Nations sign the ban on cluster bombs.

[TCO]

Fight me...not each other.

[chequita guevara]

I don't fight drunks. You never know what they'll pull.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Cluster bombs are a great weapon. Just make sure you use them in appropriate target areas.

Bingo, just like Landmines.

Now, if there was some kind of treaty that said "and Cluster munitions should be inert after a certain amount of time, then okay fine. No reason to deny us such a weapon though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lonestar
No reason to deny us such a weapon though.

Yeah, none at all. Go you.

Why don't you go take a stroll in the Iraqi countryside and let me know after a while.

[TCO]

USA! USA!

Kisses...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Asher

Yeah, none at all. Go you.

Why don't you go take a stroll in the Iraqi countryside and let me know after a while.

Yeah, good thing I didn't specifically say that it would be a good idea for a treaty to make them inert after a certain time period, rather then just going "hurr hurr keep the weapons with no change in requirements."

****, are you just unable to make a reasonable inference based upon the wording of forum posts? I hope to god that you don't write code for anything important.

[KrazyHorse]

This thread is boring.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
What's this? GePap justifying the use of cluster munitions against the pining call of the Norwegian Peace Dove?

Excuse me, but when did arguing against Asher's dollar based arguement against that one example of cluster munition usage become justifying their use?

The simple truth is that cluster munitions are useful, and as long as they remain so, those powers that intend to continue to wield international influence through military means will use them, if only because the revulsion factor against them isn't as high as that for chemical or biological weapons, or exploding small caliber ammunition.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Yeah, good thing I didn't specifically say that it would be a good idea for a treaty to make them inert after a certain time period, rather then just going "hurr hurr keep the weapons with no change in requirements."

****, are you just unable to make a reasonable inference based upon the wording of forum posts? I hope to god that you don't write code for anything important.

How can you ensure the inert mechanism never fails? It's a moronic comment because you might as well just say "we'll make sure they always explode right away" and it's the same ****.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Asher


How can you ensure the inert mechanism never fails? It's a moronic comment because you might as well just say "we'll make sure they always explode right away" and it's the same ****.

By that same insane logic, we shouldn't use shells because there's no way to make 100% sure they won't be duds or delayed explosions, we shouldn't use PGMs because the guidance electronics are more fragile and prone to breakage than the actual bomb, and we should bother with air bags or anti-lock breaks because they don't work 100% of the time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lonestar


By that same insane logic, we shouldn't use shells because there's no way to make 100% sure they won't be duds or delayed explosions, we shouldn't use PGMs because the guidance electronics are more fragile and prone to breakage than the actual bomb, and we should bother with air bags or anti-lock breaks because they don't work 100% of the time.

That's not the same logic because
- the dud rate is not the same
- the quantity is not the same per use

Thanks for playing, stick to playing soldier.

[Whoha]

the weapons are probably designed to degrade over time, rather then have any on/off switch.

[Julian Delphiki]

Finland didn't sign this, but signed the landmine ban. Stupid (we have over 1000km land border with Russia )

[TCO]

I think land mines are fine as long as you map them.

[Patroklos]

And don't pretend like you don't support the military industrial complex. We've all seen your posts on how we need more ships, more weapons, more moneeeyyyyyyyyyyyyy in more military.

Oh really?

5.) All military projects advancing us 2 generations over the nearest competitor should be abandoned. The F-22 is nice, but the F-15 can already clean the floor with any potential threat out there right now. Weapon systems take 20-25 years to mature these days and states like China are hitting that wall, they are not going to surprise us anytime soon.

While a battalion of active camouflaged, Crusader wielding, Osprey flying grunts would be cool, two divisions of currently equipped troops (already a generation (sometimes two) ahead of our rivals) for the same money is more useful.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168289&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

It might actually help if you conversed with the actual people in the thread instead of the figments of your imagination you pretend they are.