Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by EX_STAB, Mar 19, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Perhaps he could ban those nasty bullets next.
And so the cost of another couple of projects rockets. MOD of course will pay up to fill the capability gap this direction produces?
Was there any warning of this, or are hundreds of Ammo techs now running around like headless chickens trying to locate all our cluster munitions?
Another poorly thought through and quickly imposed decision by Neu Arbeit?
Bow and Jerk that Knee MOD!!!!!!!! Now lets sort out those nasty Lead bullets - maybe coat them in anastheatic so they don't hurt as much when they hit you, or tagged with a small chip that gives the full details of the firer so when it comes to culpability you have an evidence chain!
If there was a 40%ish failure rate - did we ask for our money back?
40% failure rate - or is that made up like the rest of the waffle in the report. So MLRS is retired with immidiate effect then. Better get rid of artillery and tanks next as they hurt people.
Haven't we just sent 'clever' MLRS to Helmand? will these now be useless?
Could some equally clever RA chap inlluminate us, please?
Be pretty pointless scattering exploded bomblets over an area wouldn't it.
No doubt the risk gets smaller the further away from said risk you get. Whilst sat behind a nice oak desk in the bosom of our country, for example, the risk will be insignificant in comparison to the descision on how much to spend on wall paper on the next decorating spree.
I note the hippies want rid of smart cluster munition also, will they be able to supply the smart munitions in a sufficient quantity? I am guessing that smart munitions cost more than dumb ones, just like smart governments and Labour ones.
1. 40% 'failure' rate is the figure estimated by UN BDOs in Lebanon for the rate of cluster munitions launched by the IDF that failed to explode.
2. MLRS is not retired, nor are cluster munitions. MoD is withdrawing older stocks of 'dumb' munitions. Read the excerpt above in full.
Yes. But it's only 'stupid' munitions being withdrawn.
NeuArbeit has been champing at the bit to withdraw ALL cluster munitions for a good while. Military has been resisting this. Now that 'clever' munitions are in place, the military feels able to draw down 'stupid' munitions.
While I may not be utterly dismayed by the concept of removing so-called 'dumb' cluster munitions from our arsenal, I am close to enraged by the fact that they will be withdrawn suddenly from our arsenal without any form of replacement being purchased first.
Choc_frog is right, in my opinion, to berate the 'acceptable' risk to troops on the ground as perceived from whitehall.
Im willing to bet that any replacement that is purchased (big IF there.) will not be available in equivalent numbers and will be horrendously expensive.
What really confuses me is how cluster bombs of ANY type can be seen in the same light as land mines. Do they really have such an enormous ethical tail attached to them? Leaving tonnes of 'blind' bomblets lying around is i admit not good practice, and a self-destructing alternative is desirable, but to say that even these should be banned is ridiculous. Is it the destructive power of cluster bombs that makes people unhappy? If so then I invite them to consider the ethics of munitions use while under fire from an entrenched enemy. it seems that the misinformed fools increasingly expect soldiers to put themselves at unneccessary risk in the interests of a more ethical destruction of the enemy. That, in my opinon, is the worst ethics of all - to risk ones one countrymen that an enemy might die cleaner!
I reckon bayonets are next, because of the yelling, swearing and brute aggression that necessitate their use.
Is anyone surprised that this pathetic excuse for a Secretary of State, within this simply dreadful government, has made any decision? I am!
Those terms would seem to be mutually exclusive, and I am willing to bet that the present mob has cost more, both monetarily and morally, than most of their predecessors - regardless of their political leanings.
Doesn't answer my question. Will HMG stump up the cash to replace dumb with smart? Will it back fill the war stocks with this capability and add cash to the budget to do so? Course not.
This is just another tree hugging and headline winning move by suits with little interest in the immediate implications to Army capability or budget.
Wakey wakey! We are sending an MLRS troop to Afghanistan with the new 'smart' munitions. The decision has been made now, because we now have the new stuff - well some at least!
The 'if' part is already answered, the cost angle is valid.
Although I would personally argue for the retention of the old 'stupid' munitions too, you have completely missed the point.
'Smart' munition are smart for 2 reasons: they direct themselves towards targets when released, and the self-detonate if no target is found.
Most of the 'failed' cluster munitions, as in the 40% figure seen in Lebanon are not a failure due to poor mechanical or manufacturing quality, but because of the lie of the land. In effect, these 40% have not failed, they are very much active, but which 'failed' to detonate due to topography or release parametres. Thus, when Ali the poor innocent farmer accidentally interferes with one of these munitions - kabooom!
I am not sure what I was trying to do there on re-reading.
I was sort of trying to portray a sense of irony to portray of weapons as "smart". After all, to follow a laser in to a target requires very little intelligence. Even pigeons were trained to do this during WW2.
Or I could have been using hte term "Labour Government" to mean "dumb Government".
So he can just make an arbitrary decision like this can he ??
Separate names with a comma.