Obama Takes US Closer to Total Ban on Cluster Bombs

[ensho]

hoo ray!!


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/13-0


• Legislation sets tight rules for weapons' use and sale • Campaigners hail decision as 'major turnaround'


-snip-

The new legislation, tacked on to a huge budget bill, was passed earlier this week by Congress and now sets such stringent rules for the bombs' use, including a ban on sales where they might be suspected of being used where civilians are present, that it seems unlikely the US could export them again.

Researchers believe the US has transferred hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions, containing tens of millions of unreliable and inaccurate bomblets, to 28 countries. They are regarded by those who campaign against their use as indiscriminate and dangerous to clear up.

Under the new rules, the air and artillery-deployed weapons, which scatter hundreds of bomblets, are required to have a self-destruct failure rate of less than 1%, which few of the US cluster bombs meet, before being cleared for sale.

Despite a temporary ban having been in place, the Pentagon made it clear last year that it was keen to see the export of the weapons again.
-snip-
------------------------------


the war Barons who make cluster bombs will just have to make something else. non lethal preferably.

[jody]

1. Obama is learning about our 2-war strategy and he will learn that cluster bombs are a very effective

efficient weapon against massed enemy forces.

Obama can support banning cluster bombs and invest in more expensive weapons or continue to use cluster bombs as combat circumstances dictate and use the money saved to fund programs in health, education, and welfare.

See related DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5258833&mesg_id=5258833

[bigtree]

2. 'massed enemy forces'

The targets which currently 'threaten' the U.S. are enmeshed within communities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There certainly are 'enemy' outposts, but the majority of the targets our military is concerned with aren't found in the center of some solid band of 'militants', even though the military always initially describes them as combatants/ insurgents. The targets have been found among civilians who pose no threat at all to our nation. In fact, in Afghanistan THIS* year, over 100 civilians deaths were attributed to U.S. attacks, rivaling casualties inflicted by the Taliban.

[jody]

5. We'll have to wait and see whether Obama believes combat against massed forces is probable. n/t

[ensho]

3. you sound like you are reading from a manual

war is going to go the way of the dinosaur.

military officers a dying breed.

[jody]

4. ROFL because you probably believe that wars will not be fought in the future. Have a nice day. n/t

[G_j]

6. as long as there are people

(such as yourself) who believe war is inevitable, it will be.

[jody]

7. War doesn't have to be inevitable to justify preparing for war, just probable where the risk and

cost of losing far exceed the value of winning.

That's why people have spare tires in cars, fire extinguishers in homes, vaccinations for diseases, etc.

But of course you do none of those things because you know that harm will not come to you as an inevitable event, just probable.