4 ms·
MRVs are cluster-like, but not cluster munitions. Otherwise the US ICBM fleet with MIRVs would be a cluster munition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_i
by eesmith 1y ago
MRVs are cluster-like, but not cluster munitions.
Otherwise the US ICBM fleet with MIRVs would be a cluster munition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... even mentions 'multiple re-entry vehicle (MRV) system for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads above a single aimpoint which then drift apart, producing a cluster bomb-like effect.'
Note the "like". That is not the same as saying MRVs are cluster bombs.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions says: “Cluster munition” means a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and
includes those explosive submunitions -- https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Convention-ENG.pdf https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Conv...
From what I've heard, the MRV warheads carry more than 20kg of explosives, making them not a cluster bomb.
In any case, neither Israel, the US, nor Iran are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
What I said was, point to the relevant treaty or conventions which are being violated.
No, what I said was it cannot be read as "just to hit somebody and do some damage".
Your best response should be to describe why there are no military objectives by bombing a city - no military targets, no command-and-control centers, no anti-missile bases, no espionage headquarters, etc. (There's a reason Article 58 is so hard to follow.)
Do you really want to argue that this is "terrorism"? Definitions of terrorism regularly exclude armed conflict between nations, as you can read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism . What definition are you using?
So:
1) Which treaty or convention defines what 'enough precision' means?
2) What makes these cluster munitions? Are all MIRV systems (including conventionally-armed ones) cluster munitions?
3) Which treaty or convention prohibits the use of these weapons?
4) Which tribunal will determine if Iran or Israel violated these conventions?
As far as I can tell, none, no, none, and none.
The ICC and other post-war agreements were meant to prevent the atrocities regularly carried out during wars. Reject those agreements, fail to uphold them internally, well, don't be surprised about the outcome when a non-curb-stomp war breaks out.
- tguvot 1y agonot MIRV. cluster munitions https://newsarenaindia.com/international/iran-uses-cluster-bomb-missiles-in-attack-on-central-israel/47986 https://newsarenaindia.com/international/iran-uses-cluster-b...
- eesmith 1y agoI did write that I know very little of the recent exchanges. Pointing this out earlier would have been more timely. As the links points out (and as I wrote earlier) "Neither Iran nor Israel is a signatory to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, an international treaty prohibiting the production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of cluster bombs. The agreement has been signed by 111 countries and 12 other entities." So, what should my feelings be when two belligerents have decided it's acceptable to sometimes use cluster bombs during war, and one uses them against the other? It's really hard for me to feel a sense of outrage for one use of cluster bombs, given the recent history of Gaza, the 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks, etc. Furthermore, as a US citizen, I am also well aware that the US sent cluster munitions to Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine use them in their war. None of those countries are treaty signatories. Should the US be outraged about Iran's cluster munitions use when it's okay for Ukraine? Should we get the UN to step in between Israel and Iran? Between Russia and Ukraine? Between Israel and Gaza? What treaties apply? You still haven't answered my question of how you determined which accuracy is needed for a retaliatory response.
- tguvot 1y agorussia used cluster bombs (or actually rockets) from day 1 on population centers https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-crisis-cluster-munition-dropped-on-buildings-in-kharkiv-12554043 https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-crisis-cluster-munition-d... ukraine uses them only at front to attack troops it's geneva convention. not convention on cluster munition According to Article 51(5)(b), an attack is disproportionate, and thus indiscriminate, if it “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”11 Certain kinds of cluster munition attacks tend to tip the scale toward being disproportionate. Strikes in or near populated areas are particularly problematic because when combatants and civilians commingle, civilian casualties are difficult to avoid. Based on research in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia, Human Rights Watch believes that when non-precision guided submunitions are used in any type of populated area, there should be a strong, if rebuttable, presumption under the proportionality test that an attack is indiscriminate. In other words, a cluster munition strike on a populated area should be considered indiscriminate under the law, unless the military, which should bear the burden of proof, could show the military advantage of a particular strike outweighed the civilian harm. Cluster munition strikes also have the potential to be indiscriminate because the weapons cannot be precisely targeted. Article 51(4)(b) prohibits attacks “which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective.”12