# Cluster Munition Treaty and Canada



## GAP (23 May 2008)

Cluster Bomb Hypocrisy by Canada  
May 23rd, 2008 
Article Link

Dublin, Ireland — At the current 12-day conference to negotiate an international treaty banning cluster munitions, diplomats and observers alike are wondering what has happened to Canada’s independence.

The same country that launched the “Ottawa process” resulting in the historic 1997 Mine Ban Treaty now appears to be doing dirty work for the United States to weaken the cluster munitions treaty.

As with land mines, the United States is no friend of the effort to ban cluster munitions launched in February, 2007, in Oslo. But it was openly and actively involved in the Ottawa process until walking out of treaty negotiations on the last day, unable to force acceptance of a “negotiating package” that would have gutted that treaty. This time around, Washington is opting for intense, relentless pressure behind the scenes.

One U.S. official bragged that more than 110 countries had been “spoken to” about this treaty. It has flat-out told allies that it will not alter its military doctrine, structure or deployments to accommodate terms of the treaty. Further, the United States has threatened that it will not remove its cluster munitions stockpiled in countries that do join the treaty — even though it removed land mines stockpiled in countries that are part of the Mine Ban Treaty.

It is not surprising that Washington continues to throw its considerable weight around. What is surprising, however, is that some countries are willing to carry water for the United States, despite its vow never to sign the treaty. Even more surprising is that one of those countries is Canada.

As Tim Shipman reported this week in the Sydney Morning Herald, “U.S. officials are frantically warning their allies not to sign the treaty as it now stands, because it would undermine NATO and criminalize soldiers who fight alongside them. … An official from the U.S. State Department warned that under the treaty, British front line troops who call in artillery support or air strikes [in Afghanistan or Iraq] from an American war plane, all of which carry cluster munitions, could be hauled into court.” Mr. Shipman could just as easily have used the case of Canadian soldiers fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

In military jargon, this U.S. exaggeration could be called “firing for effect” — see if you can frighten others into doing what you want. It is also misrepresenting the facts.

The proposed cluster ban treaty would prohibit any signatory country from assisting a non-signatory country in its use of banned cluster munitions. But such a treaty will not mean the end of joint military operations nor make Canadian soldiers automatically liable in the event the United States were to deploy such weapons. Joint military operations with Canada continue right now despite the fact that the U.S. is not party to the Mine Ban Treaty. No Canadian soldier has been hauled into court. At least seven other international treaties — many of which Washington is party to — have similar obligations on prohibiting assistance in use of a banned weapon by a country bound by the treaty. But in response to the intense pressure of the outgoing Bush administration, Canada has developed a “bottom line” on joint military operations to join the future treaty.

It says there must be language to protect Canadian military from liabilities should they be involved in joint military operations with allies outside the treaty who do use cluster munitions — in other words, the United States. Proposed Canadian language would not only seriously weaken the provision prohibiting governments from “assisting, inducing, or encouraging” states outside the treaty with any prohibited act that, but it would also create a loophole big enough for a U.S. attack helicopter loaded with cluster bombs to fly through. It would permit solders of countries that are part of the treaty to participate in the planning and execution of joint operations with the United States where cluster munitions are used.
More on link


----------



## Navy_Blue (24 May 2008)

These treaties have merit but it would be a hard sell for Canada if we had invested as much money as I expect the Yanks (and any other huge military) did building these weapons.  You ban them and it creates billions $$$ spent on effectively waste disposal.  

I hate deffending US policy and wishes but there must be allot of relatively small countries signing on this treaty with comparably much smaller stocks of Cluster Bombs.

I was involved in a large computer simulated Ex in the late 90's and we deployed these to counter the fictional Warsaw pact weapons and tactics.  They worked very well.

I wouldn't want one dropped in my back yard but I can see why this is a hard sell.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 May 2008)

> I hate deffending US policy



Why?


----------



## adaminc (25 May 2008)

I dont think it would be fair for Non-American's to be held liable for US Artillery/Air support's use of Cluster munitions. I don't know for sure, but i'm guessing that when they call for support, they aren't exactly sure what kind of munitions are going to be used, they only know where they are going to be used.


----------



## aesop081 (25 May 2008)

adaminc said:
			
		

> I don't know for sure, but i'm guessing that when they call for support, they aren't exactly sure what kind of munitions are going to be used, they only know where they are going to be used.



You best be sure that the FOO/FAC/JTAC/THING knows what type of munition is going to be used.........


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2008)

adaminc....

As a non-expert I am reasonably sure that the guy with "eyes on" the target is the guy that decides if he, or she in the case of Capt Nicola Goddard, is the one that decides if they want smoke or HE on the target, one round or five, PGM or any other weapon available in the arsenal.

As Cdnaviator suggests, I think it could make for a very messy day if the round delivered was not the round expected.


----------



## adaminc (26 May 2008)

Makes sense, I stand corrected!


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

Are they focusing just on dispersed munitions, or all forms of 'cluster bomb' use?


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jul 2008)

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12049

Cluster Munitions Policy Released


            Today the Department of Defense released a newly approved U.S. cluster munitions policy. The United States believes that the new policy will provide better protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure following a conflict, while allowing for the retention of a legitimate and useful weapon.

            Recognizing the need to minimize the unintended harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure associated with unexploded ordnance from cluster munitions, the secretary of defense has approved a new policy on cluster munitions intended to reduce the collateral effects resulting from the use of cluster munitions in pursuit of legitimate military objectives.  The new policy is the result of a year-long Department of Defense review of cluster munitions.

            Cluster munitions are legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat. They provide distinct advantages against a range of targets, where their use reduces risks to U.S. forces and can save U.S. lives. These weapons can also reduce unintended harm to civilians during combat, by producing less collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure than unitary weapons. Because future adversaries will likely use civilian shields for military targets – for example by locating a military target on the roof of an occupied building – use of unitary weapons could result in more civilian casualties and damage than cluster munitions. Blanket elimination of cluster munitions is therefore unacceptable due not only to negative military consequences but also due to potential negative consequences for civilians. 

            Post-combat, the impact of cluster munitions is limited in scope, scale and duration compared to other explosive remnants of war (ERW).  According to the Feb. 15, 2008, State Department white paper (“Putting the Impact of Cluster Munitions in Context with the Effects of All Explosive Remnants of War”), in 2006 fewer than 400 casualties were attributable to cluster munitions out of a global total of 5,759 reported for all ERW. 

            A key facet of the DoD policy establishes a new U.S. technical norm for cluster munitions, requiring that by the end of 2018, DoD will no longer use cluster munitions which, after arming, result in more than one percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments. Additionally, cluster munitions sold or transferred by DoD after 2018 must meet this standard. Any munitions in the current inventory that do not meet this standard will be unavailable for use after 2018. As soon as possible, military departments will initiate removal from active inventory cluster munitions that exceed operational planning requirements or for which there are no operational planning requirements. These excess munitions will be demilitarized as soon as practicable within available funding and industrial capacity. Effective immediately through 2018, any U.S. use of cluster munitions that do not meet the one percent unexploded ordnance standard must be approved by the applicable combatant commander. Previous DoD policy required military departments to design and procure “future” (after 2005) submunitions to a 99 percent reliability rate, but did not address use and removal of current munitions.

            The new policy is viewed as a viable alternative to a complete ban proposal generated by the Oslo Process in Dublin, Ireland, last month. The new policy serves as the basis for the U.S. position in negotiations toward an international agreement at the U.N. Convention of Conventional Weapons (CCW) that began on July 7. The United States has called for the completion of a new cluster munitions protocol by the end of the year. The CCW, unlike the Oslo process, includes all of the nations that produce and use cluster munitions, making any agreement reached there much more practically effective.


----------



## brihard (11 Jul 2008)

We appear to be an intended signatory, based on the 'Wellingotn Declaration' that paved the way for this. The treaty will be signed in December.

Not that this thing has much teeth, given that U.S., China et al. have no interest.


----------



## forcerecon85 (12 Jul 2008)

I'm a civy, thinking outloud and out of my league, but would it be possible to have a disposable GPS in each bomblet of cluster ammunition?  If the bomblets don't explode then they could be tracked and cleaned up by EOD? That way cluster ammunition could be deployed but unexploded bomblets could be cleaned up.


----------



## c_canuk (14 Jul 2008)

GPS doesn't work like that... the satilights broadcast an identifier and the GPS takes bearings off them then calculates it's position on the earths surface and displays it -> the bomblette would know where it is, but we wouldn't.

When bombs are dropped it is recorded, the problem is they can scatter a long way and they can be the size of a baseball so it takes a while for EOD teams to find them if they can.

What you are looking for is an RF Beacon circuit built in, but when you factor in the size of the battery you'd need for it to provide a decent range so it could be found it's not possible.

RFID Tags might work, but I don't think they would because people would still have to comb the area for hours and thats the sort of thing that happens after the heavy conflict when it's time to start rebuilding at which point the tag probably won't still be working due to exposure to the elements. 

I don't think there is any way this could be made feasible.


----------



## stegner (26 Jul 2008)

Can you put on an IR tag?  Something that could be seen from an overhead view?


----------



## ammocat (26 Jul 2008)

I don't think it would really matter what type of tag or identifier you put into the munitions. Only the organizations that had the ability to find the tag/identifier would be able to utilize it for clearance purposed. The problem is that generally the clearance process does not begin until long after the fighting has stopped. Cluster munition pose a threat to the civilians who are exposed to these cluster munitions long before EOD can get there. In Kosovo, it was not uncommon to find cluster munitions piled at the side of a road by a farmer who was just trying to clear his field so he could continue to feed his family. Generally these consisted of BL-755 HE bomblets or Mk-118 Bomblet. Depending on the source quoted, reported dud rates for these bomblets is between 3% and 20%. So a Mk 20 Rockeye could generate between 6 and 43 dud submunitions. Unfortunately not all of these backyard clearances went without consequences. 

Also some cluster munitions are very small in size. Generally people think of cluster bombs, however the ban includes artillery projectiles. There are numerous types of 155mm projectiles that carry submunitions. The M483A1 HE DPICM carries 88 dual purpose grenades, which are quite small and very difficult to find in tall grass or brush. 

For size comparison here is a photo of M42 grenade from 155mm projectile and a Mk 118 bomblet from the Mk 20 Rockeye cluster bomb.


----------



## childs56 (27 Jul 2008)

I personally would hate to see the ban on Cluster bombs. I would like to see a system where they would self destruct with in 24-48 hours with a 98% sucess rate if not set off initially. Cluster bombs work well in area suppression, area denial and protecting our own butts in a ground war fighting ground troops and equipment in a traditional setting. 

Banning these types of ordanance puts soldiers lives at risk, The emphasis should be on not having to fight the war to begin with. But if the war must be fought, then only the best and most effective equipment must be used. To me Cluster bombs are one of the most effective ways to stop the advancing enemy. 

How we deal with unexploded ordanace after the war has to be on top of the agenda. 
Their still finding UXOs from WW1 does this mean we ban bombs, ammunition etc. No it means we find better ways to make them more effective so they work the way their suppose to and not sit for years to be found after the war. 

Make them better, make them work, make them smart, which is already happened or is happening.


----------



## twistedcables (27 Jul 2008)

None of this matters.  No Western power will subject itself to punitive measures in violation of yet another treaty.  This is the age of revision, remember?  New directions and new enemies will force a less obliging attitude when it comes to warfare and, relatedly, international law, human rights, population displacement etc.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Dec 2008)

Hmm don't we still have some in storage somewhere?

Canada joins cluster bomb treaty, U.S. absent
Updated Wed. Dec. 3 2008 11:04 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada has signed onto an international treaty to ban cluster bombs, though the U.S. and Russia have declined to join the effort. 

Canada became a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions on Wednesday when Jillian Stirk, Canada's ambassador to Norway, signed the document on behalf of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. 

The convention bans members from using, stockpiling, producing or transferring cluster weapons -- small explosives which are designed to cover a large area in a short period of time and are particularly dangerous to civilians and children, long after periods of conflict. 

"This convention is a significant achievement. Over time, it will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help to end the use of a weapon that has devastating effects on civilians," Cannon, who is in Ottawa to deal with the current political crisis, said in a news release. 

He said Canada will work closely with other nations in the convention, the United Nations, Red Cross and others to "rid the world of cluster munitions, and as far as possible repair the shattered lives of people who have suffered because of them." 

Part of the purpose of the treaty is to shame the U.S. and Russia, along with China and others, into abandoning the weapons. 

Norway began the drive and was the first to sign on, followed by Laos and Lebanon, two countries with first-hand experience with the weapons and their effects. 

"Banning cluster bombs took too long. Too many people lost arms and legs," said Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg at a news conference. 

Some of those nations that have refused to sign-on maintain that cluster weapons have legitimate military uses. 

Washington has said that an all-out ban on the weapons would hurt world security and could endanger U.S. military co-operation on humanitarian projects in countries that do sign onto the convention. 

Organizers of the campaign hope it will gain momentum in a similar fashion to a 1997 effort to ban landmine use. In total 158 countries have signed onto the pact that originated in Ottawa, though the U.S., Russia and China all abstained. 

"Once you get half the world on board, it's hard to ignore a ban," Australian anti-cluster bomb campaigner Daniel Barty told The Associated Press. 

"One of the things that really worked well with the land-mine treaty was stigmatization. No one really uses land mines." 

More than 100 countries are expected to sign the cluster-bomb convention over Dec. 3 and 4. 

The news release from Cannon's office said it is the right thing to do. 

"In Canada's view, the Convention on Cluster Munitions strikes an appropriate balance between humanitarian and security considerations. It establishes the highest international humanitarian standards with respect to cluster munitions, while allowing its signatories to continue to engage in combined security operations with allies that have not signed," states the release.


----------



## dredwulf (5 Dec 2008)

Is it wise to just ban legitimate military tools, and then try to stigmatize those that are wise enough not to?

Cluster bomblets linger and may injure civilians who wander into the battlefield after the fact, but they are living in a war zone.  Surely all types of ordinance have a chance of not detonating and remaining a danger.  The usefulness of the weapon in certain situations is such that saying "We will never use it!" isn't very prudent.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2008)

dredwulf said:
			
		

> ............  Surely all types of ordinance have a chance of not detonating and remaining a danger.



Look at Europe.  Northern France and Belguim are still experiencing the affects of UXOs from WW I and earlier.  The Balkans are still danger zones for mines.  

This, however, is a step towards not perpetuating the problem of UXOs into the future in a minor way.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Dec 2008)

dredwulf said:
			
		

> Is it wise to just ban legitimate military tools, and then try to stigmatize those that are wise enough not to?
> 
> Cluster bomblets linger and may injure civilians who wander into the battlefield after the fact, but they are living in a war zone.  Surely all types of ordinance have a chance of not detonating and remaining a danger.  The usefulness of the weapon in certain situations is such that saying "We will never use it!" isn't very prudent.



As valuable a tool as cluster bombs are, their UXO rate is pretty high.  I've seen firsthand places in Iraq where cluster bombs were used that had a very high amount of non-detonated ordnance.  If anything, this will cause the companies producing such munitions to be motivated and have their engineers design a munition set that doesn't have as significant a rate of UXO as the current ones do.

However, with some of the world's major cluster bomb manufacturing countries not signing on the treaty (US, Russia, China, etc.) I don't know if this treaty will have much of an effect in the immediate to near term.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Dec 2008)

So our CF 18s flying combat missions in Afghanistan will no longer be allowed cluster bombs?


----------



## FoverF (5 Dec 2008)

Out of curiosity, does/did Canada use DPICM or similar artillery shells, and if so, does this put a nix on that too?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Dec 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So our CF 18s flying combat missions in Afghanistan will no longer be allowed cluster bombs?



I didn't think we had CF-18s flying combat missions in Afghanistan, but I believe that as treaty members, that would be the case.


----------



## ammocat (5 Dec 2008)

The treaty is for cluster munitions, so any artillery shells such as the DPICM would also be included, and therefore banned. Canada did have a 155mm HE DPICM in service at one time. I do not know whether it is still in service at this time.


----------



## Cleared Hot (6 Dec 2008)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I didn't think we had CF-18s flying combat missions in Afghanistan, but I believe that as treaty members, that would be the case.



We don't.

This is another bad idea made only because it sells well politically to Joe Civie.  In reality it does nothing but tighten the ropes that are already tying our hands.  These munitions are very effective against area targets and armour and while they may not really be required that often in Afghanistan right now doesn't mean a future conflict with a different country won't require them (China, N. Korea, Russia etc.).  The other piece to this is that most of the "problem" munitions were dropped in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (by Russia) and other earlier conflicts.  To say that the technology was not as developed then as it is now is an understatement.  We have been working to reduce the sub-munition dud rate ever since - admittedly not just for humanitarian reasons but for weapon effectiveness ones as well.  These weapons will continue to develop and the dud rates will continue to drop (despite the fact that they are already very low) and once they do, we will have to live with the fact that we made bad decisions based on outdated facts and 
data.

-CH


----------



## McG (13 Jan 2009)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> As valuable a tool as cluster bombs are, their UXO rate is pretty high. .... If anything, this will cause the companies producing such munitions to be motivated and have their engineers design a munition set that doesn't have as significant a rate of UXO as the current ones do.


It might.  However, that is debatable as the only consumers (& producers) of such munitions will be nations which don't feel compelled to conform.



			
				Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> This is another bad idea made only because it sells well politically to Joe Civie.


Full agreement here.  Written by people who probably do not fully understand the weapons, this treaty's broader humanitarian goals are (according to those who pushed for it) to reduce explosive remnants of war & to get rid of an area effect weapon.  History will see likely see it as a failure because it does not specifically address the issues which are its objective.  Instead, the organizers should have pushed for something which directly addresses the explosive remnants of war issue.  Self-neutralize & self-destruct capabilities could have been mandated across a much broader spectrum of munitions including anti-tank mines, aircraft bombs, artillery rounds, etc.  There could have been standards for a munition systems reliability to function or self-destroy (and in this a cluster munition could be required for considered as a whole as opposed to by individual bomblet/grenade) .  Imagine if every explosive munition fired in battle was automatically removed (either by functioning against its target or by self-destruct) with six sigma of reliability.  As opposed to finding new ways get around the convention and leaving the battlefield with the same problem of explosive remnants, nations would have the motivation to engineer that risk out of the munitions.

What has been achieved is that a highly effective capability has been denied to many of the world's militaries who could be expected to use the munitions responsibly.  Most of those nations with the capacity to engineer the risk out of the munitions will turn to developing new weapons with no certainty that they will be any better.  Those nations, who would use such devices recklessly without regard for collateral damage, will continue to do so, and they are unlikely to concern themselves with engineering ways to minimize UXO rates.

The USA likely will do what it can to improve reliability (thereby reducing UXO rates).  For its responsible stewardship, expect to see it criticized by those who will demonize the munition while loosing sight of the actual problem.


----------



## ironduke57 (26 Jan 2009)

The destruction of our cluster ammunition is in full swing as you can see on this short Video from the BW: :'(
- http://www.bundeswehr.de/fileserving/PortalFiles/C1256EF4002AED30/W27LWJEN788INFODE/7LWK7G948INFODE.asx?yw_repository=youatweb
(That is the MW-1 system. Mainly used by our Tornado´s.)
It will probably take 8 year´s to destroy them all.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

8 years ?  I can just imagine what ONE big detonation would look like.
Mind you... making things AND then dismantling / blowing them up afterwards is in my blood...


----------



## Avor (28 Jan 2009)

Banning of certain weapons sounds like a good idea, mosty because there hasn't been a full scale war since Korea. Yes cluster bombs are mean to civilians, but in a conventinal battle they would be usefull.


----------



## GDawg (28 Jan 2009)

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> The destruction of our cluster ammunition is in full swing as you can see on this short Video from the BW: :'(
> - http://www.bundeswehr.de/fileserving/PortalFiles/C1256EF4002AED30/W27LWJEN788INFODE/7LWK7G948INFODE.asx?yw_repository=youatweb
> (That is the MW-1 system. Mainly used by our Tornado´s.)
> It will probably take 8 year´s to destroy them all.
> ...



No joy on the first link


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2009)

Works for me it opens in Windows media player


----------



## GDawg (28 Jan 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Works for me it opens in Windows media player



Mac owner here, I suppose that explains the troubles.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2009)

try here it might help


----------



## GDawg (28 Jan 2009)

I needed to use safari instead of firefox.

I was hoping they would demo them on a range somewhere, I suppose that method is safer though.


----------



## m2austin (5 Jun 2012)

Sourced from Canada.com, 4 Jun 2012, Link <a href="http://www.canada.com/Armed+Forces+criticized+cluster+munitions/6725266/story.html">Here</a>



> *Armed Forces criticized for its cluster munitions*
> BY CHRIS COBB, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 4 June 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2012)

DND’s $23M cluster bomb stockpile will cost $2M to junk
Kathryn Blaze Carlson  Jul 19, 2012
Article Link

The national defence department spent upward of $22.7-million buying cluster bombs that Ottawa now says it wants to ban and destroy at a cost of another $2-million — a job that will inevitably be outsourced because no Canadian company is capable of disposing of the controversial weapons, the National Post has learned.

The Canadian Forces never used any of the 12,600 projectiles it purchased for between $1,500 and $1,800 each in 1988. Today, the stockpile is sitting at the Canadian Forces Ammunition Depot in Dundurn, Sask., while Ottawa waits for a firm to step up to the job of destroying the projectiles and the more than one million bomblets they contain.

~~~~ history and commentary by general poo baa's~~~~~~

A separate stockpile of so-called Rockeye bombs, the only other kind of cluster munition Canada has ever bought, were destroyed over the course of two years at the same Dundurn site. By 2006, the depot had destroyed 248,000 Rockeye bomblets.
That’s money that’s gone that we’re never going to see again

But the much larger job of getting rid of the 1,108,536 DPICM bomblets is very much a work in progress. Public Works posted a letter of interest to its online procurement site only recently, on July 5, with a closing date of Aug. 10, 2012. The department confirmed the only North American company capable of destroying such a large stockpile is located outside Joplin, Mo., although it indicated Canada could outsource the job to Germany, Norway or possibly Spain.

National Defence said it typically budgets somewhere between $2-million and $5-million annually for ammunitions disposal; this latest job is expected to cost $2-million.
not much more on link


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (31 Aug 2012)

Forgive the ignorant civilian, but I take that using the DIPCM up in training/exercises is not an option ? 

I can think of at least two reasonable arguments against
a) it isn't the current system so no training benefit
b) the danger of UXO

Please don't tell me that there is nothing in the Canadian inventory that can actually fire the things.


----------



## GnyHwy (31 Aug 2012)

We do not fire them for training.  Firing any type projectile provides similar training that would relate to firing DPICM.  Safe handling, storage and transport would have been an issue had we needed to use them, but that could have been taught fairly expediently.  The only training benefit there would be for firing actual DPICM in training would be to observe and learn to control the effects, which would be quite devastating.   The purpose of DPICM is to neutralize enemy armour when they are massed, and it would be very effective at that.

Yes there is a danger of UXOs.  There is a small percentage of about a 1% dud rate, although newer versions have reduced the dud rate to about 0.1%.  So firing a 100 of them would potentially produce between 10-100 dud bomblets, that are very small and dangerous to find.  The fact that they cannot be remotely detonated, and it cannot be certain that they will self detonate is what goes against the current landmine treaties we abide by.

As for firing DPICM?  They could be fired from our M777s, or any other 155mm howitzer.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Aug 2012)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Forgive the ignorant civilian, but I take that using the DIPCM up in training/exercises is not an option ?


So, with training budgets tightening, troops' availability increasingly limited, and mandated training items proliferating.....you want to _add_ training with a munition that our government is banning.

Sorry, but...... yep, right after the troops are qualified at freefalling in those Husky dog-sleds, (you know, now that Arctic Sovereignty is a Privy Council talking point again).

[/sarcasm   ] Good call, but it's probably not the best way ahead to draw down our DPICM stores


----------



## Robert0288 (31 Aug 2012)

I don't suppose we can just sell them back to the US or even give them away and pay for shipping?


----------



## dangles (31 Aug 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I don't suppose we can just sell them back to the US or even give them away and pay for shipping?



I do not think our government will want to do that, as it will not actually get rid of any of the cluster bombs. Likely it would actually help further the use of cluster bombs as we would be giving them to countries who are more apt to use them than Canada is. 

Perhaps this is a strategic mistep, I personally would not know. However, if it became too big of an issue during an actual war, especially against countries using the bombs against us, I ASSUME it would be quite simple to scrap our declaration and begin using these cluster bombs again.


----------



## Shrek1985 (31 Aug 2012)

Compared to dead soldiers and lost wars, how expensive would it be to pull out of idiotic, feel-good weapons treaties like this one and accoutre ourselves like a real army and not some armed civil servants? Probably cheaper than throwing away 23m worth of effective weapons in order to gain some ephemeral political capital with...who? The UN? Bogota-Lima?


----------



## ammocat (31 Aug 2012)

The treaty that prevents use from using them prevents us from selling them to someone else that would use them.   Canada has the M483A1 projectile which has 88 submunitions.  There are varying sources but the dud rate is between 2 and 4 percent, but could be much higher.  During the gulf war the Marines suffered numerous casualties when the maneuvered into areas where the DPICM had been fired.   This restricted some of their follow on operations.

The M483A1 projectile was brought into production around 1975 and the submunitions cannot handle to g forces generated by some of the modern propelling charges.  This alone could prevent these projectiles from being used in training or operations even if the treaty didn't prevent it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Sep 2012)

Cluster munitions are an important weapon in the arsenal. The Cluster Munitions Treaty is an attempt to weaken the west by the leftists of the world. Many countries are more than willing to tie their own hands. War is brutal and always will be.The goal is to kill the enemy. If your position is being attacked by a tank battalion or a human wave of infantry you would want all available weapons to defeat the threat. Multiple nuclear warheads have been a fact of life for a long time. They arent banned and are a much bigger threat than cluster munitions. Anyway take note that Russia,China,India and Pakistan havent signed on and never will.


----------



## PanaEng (10 Sep 2012)

ammocat said:
			
		

> The M483A1 projectile was brought into production around 1975 and the submunitions cannot handle to g forces generated by some of the modern propelling charges.  This alone could prevent these projectiles from being used in training or operations even if the treaty didn't prevent it.


I don't have the ref at the moment but I don't think it is the propelling charge that is the problem but the effect of nearby munitions exploding while some are still in the air that disrupts the firing mechanism of the late arrivals. One way to deal with the high rate of duds is to include a command or programmable self destruct or delay mechanism. That would also address concerns for non-combatants to some extent. 

Anyway, coffee hasn't made it's magic yet, so here is a question: does this treaty apply to scatterable mines as well? Are there other agreements restricting our use of scatterable mines?


----------



## Journeyman (10 Sep 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> ....does this treaty apply to scatterable mines as well? Are there other agreements restricting our use of scatterable mines?


Because the actual treaty name is "Convention on Cluster _Munitions_," [link] you'd think that it would apply to scatterable mines. Article 1, Para 3 however specifically states, "This Convention does not apply to mines."

The other key, relevant treaty is the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction" (for the benefit of short-winded people, more commonly known as the "Ottawa Treaty"). [link] It is distinct from the Cluster Munitions Treaty, specifically not including them. It does however prohibit Canadian use of anti-pers mines, whether emplaced scatterably or more deliberately.

The non-signatories of the Ottawa Treaty include US, Russia, China, India & Pakistan, most of the Middle East....and Poland (lingering distrust of Germans and/or Russians?    )


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Sep 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cluster munitions are an important weapon in the arsenal. The Cluster Munitions Treaty is an attempt to weaken the west by the leftists of the world. Many countries are more than willing to tie their own hands. War is brutal and always will be.The goal is to kill the enemy. If your position is being attacked by a tank battalion or a human wave of infantry you would want all available weapons to defeat the threat. Multiple nuclear warheads have been a fact of life for a long time. They arent banned and are a much bigger threat than cluster munitions. Anyway take note that Russia,China,India and Pakistan havent signed on and never will.



I don't think it's an attempt to weaken the west as much as a decision born from a lofty unrealistic mindset. I agree war is brutal and we should the biggest scariest meanest guys out there. 

Handicapping ourselves enables our enemies to fight us longer and more effectively thus causing more collateral damage.

Does anyone for a second think that when the big push comes to shove Russia, China, India et el will honour even the pacts they did manage to sign on to?


----------



## Shrek1985 (10 Sep 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I don't think it's an attempt to weaken the west as much as a decision born from a lofty unrealistic mindset. I agree war is brutal and we should the biggest scariest meanest guys out there.
> 
> Handicapping ourselves enables our enemies to fight us longer and more effectively thus causing more collateral damage.
> 
> Does anyone for a second think that when the big push comes to shove Russia, China, India et el will honour even the pacts they did manage to sign on to?



problem is, either way; the effect is the same and we DO honour our weapons treaties, sadly.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2013)

> *Canada likely further target for criticism on bomb stance*
> PM’s inaction on cluster bombs at odds with position on Syria chemical attack, say treaty supporters
> Chris Cobb
> Ottawa Citizen
> ...


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+likely+further+target+criticism+bomb+stance/8885136/story.html


----------

