Could arrsers help me out slightly? In discussion with a good friend recently, who unfortunately is an activist for the green party. He was claiming he respects Hilary Benn for his stance on Cluster bombs; trying to get them banned internationally. I couldn't believe this stance. Basically my understanding is that the British Army does not (or rarely) uses cluster bombs in urban areas, marks the locations of all bombs dropped and cordons + clears the area afterwards. Is this the case? My argument is that (as far as I know) cluster bombs are used "ethically" by the British Army - more so than an example used of Israel - and for that reason cluster bombs should not be banned. They are effective and I'd rather them used and we lose as few soldiers as possible, than other means and run the risk of more deaths. His argument was based on two ideas; 1. there is no such thing as ethical use; it is indiscriminate (and classed as an area denial weapon - which surely in the case of runways etc is). 2. The failure rate is very high (relatively), meaning high civilian casualties. I thought Brimstone was almost foolproof. Also even if we can use them "ethically" with others not using them in the same way they should be banned. So basically; what are the opinions and arguments of those more in the know?