Japan, over 100 other countries sign cluster bomb ban in Oslo

Thursday 04th December, 07:59 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 21 Total Comments Show All

bdiego at 10:14 AM JST - 4th December

Well to be fair almost all of the countries signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty don't possess nukes (which is part of the point). Not that it really works, just an attempt to slow it down. Oh of course in that case all the countries with nukes get to keep them, including countries that break the ban like India and Pakistan.

Reminds me of a store that can't close down because they keep letting "one more" customer check out. Hence most start playing orchestral music to give people the hint. =)
soldave at 10:45 AM JST - 4th December

Well, seeing as talking about this treaty is deemed to be off, it might be tough to comment.

Wondering why the story is "over 100" when they couls just as easily say "107". Does "over 100" sounds more impressive?

The list of countries that signed the treaty is here:

http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-solution/the-treaty/?id=84
gogogo at 11:11 AM JST - 4th December

Japan was against this 2 years ago, they said it was the only way to stop invading forces, I wonder what changed their minds.
soldave at 11:22 AM JST - 4th December

gogogo - maybe support for a UNSC seat?
JOKERXJOKER at 11:32 AM JST - 4th December

although major producers such as the United States, China and Russia were not among them.

What the difference then...???
ai_sumo at 11:44 AM JST - 4th December

Objective of this pact is mainly for the coward war-losers,but not for the World leaders!(like Russia,China and the U.S).after all,japan is small.
WilliB at 12:03 PM JST - 4th December

Why not simply get it over with and ban all weapons? Even better, ban all wars. While they are at it, they can also ban terrorism, crime, poverty and disease. Ban unhappiness too.

Gee, why didn´t anyone think of this before? Geniuses...
smithinjapan at 12:33 PM JST - 4th December

Big surprise the US doesn't want to ban the weapons; it might put Martin Lockheed in some financial difficulties, and as such the government officials with their hands in the weapons trade business. Who cares that it's 90% + civilians being killed/maimed by the bomblets? It's not in the US, Russia, or China that these countries use them, so who cares, right? Maybe they should start testing them domestically in farmlands, etc. and see how quickly Americans/Russians/Chinese start putting up their remaining hands to object to the weapons. These are not needed for 'defense', and defending these weapons is absurd.
ai_sumo at 12:57 PM JST - 4th December

It makes me laugh to see people talking about banning weapons on earth,WHEN EVERYBODY is stocking up their weapons in SPACE.Next one is not from earth but it is from MOON or MARS or other part of Galaxy.I can't wait to see the STARWAR live.It's SHOWTIME. :-)
Conrad at 02:27 PM JST - 4th December

In the end, all weapons have the same purpose and everybody seems to be against them until the time they really need to use them. Cluster bombs are wonderful for destroying runways very quickly.
dennis0bauer at 03:32 PM JST - 4th December

with those who make the most weapons (russia, china, US) not signing this treaty will have not much value
bagofrom at 02:10 AM JST - 5th December

the use of clusterbombs is terrorism, although the aim is another, the victims is civilians
JohnBecker at 02:12 AM JST - 5th December

We don't need fewer cluster bombs. We need fewer dud cluster bombs.
BlackFlag at 02:43 AM JST - 5th December

We don't need fewer cluster bombs. We need fewer dud cluster bombs.

no, we need fewer cluster bombs
Bhiza at 09:41 PM JST - 5th December

what's the point of the treaty if the U.S, China, and Russia do not sign? These countries are basically the reason why the treaty was thought up in the first place.