4 ms·

Should or could defense contractors/weapon manufacturers be held liable for bombs that did not explode when planned and the damages and costs that this occurs l

Should or could defense contractors/weapon manufacturers be held liable for bombs that did not explode when planned and the damages and costs that this occurs later? Frankly I find the idea almost entertaining to bill them the direct (and maybe indirect) costs of for example a nowadays evacuation of a city because a bomb needs to be defused.

jakobegger 8y ago
While we're at it, we should also make them liable for bombs that did explode as planned.
_Microft 8y ago
Oh, and ... reimburse the buyer of the weapon as well?
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  only during wartime! during peacetime the unintended victim should be renumerated
- tzs 8y ago
  Shouldn't they have the option of dropping a working bomb on the location, thus delivering the explosion that their defective bomb failed to deliver?
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  Sometimes, as with mines, you don't necessarily want them to go off. You only want them to go off if triggered. They would remain dangerous, however, unless they're the kind that renders itself chemically inert or otherwise incapable of exploding after some period of time has passed, in order to reduce risk of civilian casualties.
rustcharm 8y ago
Perhaps you should look into why people were dropping bombs in Germany in the first place.
jonhendry18 8y ago
There's been some work on making munitions, especially mines, self-disarming. So after some period of time they won't blow up. I think the main thing with preventing future munitions from causing problems like this is simply to avoid wars. So keeping NATO, the EU, the UN, and other organizations functional and influential is important. (Even so, there'd be some amount of weaponry used within reserved training areas, but at least there the risk is known and civilians aren't in danger.)
- nasredin 8y ago
  IIRC the US is mostly compliant with the treaties (without actually signing them) - there's a man in the loop, mines self disarm, etc. At least with the newer mines. Could be wrong though.

jakobegger 8y ago

While we're at it, we should also make them liable for bombs that did explode as planned.

_Microft 8y ago

Oh, and ... reimburse the buyer of the weapon as well?

DoctorOetker 8y ago
only during wartime! during peacetime the unintended victim should be renumerated
tzs 8y ago
Shouldn't they have the option of dropping a working bomb on the location, thus delivering the explosion that their defective bomb failed to deliver?
jonhendry18 8y ago
Sometimes, as with mines, you don't necessarily want them to go off. You only want them to go off if triggered. They would remain dangerous, however, unless they're the kind that renders itself chemically inert or otherwise incapable of exploding after some period of time has passed, in order to reduce risk of civilian casualties.

rustcharm 8y ago

Perhaps you should look into why people were dropping bombs in Germany in the first place.

jonhendry18 8y ago

There's been some work on making munitions, especially mines, self-disarming. So after some period of time they won't blow up. I think the main thing with preventing future munitions from causing problems like this is simply to avoid wars. So keeping NATO, the EU, the UN, and other organizations functional and influential is important. (Even so, there'd be some amount of weaponry used within reserved training areas, but at least there the risk is known and civilians aren't in danger.)

nasredin 8y ago
IIRC the US is mostly compliant with the treaties (without actually signing them) - there's a man in the loop, mines self disarm, etc. At least with the newer mines. Could be wrong though.