PDA

View Full Version : Britain unites with smaller countries to block US bid to legalise cluster bombs




BattleFlag1776
11-26-2011, 01:04 AM
Score one for the little guy...for now.

Britain unites with smaller countries to block US bid to legalise cluster bombs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/25/us-cluster-bombs-bid-blocked


A coalition of countries including Britain on Friday defeated an attempt by the US, Russia, China and Israel to get an international agreement approving the continued use of cluster bombs. The weapons, which have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon scatter "bomblets" over a wide area, maiming and killing civilians, notably children, long after they have been dropped and are banned under a 2008 convention which was adopted by the UK and in more than 100 countries. The US, refused to sign and in negotiations in Geneva, over the past two weeks pressed for a protocol to be added to a UN convention to provide legal cover for the continuing use of cluster munitions. But smaller countries, supported by agencies including Amnesty and Oxfam, refused to give way.

Thomas Nash, director of Article 36, a group which coordinated opposition to cluster munitions, said: "The rejection of this attempt to set up a weaker standard on cluster bombs shows that states can act on the basis of humanitarian imperatives and can prevail in the face of cynical pressure from other states".

He added: "It shows that it is not only the US and other so called major powers that call the shots in international affairs, but that when small and medium sized countries work together with civil society and international organisations we can set the agenda and get results".

The US was supported in the Geneva talks by other cluster bomb manufacturers – including Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan.

They were backed by countries which had signed the 2008 convention, including France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Australia, conference observers said.

The Foreign Office had said that the British government would not accept the proposed protocol unless it provided clear humanitarian benefits.

The US and its supporters argued that their proposal would allow the use of cluster bombs manufactured after 1980 and that these had a less than 1% failure rate. Opponents said that most bombs produced before 1980 are unusable and that modern cluster munitions have failure rates much higher than the manufacturers claim.

If the US bid had been approved, international legal cover would have been given to such weapons as the BLU-97 "combined effects" bomb which contains bomblets that, as they fall, fragment and can turn into an incendiary weapon.

The unexploded bomblets have the appearance of yellow drink containers and are attractive, often picked up by children who mistake them for toys. However, the consequences are lethal, often resulting in maiming or even fatalities.

Cutlerzzz
11-26-2011, 01:40 AM
If the US government wants to buy cluster bombs, the British government has no right to stop them.

kylejack
11-26-2011, 01:46 AM
If the US government wants to buy cluster bombs, the British government has no right to stop them.
That's not what The Constitution says. The United States is bound by its treaty obligations unless it withdraws from the treaty.

CaptainAmerica
11-26-2011, 01:50 AM
cluster bombs are nasty bombs..thats for sure. Id rather be hit with a huge bomb that all the little shrapnel pieces from a cluster bomb.Either way..I think weapon tech being developed is just disgusting.War is ugly

Cutlerzzz
11-26-2011, 01:59 AM
That's not what The Constitution says. The United States is bound by its treaty obligations unless it withdraws from the treaty.The US should not be entering treaties that allow foreign nations to determine what weapons we use.

kylejack
11-26-2011, 02:02 AM
The US should not be entering treaties that allow foreign nations to determine what weapons we use.
Why not? It also allows us to determine what weapons they use. Trench warfare with chemical weapons was a vicious practice and it was decided that nobody should have to die like that, so a treaty was signed to end the practice. It's the same thing here.

Cutlerzzz
11-26-2011, 02:41 AM
Why not? It also allows us to determine what weapons they use. Trench warfare with chemical weapons was a vicious practice and it was decided that nobody should have to die like that, so a treaty was signed to end the practice. It's the same thing here.I don't want the United States determining what other countries do, nor do these treaties enable the US to make that decision unilaterally. If an actual war broke out, none of these resolutions would stop anyone from using chemical weapons. The United States needs to follow what is in it's own interest.

Though I do need to clarify what I initially said. The US government has no right to buy bombs with stolen money to begin with.

I would also like to know when a treaty came about to stop trench or chemical warfare, when it was successfull, and what replaced it.

kylejack
11-26-2011, 02:50 AM
If an actual war broke out, none of these resolutions would stop anyone from using chemical weapons.
In fact, it did. That practice ended after WWI. WWII was fought with guns and bombs but not chemical weapons.


The United States needs to follow what is in it's own interest.
It is in the interest of the United States not to have its soldiers tortured to death with the ugliest of weapons. This is bad for recruitment, so the United States enters these treaties. You may not wish for them to do so, but these treaties have already been signed and are the supreme law of the land until they are repealed.


I would also like to know when a treaty came about to stop trench or chemical warfare, when it was successfull, and what replaced it.

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol) - 1925

That convention just prohibited their use, but more recent treaties have required them to be destroyed.

Cutlerzzz
11-26-2011, 02:54 AM
In fact, it did. That practice ended after WWI. WWII was fought with guns and bombs but not chemical weapons.


It is in the interest of the United States not to have its soldiers tortured to death with the ugliest of weapons. This is bad for recruitment, so the United States enters these treaties. You may not wish for them to do so, but these treaties have already been signed and are the supreme law of the land until they are repealed.



Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol) - 1925

That convention just prohibited their use, but more recent treaties have required them to be destroyed.I hate to break this to you, but chemical weapons have been used since 1925. A lot of times. All over the world. They were used in WWII as well.


It is in the interest of the United States not to have its soldiers tortured to death with the ugliest of weapons. This is bad for recruitment, so the United States enters these treaties. You may not wish for them to do so, but these treaties have already been signed and are the supreme law of the land until they are repealed.


Entering an agreement that calls for the cessation of torture/=ceding partial control of our government to foreign nations.

Alright? I'm done here.

kylejack
11-26-2011, 12:20 PM
I hate to break this to you, but chemical weapons have been used since 1925. A lot of times. All over the world. They were used in WWII as well.
Yes, some are not signatories to the conventions and thus not bound by them. Others have violated the conventions. Still, it is an attempt to civilize war. Use of chemical weapons by signatories has been rare.

RonPaulFanInGA
11-26-2011, 01:29 PM
That's not what The Constitution says. The United States is bound by its treaty obligations unless it withdraws from the treaty.

The United States didn't sign on.


The US, refused to sign

kylejack
11-26-2011, 01:34 PM
The United States didn't sign on.
US is a signatory to the treaties that created the UN and is subject to international laws passed by the UN. The UN passed a law to phase out cluster bombs in the future. The United States tried to install some exemptions and failed.

nobody's_hero
11-26-2011, 01:38 PM
Time to invade Britain.!!!! Regime change now!!! The queen has ruled for far too long!

Miss Annie
11-26-2011, 02:04 PM
Time to invade Britain.!!!! Regime change now!!! The queen has ruled for far too long!

LOL!! I almost spit coffee on the screen!