Japan & the cluster bomb ban
Mainichi reports that some within the Japanese government are not too happy about Japan’s decision to go along with Europe and support a ban on cluster bombs:
“Britain (which decided at the last minute to support the cluster bomb ban) is all right, it’s surrounded by European countries. Japan’s got China and Russia nearby, so the security environment is totally different. We need those bombs as a defense (against China and Russia),” another high-ranking Defense Ministry official said, criticizing Japan for allowing itself to be dragged along with European countries in supporting the ban.
What has saved the Defense Ministry is the treaty allowing signatories to conduct joint exercises with non-participating countries.
“If there’s a crisis on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. will use cluster bombs. We’ve got to be able to keep shipping lanes open, so we’ve cleared the way for the SDF and transport companies to ship materiel over to the Americans,” a Defense Ministry source said.
There are still many problems the cluster bomb ban poses for the ministry. The Air and Ground Self-Defense Forces possess four varieties of cluster munitions, costing taxpayers 27.6 billion yen.
All of these weapons will be outlawed by the treaty, which becomes even costlier when the vehicles used to launch the munitions are also made redundant, so the financial burden is considerable. One top brass from the ASDF estimates the cost of disposing of the cluster munitions will be 10 billion yen for the air branch alone.
The US, China, Russia, Israel, India and Pakistan – countries that produce and use a lot of cluster weapons – have not signed the cluster ban.
Full RSS Feed
Indeed it is a conflict of interest. Countries such as the high-profile Asian countries (unsure of which others have not signed) would be at a defensive disadvantage if they signed and their rivals did not. I’m sure the reluctant countries would happily sign for PR if they could, but of course, it’s not that easy.
Ahhh, all this conflict is giving me a headache!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Cluster bombs for defense. That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while. Bombs aren’t used for defense at all – they are offensive weapons. If they were talking about anti-aircraft weaponry it would be different, but bombs? – please.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
What they mean by “defensive” in case of Japan seems to be that Japan intended to use the cluster bomb only in Japanese territory when some enemies attack Japan.
BTW Korea and China, which often blame Japan for resurgent of Japanese militarism, have not signed the ban.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
If you bomb someone who is storming your beaches, that is “defensive”. If you bomb people who are trying to stop you from storming their beaches, that is “offensive”. If you use anti-aircraft weaponry against aircraft flying over their own territory, that is “offensive”, if they are over yours that is “defensive”. No weapon, in and of itself, is “defensive” or “offensive”. The employment of the weapon determines which word is applicable.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
So a nuclear warhead can be used defensively? I understand how you are trying to define the weapon by its intended purpose, but some weapons are simply too destructive to your own people to be used effectively as defensive weapons. Cluster bombs, for example, leave lots of unexploded bomblets over a large area that can remain active for weeks or months after a battle is fought. The continued damage to your own people makes me tend to believe that this kind of weapon falls into an offensive-only category.
I’ll admit that the fallacy in my argument is land mines. Land mines can only be used defensively, but they too create massive amounts of collateral damage.
It’s largely a semantics issue, but I must say that I’m glad Japan banned these.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
If you nuke an enemy city, it would be offensive. If you nuke an invading army gathering on your beach, that is defensive.
Trying to define weapons as defensive or offensive is a moot point, and is the same quagmire that the SDF has gotten itself into with all the play on words and using narrow definitions to try to appease its critics.
Whether it causes collateral damage or not is a totally separate issue from being defensive/offensive.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“So a nuclear warhead can be used defensively?”
Sure – didn’t you see “Independence Day”?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
the graphic shows cluster bombs used against people, AND camels. only militarily purposed camels, of course.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Funny that a country regarded as one of the most peaceful in the world hasn’t signed this ban.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Isn’t that because “peaceful” does not mean you are not prepared?
Anyway, Japan is now No. 5 in “peacefulness,” according to the Global Peace Index (GPI)
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2008/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I know. But I don’t think Japan will fall just because they don’t have cluster bombs, and I don’t think you do either, ponta.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I agree. I for one think it was good Japan banned the cluster bomb.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yes, it’s a step in the right direction. I have no doubt that cluster bombs are lethal and effective weapons. I wouldn’t have any problems with their use – since you do have to kill your enemies in war – except the proven high casualty rate they inflict on civilians. Basically cluster bombs are airdropped mines, with a high chance of being duds (some types are actually mines rather than bombs). Ironically, since the bombs are intended to be used against invaders on the beachhead, it is Japanese civilians who would be in danger.
There are types of cluster bombs that are timed to self-destruct after a while, but I don’t know if the ones possessed by the SDF are all of this type.
Rate this comment:
0 
0