A couple of questions about Cluster Bombs

[richardm]

I see cluster bombs are back in the news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2946054.stm) again.

There are a few things that puzzle me.

First of all, the article states that 16% of cluster bomblets don't explode on impact, compared to just 2% of "ordinary" bombs (ones "launched from the ground", hmm). I can't think of a reason that should be so. Does anyone have any insight into that?

I'm aware of a sort of cluster-bomb that was used against runways, and that had delayed fuses and suchlike, to make repair crews nervous or dead, but that seems something else again.

Also, there seems to be a fashion amongst some commentators to call cluster bombs "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Is there any justification for that? Seems to me that if you're dropping any sort of bomb in an area where civilians are, then you're going to kill or injure civilians. So why is the cluster bomb so vilified?

[HarryKeogh]

my educated guess (i have over 4 years experience playing various war-based video games) is that when the cluster bomb packets are released from the missile that carries them they are much lighter than other types of bombs and maybe if they dont land the right way there is a chance they may not detonate. again, this is my guess.

i believe "weapons of mass destruction" is a term that applies to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons only. even a huge weapon like the MOAB or a daisy cutter bomb isnt a weapon of mass destruction even though they undoubtedly cause mass destruction.

[a_unique_person]

Because there are many small bombs, with cheap fuses, they don't all go off. Say 90% go off, that is still enough to get the immediate job done. However, they are small and cute, so kids pick them up later.

Related to this, there was an article just in the paper yesterday about a Vietnamese who was killed by a bomb from the war.

[Voob]

Then of course there's the Japanese guy who had one in his carry-on bag that went off, killing an airport employee. Glad he didn't make it onto the plane...

He had been carrying it around for 20 days, occasionally playing catch with it.
http://www.jordantimes.com/Tue/homenews/homenews8.htm

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm
Also, there seems to be a fashion amongst some commentators to call cluster bombs "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Is there any justification for that? Seems to me that if you're dropping any sort of bomb in an area where civilians are, then you're going to kill or injure civilians. So why is the cluster bomb so vilified?

There was a page on the FBI website that used a definition of WMDs to include use of explosives:
"Mass casualties and extensive property damage are the trademarks of weapons of mass destruction, making their detection, prevention, and destruction an FBI priority. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders."
The page has gone, but I got the quote from here (http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/020a.htm).

[CSSMariner]

Classifying a cluster bomb as a WMD is riduculous. Even on the personal level, a small explosive does not totally destroy the person who is hit by one, or picks one up. Of course to that unlucky person it is a moot point, dead is dead. I heard one commentator on the capture of Rudolph in North Carolina refer to his (supposedly his in any case) Atlanta Olympic bomb as a WMD. Stupid comment.