Is an international ban on cluster bombs justified? |
There should absolutely be a ban on these, they pose too many problems.
These bombs should be outlawed, or banned, because of the very nature of the makeup of it. There is a much higher chance of civilians being injured or killed by these kinds of bomblets as they're called. It's too hard to pinpoint where these will land once they are dropped or fired. Unexploded bombs can injure or kill people long after they have been dropped, if the bombs are discovered and go off.
Posted by: PinkMychAny international ban on any type of deadly weapon is justified.
I think that cluster bombs are no better to have then any other type of weapon. If all countries in the world would simply do away with cluster bombs then it would take that much more fear out of the hearts of those who live countries in danger of these types of things. Unfortunately when you legally take away weapons from someone upholding the law it places them in peril to those who don't so there is some room for discussion on this point.
Posted by: MariaRThe 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: SimplisticRooseveltCluster bombs may be efficient for destroying targets, but such arms are dangerous to innocent civilians and unbecoming of today's world.
Today's world is not a world of total war: nearly every conflict in the past 30 years has been strictly localized, has been limited warfare against insurgencies, or has involved an unwanted conflict. Encouraging countries around the world to manufacture arms with the potential to permanently land-mine large cities and devastate economies is irresponsible and, more importantly, absolutely pointless.
Posted by: TheSansI 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: GlossyCyrus79Yes, 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_FarleyCluster bombs are designed to kill civilians and should be banned.
Cluster bombs are designed to kill unprotected human beings, which means civilians. Military targets can't be destroyed with these bombs because they are too well armored. We should not condone the production of weapons that can be used on innocent populations. That being said, sovereignty of nations will prevent a ban from being effective.
Posted by: Fr4GigaCluster 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: LuciaLThe aftermath of the cluster bombs is really huge, so it is justified to international bomb on cluster bombs.
I totally agree that an international ban on cluster bombs is justified because the impact of this bombs has devastating impact. During second World War, the Vietnam War, the Lebanon and Gulf War, these bombs were used, and the civilians of these countries had to pay a huge price for the effects of these bombs.
In 2008, the international treaty was formed to ban the use of this cluster bombs. Around 100 countries sign this treaty, but USA and other cluster bomb manufacturing countries refused to sign this treaty. However, the use of cluster bombs should be ban.Posted by: I0rFashionThe 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: C0n5tGetI 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: ShinyDonnTo limit civilian casualties as much as possible, it makes sense to limit weapons such as cluster bombs and land mines.
In war there are various "rules of engagement" that are to be followed. Among these is the rule that civilian casualties should be avoided at all cost. This is why there is an international law to limit weapons such as cluster bombs, land mines, and napalm, which not only harm soldiers but can have long lasting effects on an area and are un-targeted enough that they can harm civilians as well.
Posted by: P3rEverYes, 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: SoundBoyBombs 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: ComplexRoscoeCluster bombs should be banned internationally because there is no way of ensuring that civilians will not be harmed by ones detonation.
If at all possible, we must ban cluster bombs for the sole reasoning of keeping civilians safe. These bombs are called cluster bombs for a reason. They detonate and cause mass devastation. Often, these bombs are dropped from airplanes and could destroy anyone or anything in its way. When a country is at war, its people are the ones who suffer. Cluster bombs often hit those who want nothing to do with the war at hand.
Posted by: R3ubHockeyAn international ban on cluster bombs is justified because of the risks to civilians both during and after the conflict.
Cluster bombs spread small bombs over an area the size of several football fields. When used near populated areas, civilians are likely to be seriously injured or killed. Small bombs that do not detonate in the air are more likely to be deadly. They remain a threat to civilians decades after the conflict has ended, causing unnecessary injuries and deaths, and seriously impeding the people's ability to rebuild.
Posted by: Pur3ErtoCluster bombs should be banned internationally because of the widespread destruction they cause.
Cluster bombs can cause widespread destruction of not only the target, but of innocent people. When so many innocent people have the potential to be harmed, we should all be responsible and ban the weapon internationally. There is no purpose that is worth reckless injury to innocent people. Cluster bombs cannot be used in a manner that would guarantee no civilians would be hurt, so they should be banned.
Posted by: babydoll93If 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: M4I4cFeIineThe potential for civilian casualties from cluster bombs are too great to justify their continued use.
Although cluster bombs are quite effective during war time, there is historic proof that after the war is over these bombs continue to inflict damages. It is ill advised to use a weapon that continues to kill well after a cease fire is called or a treaty is ratified. This type of bomb then is no longer doing its job and innocent lives are lost.
Posted by: 5h4n3GotI think the ban on cluster bombs is justifiable because of its wide range of effects and the longevity of their viability.
I believe a ban on cluster bombs is justified. These bombs are not humane in the sense that they disperse over a large area and cause unintended loss of life and damage. They do not have the advantage of having a precise target area. In addition, they can explode at a later date like land mines for example causing further casualties, and are not cost effective to remove and dispose of either.
Posted by: g0ggleslifeAn 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
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