Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Landmines: More Than Metaphor

Nations sign cluster bomb treaty:

Cluster bombs contain hundreds of "bomblets" that can cover a large area. The first of more than 100 countries have begun signing a treaty to ban current designs of cluster bombs, at a conference in Oslo, Norway.
Campaigners are hailing the treaty as a major breakthrough.
But some of the biggest stockpilers, including the US, Russia and China, are not among the signatories. First developed during World War II, cluster bombs contain a number of smaller bomblets designed to cover a large area and deter an advancing army.
But campaigners, including some in the military, have long argued they are outmoded and immoral because of the dangers posed to civilians from bombs that do not explode and litter the ground like landmines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

After reading about these treaties, ponder and evaluate how they can improve food shortages, and water access for the world's poorest. Analyze the ties between bomb agreements and resources.

13 comments:

  1. There is so much poverty around the world and I wonder why the government doesn't do anything about it. I think they should "dump" a bunch of money into certain areas and give them clean running water, and build stores with groceries and other necessities. Building these stores will not only bring food and other supplies into these areas, but it can give the people who locally live there jobs which can start to boost the economy. They need places where these people can work so there is some type of money flow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The bombs that are being dropped could potentianlly hurt everything in their paths. People could starve because they would be afraid that the bombs might go off if the people walk into that area. It could also lead to power, the rival nations that would want to take advantage of the people would then have the advantage to do so. Those countries could threaten others, violence and starvation, would occur. In a way, if there were treaties with other countries, we might be able to establish better ties within our world, there could be less wars, and diputes. More help would be given out.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete
  3. Treaties such as this one, which bans the current designs of cluster bombs, can improve food shortages, and water access for the world's poorest. By preventing the design of bombs, such as these cluster bombs, food can be transported easier and with less worries since no one will have to worry about running over unexploded bombs. Access to clean and running water may become available in more places around the world to the poorest since pipelines may be able to be built without having to worry about landmines.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unexploded sub-munitions of cluster bombs are very harmful to people. They cause many problems including food sufficiency and poor water access. I agree with Lupita that people would be scared to gather food in an area that has unexploded munitions.
    Having the treaty signed would help everyone. Rob Watson of the BBC reported that the treaty "will not ban cluster weapons outright..." The treaty would require the "development of cluster bombs with greater precision and lower failure rates." The agreements between the countries to develop better cluster bombs would be good for resources because people wouldn't have to worry about getting blown up while getting water from a well or picking vegetables. In a few years, the U.S. should be getting along with other countries which could bring us new economic opportunities.

    source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cluster bombs are very dangerous and they provide horror to the homeless and people who need food because of starvation. With this treaty signed they prevent the danger of food shortages and water access. The homeless people and people who are dying for starvation can finally feel save now that they have this treaty signed. These treaties definitly make it safer for food to be traveled and water. Once again cluster bombs are very dangerous if they explode then you can bye bye to some food products traveling that the poorest really need. The US also should have economic ties with these countries because they are on the right path and we are lost in the woods economically. It could bring economic opportunities to the United States.

    "It allows for the development of cluster bombs with greater precision and lower failure rates - an approach the US in particular says it is already pursuing".

    The development of these cluster bombs are great because now people won't have to be worried about explosions while getting water from a well or getting food from a farm.

    Source:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete
  6. I underdstand that cluster bombs are very dangerous, but this is war we are talking about. I agree with the treaty banning chemical and gas warfare because it is a terribly painful way to die, or barely live and be deformed. Cluster bombs are just another type of bomb, they are all bad. Why get rid of one bad aspect of war? We need to work on the real problem and do away with war itself. It doesn't matter how people are dying or getting hurt because it's wrong that it is happening. It is a good idea to put restrictions on some of the weapons we can use because of how horrible the effects are, but until there is world peace, people will be suffering and dying in terrible ways. Cluster bombs are a very good millitary tactic, while very violent. These bombs are used to kill one group, while protecting the other. I don't see how getting hit by a cluster bomb is any worse than other bombs, missiles, rockets, or even being SHOT. They are all terrible and violence is not a way of working things out or negotiating, violence gives the stronger group what they want by using force. War is ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First developed during World War II, cluster bombs contain a number of smaller bomblets designed to cover a large area and deter an advancing army. But campaigners, including some in the military, have long argued they are outmoded and immoral because of the dangers posed to civilians from bombs that do not explode and litter the ground like landmines. Sure, I agree, cluster bombs are bad, but nuclear weapons are worse. It's true that many civilians are used as collateral, when using cluster bombs, during a time of war, but the collateral isn't as great as nuclear warfare. Why would you ban cluster bombs if nuclear weapons have the exact same affect? If the treaty bans cluster bombs, then it should ban the chemicals used for nuclear warfare. With or without cluster bombs in the poor countries, their food supply will stay the same or go up ever so slightly. It's because they're poor, not because cluster bombs are killing the civilians. That in itself is a different topic all in itself.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete
  8. Justin 1 nailed it. I agree with you, about the governement spinning their wheels on one kind of bomb and theirs another one that's much worse...the more important point is that they are being "bombed already". The people have no food or water supply, so they are "dead already". I think if the governments are taking the time to "sit down and discuss" landmines; they might as well hit the real silent killers--the fact that most of the country has no food or water--those are the true silent, deadly bombs, that slowly erode a countries spirit, effects all ages, and all industries.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think if one country uses a cluster bomb, they should have to sweep the floors to disarm the non exploded bomblets. Thats only if the countries dont sign the treaty to ban cluster bombs. It says that it can be deadly over 25 miles away and if there is a village of people near, they could get hurt or die and they were not even invovled with the war. The U.S is working on a lower fail rate and greater precision, I think they should just be working on world peace.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm#graphic

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that it’s great that so many countries are signing these important treaties. I am kind of disappointed that I had not heard about these important treaties otherwise in the news and that I had also never heard about these kinds of bombs before. They sound just awful. I’m glad that steps are being taken to reduce their usage and if they do need to use them, to make them more accurate so lives will be saved. I think that the treaties can help improve food shortages because instead of using money to make bombs, they can use the money to help with farmer’s technology, GMO technology, and buying more food. The money can also be used to clean drinking water and use water power to create energy to improve the environment. It is interesting to me that some of the greatest powers in the world with the most resources at their disposal, such as Russia and the United States, have not signed the treaty. I am concerned and wonder why they would want to have these weapons, unless for protection. But then, if there were fewer weapons, there would be less required to defend.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete
  11. NOOO! Why ban the incredible cluster bomb? Sure there is a chance for collateral damage, it is highly effective when bombing a well know military installation. The same goes when you targeting a large stock pile or a caravan containing a high priority target. I think that this ban is a waste of resources. We have them, we've used them, they are highly effective, and new technology (called smart bombs) practically eliminates collateral damage. Sure people could say that its practically doesn't mean that it's gone. Put when used where it's supposed to be, on large military installations or out in the open on a military caravan, it's effectiveness is incredibly impressive. And for the record I'm the "Overtly Militaristic Guy" just ask Mr. Waller.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with Todd here, the bombs are dangersous. But, why get rid of one part or war? If we want to get rid of bombs, then how about war as well? There have got to be better ways to die. This would be a painful one. This does help people fighting to attack a set of people. However, it hurts and kills many innocent people. It is not fair to those people. If I were them, I would hate it if I got injured while just being out in the town with my friends. Even worse, being killed while doing that because someone wanted a few certain people killed quick and easily.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I partly agree with Jake, I think that cluster bombs can be extremely effective at times. But I also agree with Justin, saying if you ban the cluster bomb, then you should ban nuclear weapons as well. These poor countries are upset about the unexploded bombs littering their countries as well as the innocent civilian lives taken but unfortunately, let’s face it; war will never exclude civilian deaths. If the cluster bomb is effective then we should continue using it to set back an advancing army. Food rations and water supply may be affected by the fear of bombs, but as long as a certain country is involved in war, this fear will always be there. It seems people are blaming the cluster bomb for ideas that have always been put in place, that poor countries have civilians who don't eat enough or have adequate access to water. One victim from the bomb said, "Today is an historic day.". Sure it may have been historic for a survivor, but lets talk history when nuclear warfare is no longer a problem or poverty is solved.

    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7762031.stm

    ReplyDelete