Comments on: Japan & the cluster bomb ban http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/ Japan News Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: LB http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181677 LB Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:32:48 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181677 "So a nuclear warhead can be used defensively?" Sure - didn't you see "Independence Day"? ;-) “So a nuclear warhead can be used defensively?”

Sure – didn’t you see “Independence Day”? ;-)

]]> By: helical http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181673 helical Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:28:32 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181673 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. 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.

]]> By: pauliez http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181364 pauliez Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:24:03 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181364 the graphic shows cluster bombs used against people, AND camels. only militarily purposed camels, of course. the graphic shows cluster bombs used against people, AND camels. only militarily purposed camels, of course.

]]> By: concerned Filipino http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181125 concerned Filipino Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:05:32 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181125 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. 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.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181124 Kevin Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:02:27 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181124 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. 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.

]]> By: ponta http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181111 ponta Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:39:41 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181111 I agree. I for one think it was good Japan banned the cluster bomb. I agree. I for one think it was good Japan banned the cluster bomb.

]]> By: concerned Filipino http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181106 concerned Filipino Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:21:21 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181106 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. 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.

]]> By: ponta http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181101 ponta Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:09:58 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181101 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/ 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/

]]> By: LB http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181094 LB Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:45:13 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181094 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. 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.

]]> By: concerned Filipino http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181093 concerned Filipino Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:44:28 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181093 Funny that a country regarded as one of the most peaceful in the world hasn't signed this ban. Funny that a country regarded as one of the most peaceful in the world hasn’t signed this ban.

]]> By: ponta http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181079 ponta Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:17:13 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181079 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. 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.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181068 Kevin Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:43:40 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181068 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. 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.

]]> By: Zanibas http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/06/09/japan-the-cluster-bomb-ban/comment-page-1/#comment-181022 Zanibas Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:16:29 +0000 http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4827#comment-181022 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! 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!

]]>