Here
and
Now

opinions

Smart weapons, dumb armies

12 Comments

Weapons of war are designed to kill people. That is the unpleasant truth. It is true of guns, bombs, artillery shells, grenades, IEDs … you name it.

No one wants to go to war. No one wants to kill or be killed. But there are times – whether it is in defending a nation, pursuing a terrorist organization, or stopping a humanitarian catastrophe – when the use of force is essential and justified. And fundamentally, the use of force means killing those who are the perpetrators, those who stand in the way of the goal – “the enemies” – until they yield. There may be differences of opinion over specific cases as to when the use of force is justified – but the concept that there are such times is beyond dispute.

Once that fateful decision is made to enter a conflict, the goal is to win. Armies seek to apply such force, with such strength, as to kill the enemy as quickly as possible, and to avoid loss of life on one’s own side. The sooner the conflict is over, the better for both sides.

That is why nations have always sought to have the best weapons, the best-trained personnel, and the greatest numbers of forces, when preparing for or entering a conflict. From bows and arrows to guns, guns to cannons, cannons to artillery, ground combat to air, air to space … nations press for advantage in order to win.

All of the above may sound quite obvious. But it is important to remember this context when considering the question of banning cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are weapons of war. They are designed to kill people. And they are designed to kill a lot of people on a battlefield in a short space of time. They are designed to help an army win a ground battle, which, after all, is the objective.

To repeat – no one goes lightly into a war. But if one is in a war, the objective is to win as quickly and decisively as possible. If cluster munitions, or laser-guided artillery or cruise missiles are required for that outcome, armies will use them. And it makes no sense to hold back from using a weapon that will help win, and one which the other side might deploy anyway.

But surely, one will argue, when there are bans on other weapons, such as chemical weapons, why are there no bans on cluster munitions? The answer is that humanity decided a century ago that chemical weapons are different – so inhuman that they should be banned. And even so, there are stockpiles and, as we have seen in Syria and Iraq, such weapons are still sometimes used.

Cluster munitions are more like conventional bombs or grenades in their effect, rather than chemical weapons. Instead of asking why chemical weapons are banned and not cluster munitions, the question should be, if cluster bombs are banned, why not ban all conventional weapons? Why not hand grenades? Why not machine guns? Why not bombs altogether? The answer is obvious: weapons are needed to win conflicts.

The real issue with cluster munitions is not their use in conflicts but rather their potential impact on civilian populations once a conflict has ended. Unexploded munitions can pose a serious risk long after a conflict is over.

One solution lies not in banning cluster munitions, but in militaries adopting the best technologies and the best practices – everything from improving the technology of cluster munitions themselves, to exercising greater precision in their use, and developing a capacity to “clean-up” after a conflict is over.

Self-deactivating cluster munitions already form parts of national military arsenals. These “smart” cluster munitions are much more expensive than “dumb” ones – but they help to mitigate the problem of unexploded ordnance. Nations might choose to use traditional cluster munitions in a confined battle space, but self-deactivating ones in areas closer to population centers.

Existing international law already gives strong guidance to nations to act in this way. Armies are already obliged not to target civilians deliberately, and to avoid civilian casualties to the extent possible. And armies are urged to exercise “proportionality” in the use of force. These requirements would already dictate more precision in the use of cluster munitions, and the use of self-deactivating weapons when there is a greater risk to civilians.

The logic of the call to ban cluster munitions is emotional. We see pictures of children who have been killed or maimed by an unexploded bomb and believe we just have to stop that from happening. The goal should not be to ban these weapons, but instead to put pressure on militaries to use them responsibly.

© The Mark News

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

12 Comments
Login to comment

What makes the situation worse is that arms sales are HUGE business:

The three largest defense companies in the world are all United States companies. With a combined total revenue in 2001 of $100 billion and employing 400,000 people, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are three powerhouses of American business. Their combined revenues account for 1% of the United States' $10 trillion GDP.[ii] Each company is on each of the Fortune lists: America’s Most Admired Companies, Global Most Admired Companies, Fortune 500 and Global 500.[iii] Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are also the three top arms-producing companies in the world.

http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297a/U.S.%20Defense%20Industry%20and%20Arms%20Sales.htm

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"No one wants to go to war." What about the US? It is good for the weapons industry. Politicians, including US politicians have been known to fabricate reasons for a war.

"The sooner the conflict is over, the better for both sides." Yet America seems to want endless wars.

"But surely, one will argue, when there are bans on other weapons, such as chemical weapons, why are there no bans on cluster munitions? The answer is that humanity decided a century ago that chemical weapons are different – so inhuman that they should be banned." The US used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Napalm, as shown recently in a Facebook photo, is a chemical weapon and Agent Orange killed mopre than just trees. Most of humanity wants to ban cluster bombs and landmines, but the inhumanity of the US military-industrial complex continues to prevent this.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

By the 'logic' being advanced, carpet bombing a city would also be a permitted tactic of war. The reality is that even the 'smart' (self deactivating) cluster munitions result in large quantities of unexploded, but ready to explode in anyone's hands (or at their feet) small bombs left over to kill and maim civilians both during the war, and long after the war. After all, it is the failure of the 'submunition' to explode when designed to that creates these large, unmapped, minefields that are the legacy of cluster bombs. Just as it is a war crime to carpet bomb cities (well, unless you have the clout to make it impossible to bring you to trial for the crime), it should be a war crime (though, again, the power to avoid official censure will grant certain nations/militaries immunity) to deploy cluster munitions (and mines) due to the high toll of casualties they inflict on the civilian population.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The logic of the call to ban cluster munitions is emotional.

Are Volker and his fellow ghouls capable of emotion?

'Smart weapons:' more Warspeak BS from the marketers of the macabre who brought you 'air support' for bombing; 'neutralise' for murder; and 'collateral damage' for when your air support has neutralised a bunch of women and children.

Foxtrot Oscar!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The headline "Smart weapons, dumb armies" is awfully similar to "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Of course armies are the ones using the weapons. Of course people are the ones using the guns. They're tools. That's their purpose. The question is whether or not we trust said armies or people with these weapons. You ask for more pressure for these weapons to be used responsibly, but offer no suggestions on how these can be further legislated or enforced. "Armies are already obliged not to target civilians deliberately", yet these civilians are still being killed, are they not? If the other side of the argument is emotional nonsense, please include statistics that demonstrate how little this affects civilians and how greatly this affects military prowess.

Instead of asking why chemical weapons are banned and not cluster munitions, the question should be, if cluster bombs are banned, why not ban all conventional weapons? Why not hand grenades? Why not machine guns? Why not bombs altogether?

Slippery slope.

I have little personal stake in the matter, but I couldn't help but comment after reading the high school level rhetoric going on in this article. I mean no personal disrespect to Mr. Volker himself -- his credentials certainly give him authority on these topic -- but the rhetoric in this article is downright obtuse, no matter how valid the overall argument may be. I'm sure Arizona State University has some rhetoric classes Mr. Volker could take.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

rabblerouzer,

The headline "Smart weapons, dumb armies" is awfully similar to "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Good point.

The most highly decorated officer in the US forces, Smedley Butler had it right:

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

You can read the rest here:

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"No one wants to go to war."

The US government loves going to war. It does it relentlessly.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The US government loves going to war. It does it relentlessly.

Sad but true. Gotta justify that massive military. The longer it sits around doing nothing, the more people are going to question the money spent on it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"The three largest defense companies in the world are all United States companies."

The customers of the aerospace firms you mention tend to be wealthy and peaceful countries like Norway, Singapore, Canada, etc., and the hardware tends not to see a lot of battlefield action.

Almost every time I see ISIS soldiers and other savages about to behead innocent villagers, they're carrying ak-47s and other Eastern Bloc weaponry. Assad's military has long been supplied by the Soviet Union, and now Russia.

Take away all the Soviet gear, and the world would be a much more peaceful place. Take away US hardware, and it would only be a bit more peaceful.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No one wants to go to war.

This could only be said by someone who hasn't lived in the US for the last couple decades. A lot of Americans enjoy a good war. Drop a really big bomb that makes a really big boom, get to see on the news that the mean ole' Emmanuel Goldstein du jour has finally been killed, and it gives a lot of Americans a surge. In their pants.

JeffLeeSEP. 13, 2016 - 06:21PM JST Take away all the Soviet gear, and the world would be a much more peaceful place. Take away US hardware, and it would only be a bit more peaceful.

You do realize there are innocent children in Pakistan who have been taught to hate sunny days because those are the days that an American Predator drone might be flying overhead, which you can hear but you often can't see, and which often kill people who have nothing to do with terrorism, right? You might have a more nuanced understanding about how US military contractors affect the world if you don't only measure the impact of America's enemies.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Destroy the means to resist - destroy the will to resist - the way to win

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The customers of the aerospace firms you mention tend to be wealthy and peaceful countries like Norway, Singapore, Canada, etc., and the hardware tends not to see a lot of battlefield action.

Do you have any data on that? It's difficult to find clear information. But, for example, I find one source that says Norway imported $18 million of arms in 2014. Other sources tell me that US firms export 1000 times that amount in military goods.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites