Comments on: US Refrains From Cluster Ban

By: A. Nonymous

A. Nonymous — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:06:44 +0000

US isn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions? Fail: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

By: Thunder350

Thunder350 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:57:41 +0000

Oh so waiting for a A-10 is different then waiting for a F-15? Or a B-52?

In the example I used above, we would of already had the needed air support close by waiting to be called in. Rather A-10’s or what have you. As for friendly fire… there’s something called GPS, soldiers can lase the targets. We got UAV’s, satellites, and ground units that can all provide the coordinates to the air units. Oh and lets not forget about infrared beacons they can set to show who’s friendly and who’s not.

By: Thunder350

Thunder350 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:47:00 +0000

The AC-130 Spooky II has a 25 mm Gatling gun, a 40 mm Bofors cannon, and a 105 mm howitzer.

By: dumpbox

dumpbox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:42:03 +0000

Weeell, there is one.…the Spectre :)
If you can get them to the target on time :O
Gee uhh doesn’t the Spectre use cluster munitions?.….

By: SogOne0

SogOne0 — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:37:30 +0000

Every weapon has its place on the battlefield. Use CB munitions and watch the enemy desert and surrender in huge numbers. Short wars are sweet and protracted wars are way too expensive! France and Germany still suck big time.

By: dumpbox

dumpbox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:07:32 +0000

SHHH Boomer…were not suppose to talk about the unexploded tomahawks! Tomahalks and Smart bombs ALWAYS explode-perfectly-as planned– on target-everytime!…are we clear soldier ;)

By: CavScoutSniper

CavScoutSniper — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:52:07 +0000

Just 1 more attempt to emasculate the United States Military. It’s becomming more obvious every day that with the muslim takeover in Europe thier influence is spreading at the highest levels. The cluster munitions are some of the most effective in our arsenal and have saved many a US and UK troops lives. Keep ‘em, build more of ‘em, build ‘em bigger & better and, use ‘em MORE frequently.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:12:43 +0000

I can attest to the unexploded ordnace aspect, although not largely known outside those assigned the recovery and disposal tasks, during the first gulf war there were a number of smart bombs, missiles, and tomahawks that failed to explode (wouldnt think a million dollar weapon would fail huh?). Like dumpbox said it happens, and the old tried and true munitions still have a legitimate use, the ones screaming the most are those that faced thier wrath in the field or know they cannot compete against ours, and there are those who flat out dont like us — envision challenging us in the future — and dont want to face effective weapons in battle.

By: A. Nonymous

A. Nonymous — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:06:20 +0000

Gee uhh, no, it doesn’t. It uses GUNS. That’s why it’s called a GUNship.

By: dumpbox

dumpbox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:07:15 +0000

Just like our stock of weaponized small pox.

By: dumpbox

dumpbox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:02:00 +0000

Wow really A-10’s huh. oh my how ignorant of you. you’d be planted in you position for quite sometime while waiting it be patched through to an air con, who would then relay that order to any available a-10 in, you hope, his kill box. then you better hope that a-10 pilot recognizes you as a friendly. meanwhile, you’d be sitting there growing roots while your tangos are disbursing. OR just call in a fire mission to artillery. Try to guess what the artillery com is gonna pick for the ordinance.

By: dumpbox

dumpbox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:29:10 +0000

With all due respect sir, but Adm. Mike is a squid and has no business advising anyone in LAND WARFARE!. Mike should stick to what he knows, how to waste taxpayers money with hes fleet of big canoes.

By: dumpbox

dumpbox — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:18:49 +0000

Good, cluster munitions, mines, and NAPALM all have real practical legitimate use in warfare. Like the gun, cluster bombs are not the problem, those who use them unethically are the problem. There will always be unexploded ordinance, even for precision guided missles. So the arguement that cluster bombs cause colleteral damage to civ’s but precision weapons don’t is rediculous. Cluster bombs are absolutely necessary for anti-personel, destruction of airfields, denial of use sortees. Mines are a base defender’s best last hope against being overrun. And, Napalm is still the most effective anti personel weapon that can also creep into bunkers.
To state otherwise just show your ignorance of warfare.

By: Scout

Scout — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:56:12 +0000

End of discussion…well said. I believe a careful review of the wording from the opponents of cluster munitions will reveal their true viewpoint. OMG did he really say Greener!

By: Tony C

Tony C — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:58:11 +0000

Banning a weapon system only works if all countries play by the same rules, unfortunately, that isn’t the real world. No option available to a theater commander should be taken off the table. Like the Geneva Convetion, which was never ratified by the United States and the US is not a signatory, the US can still observe those rules if the other side choses to observe them as well. North Viet Nam did not observe the Geneva Convetntion and neither did the US in that conflict. These idiotic treaties are feel good measures that will have no substance in a major conflict outside the brush wars the Eurpopeans now face.

By: Lou

Lou — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:30:57 +0000

MACMAN is stupid, these people use every kind of weapon they can on us and we can not retaliate to protect our selves and win the war. I do not think our POTUS would put american lives in harms way like that. The only way this would happen is if he dicided to not sign and then of course the republicans would have to object just as they object to everything that the POTUS tries to do. They are such sorry losers.

By: Macman1138

Macman1138 — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:07:38 +0000

Give our current POTUS a couple of more months and he’ll sign a ban on harsh language.

By: Thunder350

Thunder350 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:24:01 +0000

Whys it got to be aircraft? They got GPS/laser guided artillery shells now, they are working on getting GPS guided mortar shells, and then there’s other ground missile batteries that can fire GPS/laser guided missiles aswell. And lets not forget the US Navy..

As for taking out infantry, just call in the A-10’s! Strafing runs will destroy most, if not all infantry, even those entrenched.

If we had precision weapons during Normandy we could of bombed each of those MG bunker nest, anti-air guns, and artillery guns. Sent in fighters/bombers to pound what was left without having to worry about getting shot down. Then send our land forces in to clean up the mess. It would of saved ALOT of lives.

If we would of cluster bombed it, sure it would of did the same job, and destroy the defenders, but there would of been a high chance of our troops coming across one of the countless bombs that didn’t explode. And it would of been hell setting up base camp in the middle of basically a land mine field.

By: BaronVomKrieg

BaronVomKrieg — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:09:33 +0000

I think Ed’s saying that war cannot be “banned” owing to human nature. I agree. Owing to that nature, like the seasons, war is inevitable. If that is the case, then I’d rather be ready for it than not. I also agree that the US shouldn’t ban them. The US strategy (as with land mines and other useful weaponry) is to agree in principle but not to sign on and tie its hands. Thus, The US is trying to make cluster munitions more reliable so as to not create the problem in the first place. But if the crap hits the fan, it still wants to have some aces up the sleave. Since many European countries are backed up by the US, then they have a free hand to sign all the feel-good treaties they want (to feel like good humanitarians, I suppose), because they know Uncle Sam has a cereal box full of clustery goodness in his cupboard.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:14:48 +0000

As for making a smaller foot print to reduce cost to rebuild what we destroyed, WHY? Why are we rebuilding anything at all, should just go in kick butt and come home. Honestly — how many of you growing up or even now, offered to buy someone a new home, car and give them money after kicking thier 6 in a fight after they offended you or someone close to you. I never did, might have bought them a beer months later or shook thier hand but that was it. So why do so many feel it is our duty to rebuild an entire country after we kicked thier 6? I’m for turning our backs and coming home — they will be a lot less likely to offend us again concidering the consequences they faced the first time. Many countries do thier best to goad us into a battle just to boost or rebuild thier economy. it’s time to put that money into AMERICA and not some foreign country.