Will NATO split over cluster bombs?

Fergus Pickering

All this stuff is too techical for me.However, in fact it's easy because the United States is, whatever the ups and downs of things, our friend, and Europe, as a political entity, isn't. In addition Malloch-Brown is a lefty fool so anything he likes we should dismiss. Fortunately MacBroon is too much of a cringing, craven coward to actually do what he wants to, which is to scuttle off from our position as anally of the US and hide his silly head in any available sand. I hope Cameron is sound on this. It's a pity our next PM isn't the sainted Boris. He is sound on this sort of thing.

Ray

It's not unlike the debate over land mines, which, when used as intended to guard military installations, and sown in clearly marked and mapped-out fields, are a valuable tool in a country's arsenal.
However, because cowboys like the Khmer Rouge and some African guerilla groups sowed them indiscriminately in order to terrorise civilians the international left clammered for them to be banned.
Result: western armed forces will be denied another tool of their trade whilst the cowboys simply resort to making their own out of old biscuit tins!

Perry

Legalism is becoming endemic in the struggle against evil – yes, I have no qualms about using that term, - and mealy-mouthed apologists make much of the ‘ooman roights’ issues.

But consider, ultimately, what rights have our military leaders and lads in combating loathsome scoundrels. Clearly the innocent, and those plagued by conscience suffer. But that, surely, is part of the gruesome strategy in the game played by totalitarian thugs, who, let’s face it, have little or nothing to lose, and are prepared to sacrifice without shame, whilst simultaneously appealing to tender hearts.

Surely there is still merit in walking softly and carrying a very big stick? Not very comforting to the peaceniks, some of whom deserve respect. But in general, a point must surely be reached where enough is enough : ‘this far, and no further’ sounds about right. And how to enforce this?

Not much hope of leadership from Mz. Prudence of Noo-Lie-Bore, the ineluctable impediment.

(And yes Fergus, I support your comments about Boris.)

Water

Smart bombs will never be made redundant, as regards fighter planes, for they ultimately increase accuracy due to their guidance systems (as for calling in backup that’s a different issue entirely). As such simply sticking to dumb bombs (due to their erratic nature) would be more have the knock on effect of causing more unwanted casualties due to their having no guidance system. Therefore it’s entirely understandable why smart bombs are employed in these undesirable circumstances.

The problem is irrefutably those varieties of smart bombs that don’t detonate when they hit terra firma for it’s the debris left behind which ultimately seems to be the point of contention. With this in mind the MoD seem justified in encouraging the use of “munitions like the M73 and M83 [and M85] which self-destruct if they don’t detonate”. As such once the bomb has reached the ground it won’t have the knock on effect of harming those which it wasn’t meant to target at points after the intended strike. Therefore the comments from Sir Michael Rose today on the times website seems justified, he states “If we are to be accepted as legitimate users of force then we must demonstrate our determination to employ that force only in the most responsible and accountable way” and (one) manifestation of responsibility in such unfortunate scenarios would be the implementation of smart bombs of the M73/M83/M85 variety for they pin point their targets and do “not pose a long-term threat [any further then those they kill on impact!] because they self-destructed if they failed to detonate” as stated by Michael Evans.

As regards the issue of “the prospect of British soldiers hauled up in court if they call in US air support which then use the wrong kind of cluster bombs” this is ludicrous beyond belief! If you give a solider the option of calling in an air strike he is wholly justified in doing so! If those upon whom the solider calls make an error in equipping the wrong type of ammunition on to their jets then the fault lays not with the man on the ground but the people who certified the use of those types of smart bomb which don’t self destruct if they have failed to detonate.

This said the whole article seems to give much importance to the ‘dumb’ and ‘smart’ varieties of bombs though it is a simple case of cluster bombs per se which do not incinerate on impact that needs to be addressed.

This said civilian casualties will always happen when you employ the use of bombs in times of war where there are civilians to be found. Maybe more stringent constraints need to be placed on when such bombs can be used as opposed to outlawing their use. For regardless of whether you send in a smart bomb or dumb bomb if they are of the cluster variety and are sent into a heavily populated area it is going to cause unwanted casualties.

Ted Tedford

Fraser: I agree that there is a risk that this becomes an argument where language is subverted. 'Cluster bomb' is already an ‘anti-war’ boo-word, used by people fundamentally ignorant of the nature of the various munitions. There is also a clear military need for them in certain circumstances.

But I think you have created your own false choice: the ban need not affect US participation in NATO operations any more than existing national caveats – e.g. riot control in Kosovo, reconstruction v war-fighting in Afghanistan.

And if the US did opt out of a NATO operation, that operation simply could not go ahead: the alliance depends on US air assets, not just for bombs, but for communication, guidance, targeting, intelligence and lift.

That, of course, might be the preferred option of most EU countries, for whom nothing seems worth fighting for, and whose emasculated armed forces and bloated public sectors reflect that belief.

Water

Absolutely Tedford too many ignorant people.

Dirk Blade

Water: Re UK soldiers being tried for calling US air support if the US doesn't implement a ban. Assuming that no accommodation can be found for US reservations, I think you are right that it is unlikley to happen, but for different reasons from those you suggest.

The vast majority of air assets in any coalition campaign are US; and British aircraft are thrown into the pot, not reserved for support to UK troops.

Air operations are tasked several days in advance and refined over time. Resources are then allocated to support planned operations in accordance with the commander's targeting priorities, but planners also allocate a number of on-call aircraft to support ad hoc requests.

The aircraft for 'planned' missions could in theory take account of national caveats about munitions, but 'on call' packages are most likely to be equipped to best support US operations. If it were to happen that that US troops had been killed because a certain type of munition legal under US law was not available because of UK reservations, there would be justifiable controversy. And the allocation of resource to target is done by operational need, not unlike medical triage: US planners are unlikely to privilege certain aircraft payloads for use by UK troops ahead of a requirement by US troops. UK aircraft might not carry 'illegal' bombs, but they wouldn't necessarily be available to support UK troops.

It is not therefore impossible to envisage a scenario in which the 'legal' munitions are being used by US troops, and the only air support available to UK troops is that with 'illegal' munitions. What then would be the advice of the UK legal advisers? To save British lives by using 'illegal' munitions? Or to sacrifice British lives because of our squeamishness?

We have already ‘outsourced’ the bulk of our air support to the US air forces. The Treasury is never going to fund an adequate independent British capability, so it is more likely that we would be forced to opt out of US-run air campaigns.

David Lindsay

NATO should have been wound up in 1991. It only still exists in order to annoy the Russians, not least by picking fights with their allies.

As for a single EU defence "capability", it has been an American aim since the Forties, it would be under overall American control, and it is advocated in precisely those terms by, for example, the Henry Jackson Society. Perhaps it's time that someone told the Tories of, among other places, Surrey Heath and Wantage?

Water

Dirk Blade thank you for your comment you raise some interesting points. Of course if it is an admixture of both US and British air services that are being called upon then the lines are blurred somewhat, this I do not hesitate to admit. But if it is a case as detailed above of a coalition between the two countries in the preparation of a strike where “the prospect of British soldiers hauled up in court if they call in US air support which then use the wrong kind of cluster bombs” it still seems utterly ludicrous to shift blame onto British soldiers located on the ground calling upon a US strike force.

This said of course air operations must (and will) be prepared for days if not weeks in advance to the actual implementation of a strike and this point supports what I was saying for in the event of a strike where, as you detail, “The aircraft for 'planned' missions could in theory take account of national caveats about munitions, but 'on call' packages are most likely to be equipped to best support US operations” because as the article details the US, Russia and China seem to be opting out of these talks. As such the three absent countries thoughts as regards national caveats will inevitably differ from that of the British. As such British troops calling for covering fire (from say US aircraft) will inevitably fall into the margin of having had to call upon air support which may certify the use of ammunition they do not certify by their own air support.

As such in the event of cooperation between US and British aircrafts whose actions are dictated by US superiors the margin for the British aircraft carrying payloads only sanctioned by the US (within the confines of your statement) would of course open up, though that was not was I was alluding to. This said despite the fact that the reasons I gave may not be the reasons that are acknowledge come time for a ban within the countries in question, it does not go to say that they shouldn’t be the reasons that make for a ban. As such I am glad you facilitate for this margin.

Dirk Blade

Water: You are correct. The soldier on the ground doesn't say "I want two cluster bombs dropped on grid such-and-such". He identifies and describes a target, e.g. tanks in open; and requests an effect, e.g. suppress, destroy, neutralise. It's then up to the air component controllers to allocate the resources to achieve that effect, whether from UK or US aircraft. The ground observer would not be responsible for choosing the means of engagement, so I doubt he would be liable in law - unless it could be proved that he described the target incorrectly and knew the effect would likely be achieved by cluster munitions.

Let's hope the UK and the US can introduce a measure of proportion into the discussions. There is nothing inherently immoral about cluster munitions: it's the way they are used, as Ray says. The important thing is to take reasonable steps to avoid non-combatant casualties. In practice, UK-US targeteers already impose restrictions on the use of types of ordnance on specific geographic areas or target types. For example, in the early stages of the fight in Iraq, we took the explosives out of bombs to engage point targets - specific buildings -in towns where an explosion would risk non-combatant casualties. So the buildings were hit by a metal bomb, and the kinetic energy was sufficient to achieve the effect.

There's no reason why this principal could not be extended, so that, for example, we would not use cluster bombs within 5 miles (say) of urban areas; we would undertake to dispose of them within a set period; and we would inform local non-combatants of the locations of any strikes.

Water

Agreed.