china and cluster bombs, white phosphorous

thanks y'all!! these are some very helpful info
btw would anyone know of any resolutions that china has signed recently in regards to those weapons, or the palestinian conflicts, or any resolutions china is attempting to push for?

I just want to say.. China ! do not sign anything that USA does not. Even if USA does, wait for it to be ratified first. UNCLOS and Kyoto is some great examples.

BTW, I'm more concern about Napalm. That stuff is cruel and one of USA most favorite aerial bomb of choice. It's illegal.. but didn't stop them from using it extensively in Iraq. Oh.. I'm sorry "it's not napalm" they changed the main ingredient to kerosene, which is worst. China should start deploying them.

mobydog said:

I just want to say.. China ! do not sign anything that USA does not. Even if USA does, wait for it to be ratified first. UNCLOS and Kyoto is some great examples.

Click to expand...

Ummm... no? I don't think the US signed the Kyoto protocol:

bd popeye said:

Yes...Why? They work and are excellent against mechanized amour. I tried to find a photo that I know of of an aircraft elevator full of cluster bombs.. this is all I could find..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Mere interest. As you say they are very effective, and that's the thing. There have been so few instances the past two decades where a major power has had to wipe out considerable formations of armor in open terrain. I guess Iraq is the only example in that respect (for the US). We had huge stacks of shell casings from dismantled cluster shells stored next to our howitzers when I was in the army (you'd be suprised how much stuff even the smallest NATO power has stockpiled). Too bad we never got to use them in exercises.

BTW, I'm more concern about Napalm. That stuff is cruel and one of USA most favorite aerial bomb of choice. It's illegal.. but didn't stop them from using it extensively in Iraq. Oh.. I'm sorry "it's not napalm" they changed the main ingredient to kerosene, which is worst. China should start deploying them.

Click to expand...

1) The US got rid of it stores of Napalm about 10 years go.

On 04 April 2001, at Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, the US military sent the last two canisters of napalm to be burned as additives at coal and natural gas plants in Texas and Louisiana. After more than two decades, the last of the nation's inventory of napalm was erased from the history books. This project has made headline news across the country. The public did not always support the project because napalm's Vietnam War legacy. Eike Hohenadl, the then disposal plant's site manager, was quoted as saying that "Napalm is a memory of a war that most Americans would like to forget. I'm glad we are at an end."

Navy budget program decreases for FY2002 included $11.1 million related to termination of the NAPALM disposal program.

Click to expand...

2) I know that the USN removed napalm from ships in the late 60s..

3) Napalm is not the favorite air launched US weapon. The JDAM is.

airsuperiority said:

also, is "china's peaceful rise" considered a policy? and also are there any official statements or protocols, conventions, that china has made/abides by that claimed they will not target foreign states or that their military developments are not directed towards any nations? this is going to be my defense line as soon as india, UK, france, or US tries to accuse us of "military assertions/aggressiveness"

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. China has never used these weapons. Those pointing the finger have or are allied with countries that have used them. So essentially they're saying someone who has them but never has used them is more guilty than those that have used them. Because if that's the logic then pay no attention to the argument that when they were used, they weren't targetted at civilians. Isn't civilian casualties as a result of collateral damage the point of this treaty? As for making military assertions/aggressiveness... again is geo-political tension worse than actually being involved in war(s)? One based on false intelligence and evidence where these very types of weapons were used. Here's how you win it. I guarantee you ANYTHING they accuse of China, they can be accused even more. Read history and don't go by their interpretation. Just like with what's happening with Egypt today. They supported a dictator in Africa for thirty years. Longer than anything they can accuse of China like they've been doing. And only until now there's unrest among the people, all of the sudden they stand with people? If that were China instead of them propping up Mubarak, you know what they would be saying? No romantic spinning of what's called serving your own interests first. If they go that direction then this is not about the ethics of cluster bombs and white phosphorous and you charge that of those who have signed the treaty. The finger-pointers are using China as an excuse for them having these weapons. That means they plan to use them on China. Why did they use them on smaller countries then if they only have them to deal with China? Is that the same excuse for nuclear weapons? They have them because China has them but in the meantime they can use them on smaller countries that don't have them? And if those that signed the treaty follow along with blaming China, then this treaty has no merit and has nothing to do with stopping the use of these weapons and only just preventing others from having them. They're okay with killing innocent children in countries they don't like. You word it exactly like that. Because what's the purpose of the treaty for? Isn't it suppose to stop the collateral damage from these weapons on civilians and especially children? But in China the deaths of civilians and maiming of children is okay? And if you really want to throw a sabot into their gears, right when the debate starts sign the treaty right off in the beginning leaving them to stew in their excuses to blame China. Why not? It is a "model UN."

Maggern said:

For white phosphorous, I think there was a controversy regarding alledged use in built-up areas by the US military in Fallujah during the re-seizure of the city from insurgents in 2004. Similarly, Israel alledgedly used WP during their invasion of Gaza last year (I think it was). The problem here is that it is sometimes used as illuminator over a battlefield, which I think is allowed. The problem is when it explodes right above some civilians, and consequently fries them (sorry for being callous)

Regarding cluster munitions, yes the recent agreement would be a huge step on the way on banning the use, and seeing how many countries signed it, it would be able to assert itself as customary law, even if the major powers refuse to sign it (but seeing as how these are major powers, they probably would still use them in the event of a real war). In the past decade, I think only Israel, Russia and Georgia have been accused of using cluster munitions, at least in built-up areas. Did the US use any in Iraq?

Click to expand...

Why is White Phosphorus allowed for illumination? You might use magnesium. Seem like some diplomats wanted to have it available to them own armies for the banned application.