damnit. Am I or am I not the Xbox 360 geek in this thread?

Are you under the impression that the military produces the equipment it uses? Considering I can take a GPCP right now and order a hundred of the damn things online, I fail to see your point.

Reading comprehension 101. I said produce for the military, not produced by the military.

My point escapes you, which is no surprise to me. Would you like me to lecture you on the concept of economies of scale? Xbox 360 controllers are sold at insane markups, even to wholesale buyers, because they are one of the avenues MS makes profit to make up for the losses on the actual Xbox 360 units.

It is in the military's interest to purchase units that are lower cost that accomplish the same thing via an appropriations contract, and not buying game peripherals wholesale. It's a ripoff, and if you buy in bulk it adds up.

[Q Classic]

When North Korea has finally reunified with the South, maybe I'll change my mind on cluster bombs.

I probably won't, because Japan and China are right there, but.

Incidentally, that's why I'm in favor of land mines.

Do I think they're terrible weapons that can harm innocents? Sure. But that's because they're being used indiscriminately by ****heads and douchebags in areas they shouldn't be.

Of course, I also tend to think most of those other wars are silly and inconsequential and should be fought with nerf weapons, largely because there are no Koreans involved.

[Patroklos]

It's in the interest of the usual suspects here to continue arguing in favour of the military-industrial complex for various reasons: they're in the military or they're heavily invested in it. In some cases, like Lonestar, it's both.

How can anyone here be charactarized as being in favor the (EVAL) military industrial complex? Its funny you say that when you are the one advocating using more of far more expensive weapons to achieve the same results.