Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
In Defense of Cluster Munitions
This weekend's news that forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi are firing cluster munitions into built-up areas -- reported by C.J. Chivers and Bryan Denton in both the New York Times and on Chivers's blog -- has generated outrage, and it is easy to understand why.
Cluster munitions are nasty, nasty weapons. One of the reasons they are so nasty is that they rarely work as intended. The M-26, to use but one example, has an official "dud rate" of 5%, but often the dud rate is higher. What that means is that cluster munitions produce a lot of unexploded ordinance (UXO). In Afghanistan, in early 2002, the U.S. Air Force dropped cluster munitions on a position my infantry company was later asked to clear. The UXO from those cluster munitions honestly presented a bigger threat to the safety and welfare of the men in my platoon than the Taliban or al-Qaeda. You can imagine what the effect of this UXO is like in more heavily populated area. As a civilian researcher, I have seen the effect of cluster munitions used during the 2006 war in southern Lebanon, where hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been either maimed and killed by cluster munitions in the past five years. Little kids go walking through the woods, just as I once did, and pick up the shiny metal object on the ground, just as I would have done as an eight-year old. The consequences for picking up a shiny object off the ground in southern Lebanon, though, are more severe than they are in eastern Tennessee.
For these reasons, I have never understood the logic behind using cluster munitions in offensive operations -- especially in built-up areas. The U.S. military, we should all remember, used cluster munitions in the offensive on Baghdad in 2003, and several U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians were killed from the leftover UXO.
At the same time, though, I understand why the United States is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions -- just as I understand why the United States is not a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty on land mines. First off, cluster munitions are just that -- munitions. And any weapon or munition, depending on how it is used, can present a threat to civilians. Most of these people in Bryan's photographs, for example, were killed in nasty, gruesome ways by pretty "vanilla" weapons and munitions. (Also, we're going to rid ourselves of cluster munitions but keep massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons?)
Second, cluster munitions have their uses in combat. In defensive, conventional warfare -- such as the kind of warfare the United States and its Korean allies prepare for daily on the Korean Peninsula -- cluster munitions and land mines would be terribly useful. I certainly would not want to take either weapon system off the table for commanders there. (Plus, cluster munitions are getting smarter.)
Finally, it strikes me that most of the major powers that have signed both the CCM and the Ottawa Treaty are powers that have grown accustomed, either consciously or unconsciously, to living under the U.S. security umbrella. In the same way some of these powers have neglected to buy enough bombs for a sustained campaign in Libya and have not invested in the kinds of close air support platforms that have once again proven their use in combat, it's safe to righteously swear off both cluster munitions and land mines when you know that your security guarantor has not. That's cynical of me to think that, I know, but no more cynical than goading your allies into a war for which you know your own military is unprepared.
One last note: I know a lot of well-intentioned, decidedly non-cynical campaigners believe we should ban these weapons outright, and my mind on this subject is open to be changed. So please leave any comments or counter-arguments in the section below. If I see a particularly thoughtful counterargument -- or argument in support of my thesis -- I will post it.
Update: Aaron Ellis makes a good point here about how "unusual" weapons (like cross-bows, once upon a time) are often the ones least likely to earn approbation, while reader Andrea (no last name) has thus far crafted the most thoughtful counterargument.
Update II: The ever-cranky Welsh scrum-half @InkSptsGulliver provides a link to this article by Charli Carpenter on why some weapons get banned and others do not.
Shorter AM?: War is immoral
Shorter AM?: War is immoral anyway
The argument that the US
The argument that the US requires controversial weapons, like cluster munitions or land mines, for such extreme cases like the defense of South Korea against an invasion from the North does have some merit. However, this argument would be much more convincing, if the US military had constricted the use of such weapons to such worst cases scenarios in the past. You yourself provide two examples of the use of cluster munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's doubtful - as you say - whether the use of cluster munitions in those two conflicts was necessary.
So, even though there is an argument to be made for keeping cluster munitions in order to defend South Korea, the US cannot credibly rely on this argument to justify its stockpile of such weapons, since it used cluster munitions in other "less dramatic" situations as well.
Yes, if only we could
Yes, if only we could eliminate the messiness of war by, oh, simulating war and telling people to report to disintegration chambers upon notification that their section of the city was hit. As Abu M notes, the reason the US military uses cluster munitions (and wow, hate the stupid notes in the news articles about Libyan use of cluster "bombs" when they don't have an air force) and mines is because THEY WORK. The concept of military operations is to finish the job quickly with the optimal amount of resources spent and minimal casualties, and ideally, within the laws of warfare.
The US military isn't the only one that still uses cluster munitions and mines. Every major country that has an aggressive neighbor or historical enemy is still manufacturing them and stockpiling them. So yes, the US can in fact justify its stockpile of weapons by the Korean peninsula scenario or until the entire world lays down its arms and vows world peace as an objective.
If multinational companies
If multinational companies can pump millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico with impunity, why not let governments litter the world's most unstable stretches of sand with submunitions?
Every time I have been in a
Every time I have been in a situation where cluster munitions were available, the ROE was highly restrictive on their use. Usually, they were to be used as a FPF-type defensive weapon on a large scale and required the approval of a GO to be employed. Otherwise Gator and FASCAM were strictly off limits. In the cases of use in Iraq, I would need to see the tactical situation, but I do find it strange the way they were employed in such a manner as described in the story.
It's a bit of a stretch to
It's a bit of a stretch to compare banning nuclear weapons with banning landmines or cluster bombs. For one thing, the US is very much interested in reducing nuclear stockpiles, so it isn't like this argument about military necessity is strictly true (although I understand most nukes that are destroyed are older, less reliable weapons anyway).
Secondly, a nuclear weapon is about last-ditch defence of the nation. Having cluster bombs is never going to decide the outcome of a war in Korea. I don't think the two are even in the same class. Better to compare cluster bombs to mustard gas or biological weapons.
As an aside, is there really a tactical use for minefields in the era of precision guided munitions? Where are these vast tank armies that are attacking US positions?
Thanks for posting your thoughts.
The horrendous nature of the
The horrendous nature of the weapon--it kills the innocents long after the delivery--becomes a moral issue. Probably the greatest aspect of this is that the manufacture is done in the USA and then the weapons are sold/provided to others, Israel in particular. Then the use of the weapon, wisely or otherwise, is lost upon the control of the USA whether or not we approve or disapprove. The sale of all weapons, inclusive of land mines and cluster bombs, given the huge extent of those sales on the international stage, is a serious morality problem that we face.
I was reading Beatrice
I was reading Beatrice Heuser's book 'The Evolution of Strategy' recently, and she makes the point that it isn't the most deadly weapons in war that provoke people emotionally but the most unusual.
"No matter how few deaths were caused in total, by, say, Native American practices in warfare relative to the settlers’ use of shotguns, or by the francs tireurs on the French side of the Franco-Prussian War relative to the massive number of casualties caused in battle by the needle-point gun or by gas in the First World War compared with the machine gun, it was scalping, francs tireurs and gas that were homed in on as particularly barbaric, not the objectively greater lethality of other weapons and practices."
I'd imagine that applies to cluster bombs too, which, as you say, aren't as deadly to civilians as any other kind of munitions.
I don't know about cluster
I don't know about cluster munitions. But mines are cheap and efficient defensive weapons. I will sleep better knowing that my country's army has them and they may be used if necessary.
Yes I know that they create persistent problem years after being used - but its better to have mined, independent country that being free from mines but under foreign power.
A few thoughts on
A few thoughts on indiscriminate weapons (Cluster Munitions/Landmines)
With regards to your first point, I agree that all munitions can be a threat to civilian populations, depending on their use, but few munitions pose a GREATER threat to a civilian populations than indiscriminate weapons. Cluster bombs and landmines are just such weapons, munitions which pose a great threat to civilian populations long after active conflict. Do all weapons or munitions have the same potential? Few weapons are as deadly to children or local residents of conflict zones as legacy UXO in the forms of cluster munitions and landmines. Additionally, the wounds that these types of weapons inflict are extremely egregious, especially in the case of children who often are the victims of landmines or undetonated bomblets. The trauma of the amputations children suffer is often revisited due to additional surgeries required over their young lifetime because of continued bone growth despite their injuries. Do “vanilla” weapons pose an equivalent challenge to their victims? As an addendum to your first point and in regards to nuclear weapons - there are active efforts by the US in partnership with other nations to actively reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons are not as common as cluster munitions (need reference) or landmines. Additionally the technology associated with guidance, targeting and use of nuclear weapons is more advanced than those of cluster munitions and landmines, due to the significantly destructive nature of these weapons. Finally, the disarming and disposal of cluster munitions and landmines offers far fewer challenges in comparison to nuclear arms.
The argument that these munitions are necessary on the Korean Peninsula for defense is overstated. In 2002 the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation prepared a report regarding the myths vs. realities of the use of landmines on the Korean Peninsula http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html and noted that “US military officers conceded that the existing barrier will be an impediment to our counter-attack”. Just as you stated previously, UXO is as much a danger to our own forces as to those of the enemy and in this case could limit any ground counteroffensive, should such a tactic become necessary. I imagine cluster munitions pose a similar problem.
The days of the US security umbrella are most likely in decline due to increasing domestic debt levels, declining motivation by the US public to get involved in foreign conflict that do not have direct national interest and fatigue with the ongoing long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I imagine that the future of US conflict is going to become much more discriminating and this is clear with the (well-deserved) reticence to become involved in the conflict in Libya. Additionally, with regards to how warfare is conducted, dumb weapons such as cluster munitions and landmines are less likely to serve as large a role precisely because they pose such a risk to civilian populations. With the advent of COIN driven operations and advancing technologies there is less use for such hideously destructive and generally ineffective (“Under ideal non-combat test-conditions it appears that the lowest failure rate is 5-percent. This would result, on average for each cluster bomb deployed, in over 22 unexploded potentially lethal sub-munitions spread over an area of 1–3 football fields (McGrath 2000, p. 29). (The number of unexploded submunitions varies from one bomb to another as bombs contain from 200 to 700—and sometimes more—submunitions.) Of course, combat conditions are less than ideal and one would expect higher failure rates, as, indeed, appears to be the case (McGrath 2000, pp. 27–29). A brief consideration of civilian and friendly combatant casualties attributable to these unexploded submunitions illustrates the problem of temporal indiscriminateness.” [SOURCE:Temporal Indiscriminateness: The Case of Cluster Bombs AUTHOR: T. A. Cavanaugh] )
I think that the comparing
I think that the comparing nuclear weapons with cluster munitions and mines is a false equivalency for three reasons:
1) As Visitor 9:47 pointed out, nuclear weapons are considered a last resort in any situation, but this is not true in the case of cluster munitions.
2) Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. Cluster Munitions and mines do not. I don't think that any nation has backed down from a conflict simply because of the threat of cluster munitions and mines.
3)Cluster munitions and mines are highly ineffective. No one has ever won a war using only cluster munitions and mines as primary weapons. For the effectiveness of nuclear weapons see WWII Japan.
Additionally, there is a high moral and monetary cost associated with cluster munitions and mines. Monetarily, you have to spend money first deploying them and then removing them, if you need to stage combat in the same region later on (of course you can use them strategically, placing them in regions where you will not stage combat but wars are highly unpredictable). Morally, these weapons are known to have devastating impacts on local populations. They main and kill civilians, are an obstacle to the return of refugees and negatively impact the economic recovery of a country because they can render potentially productive regions useless. If you are planning on winning the hearts and minds of the invaded population, these weapons are not your best friends. It doesn't matter if you use them in built up areas or not. Sooner or later if any civilian is killed or injured, there is going to be outrage. Unless cluster munitions can actively distinguish between civilians and personnel from the armed forces, the cost of these weapons is going to be higher than their effectiveness.
I think that the comparing
I think that the comparing nuclear weapons with cluster munitions and mines is a false equivalency for three reasons:
1) As Visitor 9:47 pointed out, nuclear weapons are considered a last resort in any situation, but this is not true in the case of cluster munitions.
2) Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. Cluster Munitions and mines do not. I don't think that any nation has backed down from a conflict simply because of the threat of cluster munitions and mines.
3)Cluster munitions and mines are highly ineffective. No one has ever won a war using only cluster munitions and mines as primary weapons. For the effectiveness of nuclear weapons see WWII Japan.
Additionally, there is a high moral and monetary cost associated with cluster munitions and mines. Monetarily, you have to spend money first deploying them and then removing them, if you need to stage combat in the same region later on (of course you can use them strategically, placing them in regions where you will not stage combat but wars are highly unpredictable). Morally, these weapons are known to have devastating impacts on local populations. They main and kill civilians, are an obstacle to the return of refugees and negatively impact the economic recovery of a country because they can render potentially productive regions useless. If you are planning on winning the hearts and minds of the invaded population, these weapons are not your best friends. It doesn't matter if you use them in built up areas or not. Sooner or later if any civilian is killed or injured, there is going to be outrage. Unless cluster munitions can actively distinguish between civilians and personnel from the armed forces, the cost of these weapons is going to be higher than their effectiveness.
I think that the comparing
I think that the comparing nuclear weapons with cluster munitions and mines is a false equivalency for three reasons:
1) As Visitor 9:47 pointed out, nuclear weapons are considered a last resort in any situation, but this is not true in the case of cluster munitions.
2) Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. Cluster Munitions and mines do not. I don't think that any nation has backed down from a conflict simply because of the threat of cluster munitions and mines.
3)Cluster munitions and mines are highly ineffective. No one has ever won a war using only cluster munitions and mines as primary weapons. For the effectiveness of nuclear weapons see WWII Japan.
Additionally, there is a high moral and monetary cost associated with cluster munitions and mines. Monetarily, you have to spend money first deploying them and then removing them, if you need to stage combat in the same region later on (of course you can use them strategically, placing them in regions where you will not stage combat but wars are highly unpredictable). Morally, these weapons are known to have devastating impacts on local populations. They main and kill civilians, are an obstacle to the return of refugees and negatively impact the economic recovery of a country because they can render potentially productive regions useless. If you are planning on winning the hearts and minds of the invaded population, these weapons are not your best friends. It doesn't matter if you use them in built up areas or not. Sooner or later if any civilian is killed or injured, there is going to be outrage. Unless cluster munitions can actively distinguish between civilians and personnel from the armed forces, the cost of these weapons is going to be higher than their effectiveness.
"If multinational companies
"If multinational companies can pump millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico with impunity,"
With impunity? They have coughed up billions, and there are still hundreds of lawsuits in the works. Thanks for the idiotic false analogy, though.
"Cluster munitions and mines
"Cluster munitions and mines are highly ineffective. No one has ever won a war using only cluster munitions and mines as primary weapons."
Well gosh, by that standard ALL weapons are "ineffective", because no one has ever won a war using only one weapon as a primary weapon.
Since cluster bombs and mines are not intended to be "primary weapons", this criticism falls flat on its face. They are highly effective in their intended roles.
mines and bombs are inanimate
mines and bombs are inanimate pieces of metal, wire and gunpowder, it is an exercise in futility to assign them any moral value (as it would be to assign war itself any moral value). a cluster bomb is no more immoral than a hellfire missile and land mines are no more immoral than concertina wire, the morality is imbued by the intent of the person implementing them.
as for the nuclear argument vis-a-vis cluster bombs and land mines, of course there is not going to be a one to one relationship. but its an analogy and as such is used for rhetorical purposes (as far as i could infer). just as the implications behind using cluster bombs and land mines resonate in the conscience less, so their affects on their intended target resonate less. doesn't mean that a well laid mine field or well placed cluster bomb couldn't have proportionate 'determent' as the threat of nuclear weapons.
All moral issues aside (if
All moral issues aside (if one can, in fact, place them aside in this debate), it is really nice to think that we will always have precision-guided weapons in our stockpile, negating the need for any "dumb" munitions, but let's be realistic: our dominance by GPS will not last in the event of a conflict with a major power. This is far from being THE reason to keep cluster munitions/mines in our stockpile but to use precision-guided weapons as the key to eradicating mines/cluster munitions is a little short-sighted.
The difference between
The difference between cluster bombs/landmines and "other" weapons (everything from small arms up to JDAMs and MOABs) is intentionality. This is useful for explaining why chemical and biological weapons are met with round condemnation (despite not being that deadly).
Weapons that are both persistent and uncontrollable after deployment are viewed entirely different as those that do not persist. Chemical weapons are seen as inhumane because large clouds of toxic gas move according to the whims of the wind, not the intentions of the person using them as a weapon. Biological weapons spread themselves with little regard for anyone's OPORD.
Furthermore, when one aims a rifle, programs a Tomahawk's flight path, or drops a JDAM from a bomb bay, there is specific and discrete intention behind the act. That such operations may harm/maim/kill civilians due to an errant bomb or rifle shot is part of the calculus that leads to the go/no go decision making. This is the same thing that is discussed constantly with regard to whether Predator strikes are "worth it." In any case, errors attendant to these kinetic operations happen, have consequences, and are dealt with (or nothing goes wrong and they work according to plan).
Any munition that persists in the environment and disburses randomly (e.g., cluster bombs that are intended to distribute their submunitions randomly within a dispersal area) have fundamentally incalculable consequences (that tend to disproportionately affect civilians). Those consequences only multiply when the munitions persist for years.
Petulant Skeptic is right.
Petulant Skeptic is right. You can build on this concept by seeing what makes for legal weaponry in civilian use and what does not. If someone breaks into my home and threatens me, in the US it's usually ok to defend yourself and your home with lethal force. It is almost always illegal to use a spring-gun or some other form of lethal booby trap device.
@JB JB, if in order to
@JB
JB, if in order to protect you own life it became necessary to shoot 50 children, would you do it?
Cluster weapons and mines are
Cluster weapons and mines are just a few of the many instruments in our arsenal. Many other nations possessing such an arsenal would happily use it to oppress others. Innocents have suffered when we have used this arsenal, but such injuries are the logical consequence of those who shield themselves among indigenous populations. (Read Mao Tse-tung's "On Guerilla Warfare" and you will see that this tactic is not accidental.)
I have studied war for more than a half-century. I have trained for it and participated in it. Thus, I can say the following with authority. No one hates wars more than those who must fight them. We equip ourselves with the best and most deadly weapons we can devise so that we don't have to use them. We prefer to frighten our enemies rather than engage them. Thus, we train assiduously for war to frighten anyone who would dare to attack us. I believe that the only path to peace is through strength, and that those who deny this are victims.
Those who believe as I believe are in a minority. Our nation is vastly outnumbered by others led by people who hate us because we have demonstrated throughout history that we will not tolerate their bullying and persecuting others. Thus, we have denied them the freedom to inflict themselves on their neighbors.
Some have accussed us of using our armed forces to build an empire, but where is it? Or, that we have used them to steal the treasures of other nations, such as oil when, in fact, we have reduced our dependence on nations where we are engaged in combat by purchasing it elsewhere.
Thank God, we are who we are, and that we hold the biggest stick.
Andrew, It depends on the
Andrew,
It depends on the type of war that you want to fight. It was a mistake to have dropped Cluster Bombs in Afghanistan, it was not that kind of war.
Then Afghanistan should not have happened and neither should have Iraq.
For me, war should be the last ditch effort. If you go to war then it should be total war. War is only for the defense of the home land. Unfortunately, I do not get to make that judgment someone else does. Lately it is fashionable to fight humanitarian wars or wars on terror. When that happens, war becomes something that is not feared. People start to make judgment calls on how wars should be fought. Start at the American Revolution, and war has become more humane and at the same time more frequent. We use to fight wars to end all wars. For some reason the US does not use that slogan anymore, it just limits the tools.
Does it make sense to make war more humane so we can fight more wars? We have humane bullets and friendly fire.
We got rid of muster and nerve gas. Each generation has a choice in what should be used in war.
Cluster munitions have there place if your going to be serious about protecting your soil. If you are going to play the "good" war game, then ban Cluster Bombs so the other people agree not to use them either.
People that tend to limit warfare are also the type of people that think humanitarian wars are OK.
To me there is nothing more scary than war becoming an endless number of police actions. That is when war becomes business and part of network cable programing.
@Jack Durish, who has
@Jack Durish, who has "studied war for half a century". You said: "I believe the only path to peace is through strength". I think you might be well-advised to go and re-read Sun Tzu (specifically the chapters on "Potential Energy" and "Forms and Dispositions")... I'm assuming you've already read it (as you've evidently ticked off Mao) but you could do well to mull over his extensive use of water metaphors and discussion of formlessness, of following the path of least resistance. The assertion that a war is won by the "strong rock" is not, I think, a theory he would subscribe to. Careful then, I would advise, when you use Chinese military theorists (because let's face it, every major Chinese military text from "On Guerrilla Warfare" to "Unrestricted Warfare" are really just appendices to the "AOW") to back up such a point. (I better be careful here, I'd hate to get into a debate about the "Dao").
@Everyone. Can someone please tell me the tactical advantage of dropping cluster bombs? I don't have an air forcey, flying over a battlespace at a million miles an hour mind-set and what little practical experience I have of UXOs usually portrays them in a negative light. Is the desired end-state of dropping cluster bombs a minefield of bomblets or is it to have a larger surface area of bombed-out ground? If the desired end-state is the latter why wouldn't you just drop a big bomb with a big blast radius instead of 1.) having to worry about 100s of tiny little UXOs when the Pashto Mum's Association conga line and Captain Exum's patrol stomps through the next day and 2.) lose the information war when the Human Rights Watch comes knocking at your door?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww&feature=related
Arc Light?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_sxOx6lms
Spooky?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOrpyO0z48&feature=related
Mission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--VDX2tfv8c&feature=related
Oops. FUBAR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0
Gulf of Won-kin. Who?
Break Glass only in case of emergency.
Note: I am also aware that
Note: I am also aware that the Chinese character Sun Tzu uses (which John Minford translates as "Potential Energy") does literally derive from the characters "cultivate"/"mushroom" and "muscle"/"strength" to formulate a literal meaning of "to cultivate strength". You will find though that "energy" or "momentum" is a much better better contextual translation than "strength".
Eg: "A rushing torrent carries boulders, such is the energy of its momentum" (pg.27, chapter V, Minford translation).
Please refer to the Daoist philosophy of Wu Wei to better guage what Sun Tzu was talking about when it came to harnessing potential energy. "Using your enemy's strength against him", "non-action to secure victory"... anyone with a jiu-jitsu background will understand what it means to "not use strength to win".
OK hotshot scholars of
OK hotshot scholars of ancient Greek, Arabic, and now doubt closet Talmud readers...please figure out the EU order of Battle for Libya based on Guardian article below - on how the people who are bombing Ka-Daffy-Duck, their A- plan below...Is that like the Special Olympics A-Team? Anyway they are waiting UN approval so....
aregoingtoestablishaUNapprovedEUledforceforHumanitarianreasonstosecureseaandlandcorridorsnothingtodowithoilpleaseMrKaDaffyeventhoughweapprovedthemissiontokindasortamaybemaybenotremoveyoufrompowerpleaseleavewithoutanymoreunpleasntnesssowecanputyouintheHaguepleaseourdelicateEUconstitutionscan'tbearthestrainwearecallingittheA-planwhichmeanswestartindeficitIthinkmaybeheresourorderofBattleRubiksfuckingcubedisassembledofcourse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/18/libya-conflict-eu-deployment...
please place the above EU plan into your Google EU International Community Translator, after saying it three times fast.
BTW I know who the Repubs can nominate to defeat Obama: Ka-Daffy. He's more experienced, better at commerce, and a winner. He's also incontrovertibly Muslim and a flamboyant Dictator, so Libs can vote for him too.
Yay, more moral dancing on
Yay, more moral dancing on the heads of pins.
Cluster munitions are a tool which can be used for good or bad. Nothing more, nothing less.
Congratulations! Your article
Congratulations! Your article has been featured on the Barometer webpage this week.
Barometer is an editorial guide to the global blogosphere. Basically, we scour the blogosphere on a daily basis for news, analysis and commentary on current events, select the most informative and insightful pieces and feature them on our webpage twice a week. In doing so, we aim to bring the best of the blogosphere to the widest possible audience, raise the profile of bloggers with talent and integrity, and expose our readers to compelling, independent voices from around the world.
You can see how your piece has been featured here:
http://www.barometerintel.com/category/international/
www.barometerintel.com
Andrea did a pretty good job
Andrea did a pretty good job covering her points so I will try not to overlap too much.
Morally, nuclear weapons are also highly problematic. Practically, though, they are valuable mainly because nobody can use them. I see us spending a lot of time in front of the mirror the moment one is used against us in a second strike.
Even if North Korea as an entire nation wasn't suffering from malnutrition, etc. we would still outspend the rest of the world on combat power. If we decide we want to, we will do just fine against North Korea without them. It seems likely that the operative reason for refusing to sign the relevant treaties is the desire to protect our fragile machismo.
As others have noted, the moral problem with landmines and cluster munitions is their inherent inaccuracy and their inherent tendency to sit around armed after/in between when they are of military utility. We argue that things like cluster munitions and landmines "would be really useful" in hypothetical conflicts against the pathetic Cold War remnants we call our enemies when other people's kids are getting killed by them right now. Being in the handful of halfway politically developed states not to ban these weapons is the opposite of leadership.
Landmines and cluster munitions (and depleted uranium) are luxuries we can afford to forego for the sake of leading the path to a better world. We can retain the "right" to use them, and they might occasionally save a few American lives, but the attitude that rationalizes keeping them *just in case* is the kind of attitude that makes life a little less worth living.
Vous avez de bons points il,
Vous avez de bons points il, c'est pourquoi j'aime toujours verifier votre blog, Il semble que vous etes un expert dans ce domaine. maintenir le bon travail, Mon ami recommander votre blog.
Mon francais n'est pas tres bon, je suis de l'Allemagne.
Mon blog:
organisme rachat credit et Rachat de credit refusé
Do you know your laptop
Do you know your laptop battery?When given this question to any user of the laptops batteries,they will get confused. This happens to me once when someone asks me about my dell battery.As you can see, before replacing the Hp Compaq battery Acer battery Apple battery IBM battery Asus battery Lenovo battery Samsung battery Sony battery and Toshiba battery,it is very important to know a little about the field again in the first place. There are several types of Canada laptop batteries that I will share in this post. The types of replacement laptop batteries: 1. Alkaline – This is a common batteries for laptop around, but only a few use this kind and the ruling on alkaline Dell Inspiron 6400 Battery,Dell 1520 battery or Dell 1525 battery will not be rechargeable. You have to shoot once to deflate. 2. Lead Acid – One of the most common use. It is durable, resistant and rechargeable, but unfortunately the Dell Latitude D800 Battery is heavy and full of lead: P. 3. Lithium-Ion – The type of HP Pavilion DV4 Battery or HP HSTNN-DB72 battery that you want to have for your laptop. The quick-charge effect is good for users moving (no need to wait a while for the battery is fully charged.) It is also environmentally friendly as well. 4. Nickel Cadmium – Ni-Cd is one of the oldest types and improved performance of rechargeable acer aspire 5520 series battery, but has a serious problem. After prolonged use (several years),acer aspire 5520G battery will be affected by the dreaded memory effect. This means that the use of battery life deteriorates over time. 5. Nickel Metal Hydride – Ni-MH is considered the successor to the Ni-Cd batteries such as acer aspire 5100 battery and acer aspire one battery, but unfortunately, the dreaded memory effect is as bad as well. However, comparison of the Ni-Cd and NiMH batteries, it lasts longer compared to its predecessor. The chances of using lithium-ion apple A1280 battery is 99% (that is if you are using the new breed of laptops). Just check the abbreviation says Lion or Li-Ion batteries in apple A1281 battery label. There are still some laptops that use Ni-MH batteries these days and you may want to check with the manufacturer if you can make an update of Ni-MH Li-Ion. The unauthorized use of Dell latitude D600 battery could lead to dire consequence. so do be very careful about this. If you have a larger budget you might want to check the SMART acer BATBL50L6 battery. It has a power management circuit and also tells the user which is the current condition of the BATBL50L6 replacement battery.
Add your comment