Cluster Bomb Munitions - Still in the Inventory

DoD Buzz notes that there is an upcoming deadline of 1 August when an international ban on the use of cluster bomb munitions will take effect. The United States is not a party to this treaty - nor is Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, North or South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Argentina (you know, places where the potential for regional conflict still exists) - and DoD doesn't expect that to change anytime soon.

“The United States is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and is not bound by its obligations,” Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal told Military.com in a Feb. 25 e-mail. “Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility and can result in less collateral damage than unitary weapons when used in accordance with the law of armed conflict principles of discrimination and proportionality and military rules of engagement.”

In general, I don't see anything wrong with the careful operational planning and limited use of cluster munitions, white phosphorus artillery rounds, fuel-air explosive bombs, or thermobaric munitions. The challenge is ensuring that any targeting using special ordnance is focused against a clearly identified enemy force and considers minimizing collateral damage effects against noncombatants. Not every military force does that. In the case of cluster munitions, the US government cleans up its battlefield ordnance much better than other countries (Israel, Russia, etc).

Outlawing weapons doesn't change the paradigm of civilian deaths during military operations. Better training, better technology, but ideally using diplomacy instead of "kinetic operations" is really the key. I only point out this article to (once again) note the similarity between liberal hawks and conservative hawks. When it comes to use of force, they might disagree on the actual timing of a conflict, but they don't really disagree much on anything else.

Comments

[Ael]

Cluster weapons, like mines, are the gift that keeps giving. They tend to remain long after the situation where they were used is history.

Go look at Lebanon for a textbook example.

[Ian]

"In general, I don't see anything wrong with the careful operational planning and limited use of cluster munitions, white phosphorus artillery rounds..."

How about nerve gas? I'm not being sarcastic -- I think it might be a parallel case. If used in the context of careful planning and training, civilian deaths would likely be minimal. In particular, there would need to be rules in place to the effect that they should be used only in small quantities and only in a tightly controlled set of situations (e.g. clearing tunnels, basements -- nobody wants to fight in a basement).

To go the other way, why might we want the use of nerve gas to be contrary to international law?

1) Nerve gas is inhumane. Yes, that is a reason to ban it. I understand this is also a major reason why the use of WP is heavily regulated; it's pretty horrible as an antipersonnel weapon.

2) We ban weapons which cause lots of civilian deaths if they are used with anything other than extreme caution, as in the case of nerve gas. Right, the US is careful about cleaning up bomblets, but we can't expect all other armies to be equally competent, nor can we expect them to unilaterally disarm (can they afford to give the US an added advantage?). Given the choice between a world where both competent and incompetent troops have access to such weapons and a world where no one does, the latter is preferable.

So here's my question for you: do you think that there's a principled difference between using cluster weapons carefully and using nerve gas carefully?

(One other consideration: indiscriminate use of chemical weapons could provoke the use of nuclear weapons. True, but no one is going to respond to basement clearing grenades with nukes. This is not the main/only reason chemical weapons are prohibited, as evidenced by pre-Manhattan Project attempts to eliminate them)