Cluster Bombs

Cluster bombs obstruct economic and social development, impede post-conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction, delay the return of refugees, negatively impact on national and international peace-building and humanitarian assistance efforts, and have other severe consequences that can persist for many years after use.

They also have immediate effects which, at the time of use, are unable to be matched by any other weapon system.

Take, for example, the Yugoslav breakup. The Srebenicze massacre undoubtedly did all the of the above listed long-term effects. The Dutch troops guarding the place elected not to make a fight of it, had they decided to do so, air support would have been fundamental in their defence of the town, and cluster munitions fundamental in their support because of what they do. Most notably, they have great effect on area targets without the infrastructure destruction caused by unitary munitions. They have particularly great effect on groups of vehicles.

There's no such thing as a war which doesn't have all sorts of negative long-term effects, not least on the dead and their families. That's sortof why wars are generally best avoided to begin with. Focusing on what you're allowed to use once one starts sortof misses the point.

The recent protocol on prohibiting cluster munitions (signed generally only by countries who aren't likely to need them any time soon) was pretty much silly. For example, it mandates that munitions fired must have a maximum of seven bomblets, all of which have self-destruct timers on them. The current generation munitions in US service have lots of bomblets, all of which have self-destruct timers on them. So all they need to do (were they willing to sign up) is just fire four or five rounds where one would have done, and you end up with exactly the same long-term effect on the ground, and less effect militarily. Where's the logic in this? Great PR to be sure, but utterly daft.

NTM