Is an international ban on cluster bombs justified?

  • The ban on cluster bombs is justified because of the effect they have on society.

    The ban on cluster bombs is justified because they harm civilians more than they do the military. The chances of an innocent child being hurt by them is more than is acceptable in current warfare. The fact that the international community has banded together to stop their use shows that their benefit is outweighed by the significant harm that they cause.

    Posted by: SimplisticRoosevelt
  • I agree that an international cluster bomb ban is justified; this weaponry can harm more than enemy combatants.

    While warfare is a part of the human condition, cluster bombs are negligence at its finest. Though they may be aimed at a single particular target, by definition these explosive devices will detonate in a cluster. This can endanger not only innocent civilians but also allied troops on the ground, causing mass casualties where only a single target was intended.

    Posted by: ShinyDonn
  • The recent ban on cluster bombs is justified, as these bombs kill indiscriminately, and are good for nothing but blind genocide.

    By definition, modern cluster bombs rain destruction on a wide area, which is incompatible with today's battle scenarios. Modern battles are often fought in urban areas, with one side hiding among the general populace. In this scenario, use of a cluster bomb all but guarantees large numbers of civilian casualties. Therefore, the banning of such weapons is justified.

    Posted by: C0n5tGet
  • Cluster bombs merit a ban, in order to save civilian lives, but a focus on the tools of war will help very little.

    Cluster bombs are deserving of the international effort to ban their use. They are notorious for leaving behind large numbers of unexploded bomblets, which then kill civilians, long after the original military target has moved on or been destroyed. People, often children, collecting metal scrap to eke out a living in a war-damaged economy, are especially vulnerable. Unfortunately, a focus on the tools of military conflict probably will have little or no impact on the overall death and destruction that the conflicts cause. Making warfare more "humane" or less costly is nearly as futile as it is noble.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • I believe an international ban on cluster bombs is justified because they cause collateral damage.

    Cluster bombs cause widespread damage and lack the precision of tactical strikes. When a cluster bomb is released it breaks apart into many small bombs which cover a wide area. This can kill or maim civilians unintentionally. Furthermore, some of the small bombs may fail to explode and this unexploded ordinance can inflict damage many years later.

    Posted by: GlossyCyrus79
  • Bombs kill people, so there would be no bad effects from banning them.

    Bombs kill people. That is what they are made to do. They also are made to destroy things. This is a bad practice. All these morons fighting for religions that they don't even practice wholeheartedly, these extremists and rebels just need to realize the world sucks. It is pointless to spend your time fighting.

    Posted by: ComplexRoscoe
  • Yes, because of the massive amounts of waste and destruction these things leave behind.

    These cluster bombs leave tons of unexploded "bomblets" on the battlefield that could explode at any moment. One such example is the Lebanon war, in which Israel released over 3 million "bomblets" over Lebanon. The United Nations says that over 30-40% of the "bomblets" actually explode. As you can see, this leaves hundreds of thousands of "bomblets" laying over Lebanon. These "bomblets" can go off at any time. Even though the war is over, the "bomblets" are still killing people.

    Posted by: SoundBoy
  • If ethics in war are to have any meaning, one of the basic relevant principles is that weapons should be narrowly targeted--yet cluster bombs function in the opposite way.

    Precision weapons are important to any civilized conception of warfare because they allow the prospect of minimizing civilian casualties, but cluster bombs seem likely to increase them. Like landmines, cluster bombs function unpredictably, spreading terror and devastation rather than achieving the limited objective of destroying a discrete military target. There are plenty of effective weapons that are more predictable and contained in their effects. As technology improves, weaponry should become more, not less, precise, so cluster bombs are particularly unacceptable.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • Yes, because too many innocent lives are lost from air-dropped cluster bombs. I believe that a ban on cluster bombs in not only warranted, but absolutely necessary.

    Cluster bombs cannot distinguish between military targets and civilians. The loss of life to innocent bystanders can be massive, especially when the weapon is used in or near populated areas. This weapon has caused more civilian casualties in Iraq and Kosovo than any other weapon. Simply put, this weapon has killed and injured too many innocent civilians.

    Posted by: N_Farley
  • An international ban on cluster bombs is certainly justified because too many civilians lives are at risk.

    An international ban on cluster bombs is certainly justified because too many civilians lives are at risk. Because cluster bombs are not exact enough, they are unable to discriminate and innocent victims are killed too often. It is much too dangerous to justify cluster bombs being used. Not to ban cluster bombs is the wrong thing to do. These bombs must be banned in order to save countless civilian lives.

    Posted by: JeffP4ri5
  • Only if design prevents problem.

    The primary argument against cluster munitions is failure to detonate when expected to, endangering civilians. If there are designs that circumvent the dangers of unexploded duds then the argument is considered null and has no weight.
    There are cluster munitions like the´╗┐ MAT 120 that have an electronic impact fuse operates on a capacitor power source located in each submunition which is charged in flight after being fired by a wind generator located in the nose of the projectile. If for what ever reason the electrical fuse fails to function on impact, 15 minutes later the capacitor bleeds and renders the bomblet inert so even if they are tossed around that won't explode.

  • I oppose the mass destruction of people during war in most cases, however, there are some instances where the opposing side is using such violence and unconventional warfare, that something has to be done to end it.

    During World War II, we were forced to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We did this not because we wanted to destroy civilians, but because Japan was not going to surrender at any cost. They were doing too much damage to allow them to continue, and they needed a wake-up call. In the future, if terrorists continue to use unconventional warfare, such as running planes into buildings where there are innocent civilians, the world may be forced to take such measures again. These solutions should be a last resort, however.

    Posted by: P0ngCuII

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.