Talk:Cluster munition

Intention

I would dispute that the "intention" of cluster bombs does not explicitly INCLUDE "they can kill or maim civilians long after a conflict has ended." If is this is true, there ought to be hard evidence that they have tried to design this "side effect" out and failed. The statements of public relations officials are not evidence.24.17.180.126 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

CNN figure

on cnn i keep on reading that a single cluster bomb can "cover" 18 square miles...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/28/uk.cluster.bomb/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/19/cluster.bombs/index.html#cnnSTCText

is that even possible? i mean little boy (the nuke) only "covered" 4.4 square miles....

my personal theory is that the CNN author confused some numbers and took 29000 m2 to mean 29km2 and then converted that to miles.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.106.151 (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

4.4 square miles is near 1.2 miles radius. 18 square miles is about 2.4 miles radius. The nuke destroys its whole circle. The cluster bomb merely has to throw things that far, not saturate the entire area. If you pop one at twenty thousand feet, you might do this, though it does seem rather thin on the ground, depending on how big the bomblets are and what they do. [[1]globalsecurity.org] has a bunch of info on current cluster weapons, doesn't answer the question directly, but demonstrates why it is largely irrelevant. Single cluster bombs just aren't used much.24.17.180.126 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

I understand that cluster bombs were used by the British forces against the Argentines on the Falkland Islands. Should the Falklands be added to the lists of places where they have been used?

i don't think that the sea-harriers, as used, were equipped to carry cluster munition dispensers and no other suitable british aircraft were in the theatre. so your comment that you 'understand' that cluster munitions were used looks rather 'contrived'. by the way, the argentines bombed the british forces with napalm. other napalm munitions, in argentine stores, which were later captured were in such a dangerous state that it was impossible to disarm them. i only mention this because you seem to have forgotten about it and i'm sure that you would want the readership to have neutral information.86.219.113.191 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 86.219.113.191 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 86.219.113.191 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Condell (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 October 2007 86.219.113.191 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

CBU BL755 Mk1 were widely used both from Sea Harrier and Harriers (based on Hermes). They were used against P.Stanley, during the battle of Goose green and some other actions. This is a well known fact, as example i have three different enciclopedias that mention this with even personal witness accounts, photos and so on. Standard load was one for wing, and eventually another under belly (yeas, it was possible carry one between gun pods). Already from 1 may 1982 with the first attack on P.Stanley. It's true also Argie used napalm at least on Goose green battle, aminly from Pucaras. --Stefanomencarelli 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above listing describing harriers as flying missions with cluster-bomb dispensers is inaccurate. The RAF and Royal Navy harriers were employed in the air-interceptor role and are shown with their loads consisting of long-range fuel tanks and aim-9 (sidewinder) missiles. quoting a warload designation (CBU etc) does not contribute to accuracy. bruce (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

if somebody wishes to discuss dangers to civilians in the falklands, they should consider mentioning the irresponsible and amateurish methods of the Argentine forces who laid minefields using unstable munitions and who did not bother to make maps or charts of the minefields. as a result, large areas will be forever off limits to the civilian inhabitants and cannot be used for any agrucultural purpose 'for ever'. bruce (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I was waking near Mount Tumbeldown in the Falklands ( near Port Stanley) in 1989 and I came across what appeared to be a cluster bomb dispenser. I notified the Land Mine Ordinance Centre at Port Stanley and they told me that cluster bombs had been used by the RAF and then all bomblets had been accounted for and so there was no danger. I have a photograph (on 35mm slide film) of the device I found and if anyone is interested (please post interest here as I will check periodically) I may be able to provide a *.jpg version. This seems to me to be good evidence that UK forces used cluster bombs during the 1982 Falklands war. --86.177.182.212 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

UN

"... individuals and groups, such as the Red Cross and the United Nations": calling the UN and the world's perhaps most important NGO "individuals and groups" is perhaps slightly inaccurate? --82.253.157.158 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

why so many bold words?

Because someone obviously feels strongly about it. Jtrainor 04:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bomb/bomblet

Is the picture really of a cluster bomb, or is it a cluster bomblet? Is it a picture of the disposal of an unexploded munition or is the picture taken during an attack?

My concern is that the picture might give the reader a incorrect view of the scale of a cluster bomb attack. --Drdan 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've changed the caption to emphasise that this is one bomblet exploding, not a whole bomb. BobThePirate 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Civilian deaths from unexploded cluster bomblets?

One of the statistics in this section mentions deaths of "up to 300 per year" in Viet Nam due to "cluster bombs and other objects left by the US military". The article used as support for the statistic is about a guy who was sawing an artillery shell open with a hacksaw. The "Clear Path International" article is about people who specifically go hunting unexploded ordinance "bombs, mines, artillery shells, and other kinds of munitions during the Vietnam War" not about cluster bombs. The 300 dead per year statistic due to cluster bombs is just a bit misleading.

The article link about "In post-war Kosovo unexploded cluster bomblets caused more civilian deaths than landmines" is about bomb AND mine injuries and makes no distinction between deaths caused by the two. "More than 100 people have now died from bomb and mine injuries since the end of the war in Kosovo, in June last year." "Since the arrival of spring there has been a steady increase in number of casualties from mines and cluster bombs." Where is any support for claiming mines kill less people than cluster bombs? The only possible quote would be "Unlike most mines they often kill or maim more than one person at a time" but that is how a single cluster munition is more dangerous than a single mine, not how many deaths each type has caused in post-war Kosovo. Gront 18:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice little POV jab quotation at the end there. Good work people. Haizum 06:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this claim 'According to Handicap International, 98% of cluster bomb victims are civilians.[2]' - because the sourced article says something different - that of the people it registered, 98% are civilians - but of course this is because the people it registered are, by definition, a self-selected group, and thus a biased sample. Isarig 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that statement is totally misleading. All that it says is that 98% of victims who registered with some bleeding heart NGO in the UK are civilians, not all victims of cluster bombs. I doubt that the thousands of combatants who have been killed by cluster munitions have managed to register with them. Zaku Two 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find from the original report that "registered" is the equivalent of "reported". In other words the data is based on what has been accumulated and makes no claims about those killed or injured but that have not been reported. For instance in the executive summary of the May 2007 followup report: "a preliminary report in November 2006, found that 98 percent of recorded casualties were civilian..." ~Robin~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinco (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

who are 'handicap international' anyway? who finances them? interesting that they claim to have been established first in france and belgium. are they a front organization for the french communist party? their disinformation fits that sort of pattern. bruce (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the next sentence actually possible?

• In the final 72 hours of the war between Israel and Hezballah, Israel dropped over 1,000,000 cluster bombs on Lebanese civilian populated areas.

one million bombs or should it be bomblets? --Akai-Hoshi (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Threats to civilians" section

Does this really have to be the first section of the article? I think "Development" and "Types of Cluster Bombs" are much more relevant to the article. Zaku Two 22:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

...if nobody posts an intelligent response to why this article should be about cluster bombs rather than civilian casualties they cause, I will continue to enforce this. The article is about cluster bombs, and their development and types are far more relevant. Zaku^Talk 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

....There are some valid reasons why people may be editing this article in a way that draws attention to the civilian casualties the weapon has caused. A key aspect of the history of cluster munitions has been the public disquiet generated by their use. This disquiet has stemmed from the weapon's history of causing unacceptable harm to civilians, particularly after conflict. This tendency to cause unacceptable harm has been long recognised by major user states: the US placed specific rules on the use of cluster munitions that it supplied to other states, in addition to the general rules on the use of all U.S. exported weapons. The most logical existing article in which to describe this threat to civilians is the "cluster bomb" article. This article should obviously contain information on the development and types of cluster munitions - clearly relevant elements in order to understand what a cluster munition is. It should also include information on the effects of cluster munitions throughout history - also relevant to understanding what cluster munitions are. This article should be a reference for people who want to know what a cluster munition is as well as for people who want to know what all the fuss is about in the newspapers when they report about cluster munitions. Thomasnash 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point... there's isn't a "huge fuss" about cluster munitions among the public other than some advocacy groups. The average user wants to find out about cluster bombs, not the problems they cause. Zaku^Talk 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the basis for your assertions about the needs of the "average user" with respect to the "cluster bomb" article? Is there any basis for your statement about what the "average user" wants to find out about on this article? Mainstream media coverage of the cluster munition problem since the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006 has been significant (a few google news searches will attest to that - and coverage is still ongoing). The coverage has principally been driven by ordnance clearance organisations that require funding for their work, including the UN, the Red Cross and also by media sources themselves who can see what will sell a paper or hold viewers. It has not been driven by advocacy groups, who I think are indeed trying to make a fuss, but who rely on the whims of the media to put the issue in the public eye and who have seen this issue take on life of its own beyond their own work - the activity on this article demonstrates that perhaps.Thomasnash 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"the activity on this article demonstrates that perhaps."

Considering that it's one anonymous user that keeps doing the same thing, that's pretty much invalid. Zaku^Talk 00:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the "Threats to Civilians" section belongs in the article. Nobody is disputing that it is a relevant and key part of the article. But it belongs in its logical place—after the sections that describe what a cluster bomb is, how it was developed, different types, etc. It just doesn't make any sense to jump right into the controversy section at the top of the page. Mike f 01:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is sense in having the development and types sections first - no dispute on my part there. My point is that there are some valid reasons why people are moving the threat to civilians section to the top of the page. Perhaps there could be a sentence in the intoductory paragraph noting the opposition to use of cluster bombs? Also I think there is healthy activity on the page in general (I'm not just talking about the activity related to moving the threats to civilians section to the top of the article). Certainly there is substantially more activity overall on this article than 12 months ago, when I was monitoring this article and it didn't change much, or even have a discussion page. So I don't think the statement about activity is invalid at all. Also it would be interesting to hear views on the other substantive points in my previous post that deal with other users' points made about a) assumptions of what users want from the article and b) the level of media coverage of this issue in recent months (for instance I have found several front page and full page articles specifically on cluster bombs in major european newspapers).Thomasnash 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The reasons (for moving the "Threats" section to the top) may be valid in some way, but I don't think they're valid for an encyclopedia article. A brief sentence in the intro paragraph may be a good compromise, but if you look at the Land mine article, there is no such mention in the intro. I think keeping the "Threats" section where it is (after the "development" and "types" sections) is good enough. As for your other points, a) it doesn't matter what (we think) some hypothetical users want from this article. Regardless of what someone might be looking for, it should be an objective collection of verifiable facts, organized logically, and written from the NPOV. Regarding b), media coverage or lack thereof should also not impact the way this article is written. Mike f 17:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the "Threats" should not come first. I make no argument that current unguided antipersonnel bomblets are a major threat to civilians. In a clearly political blog, I condemned their use in Lebanon. Here, however, there needs to be more definition. Some types of cluster submunitions are not intended to direct harm to people, such as carbon filament intended to short out electrical power lines. Other cluster submunitions are guided and attack tanks or trucks. There have been cluster submunitions that are small transmitters to jam radar. Starting out with the harm to civilians makes someone just learning the subject think that all cluster munitions are horror weapons.

Incidentally, the US has phased out the M26 rocket that covers a very large area with unguided antipersonnel submunitions. It was replaced by the guided M30, which puts a smaller number of antipersonnel munitions into a better defined target area. Even then, the M270 MLRS system that fires them is rapidly getting the XM31 guided missile, with a large unitary (i.e., non cluster) warhead.

I believe that it is possible to make antipersonnel submunitions that are much more selective for combat and safer for civilians, but no nation has made the investment in developing them.Hcberkowitz 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm not saying that the treaty to ban cluster bombs should not be included in this article but it appears that more tha half of the page is dedicated to this subject. I've also checked both the land mine and AP mine articles, the former I think does a pretty good job of balencing the the topic of mines themselves and the treaty to ban them. And the page on the AP mines specifically dose not contain any information about the treaty to ban them. There is also an article about the treaty to ban land mines itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.36.194 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Is this the type of sourcing we should have on Wikipedia, "according to an unconfirmed report by an unnamed head of an Israeli rocket unit." Is this serious? Would anyone else agree this maybe this should be removed if better sourcing cannot be found? Yes it is in print but that source is seriously flawed. Nothing here should be unconfirmed.--Looper5920 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a grey area. The article can include that fact that such a claim has been made, because it was published in a national newspaper, but I think it should the quote into with something like: Unconfirmed reports published in the liberal Haaretz newspaper claim xyz...?

The entire bit is far too long in my opinion, as it forms part of a section titled "Civilian deaths from cluster bombs", but then goes on to describe all claims and reports and political issues of it's use in this case etc. etc. etc. --Deon Steyn 08:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW: something about last summer war? There are reports about not lesst han 100,000 unexploded bomblets in Lebanon, caused both by artillery and aircraft bombs. I remember farmers that simply 'defeat' them using gasoline all around the 'stuff', then catching fire over gasoline, and leave the place. After some seconds the bomblet exploded harmlessy. Hundreds civilians were no so lucky, tv-news talked about hundreds dead and wounded already some months after the end of this war. In fact, Israel made the most massive use of cluster bombs and grenades in the last year, regardless of civilian casualties. And this is was realized by a lot of organizations, AI and ONU included.--Stefanomencarelli 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ref: the falklands campaign: sorry, but your assertions regarding the harrier warloads (CBU) do not add up. please quote official details (or nothing). also: your 12-year-old style of grammar does not support assertions purporting to be authorative. come back with mod/admiralty-fleet air arm details (all in the public domain). it is not possible to be a peacenik and an objective historian at the same time and don't try to fool people so as to make an undergraduate political point. nobody will be deceived for long bruce (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Threat to civilians

This section of the Article is to long and unnecessary and should be deleted or moved to an other Article. People who search the term "Cluster Bomb" want to know what a Cluster Bomb is and how it works. the Article is used to make propaganda against cluster bombs and is not a essantial information. If somebody wants an Article about the ban of Cluster bombs He/she should write one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladius1944 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeida articles cover topics in full, as any encyclopedia will. I don't think this section is large enough yet, but large sections can be split into a second page. Also, it would probably become a pov fork, where two articles with opposite bias are created. There is already an article on the Convention on Cluster Munitions. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually came here to find out about the civilian causalities of cluster bombs myself. The assertion that it is politically motivated may perhaps be politically motivated itself. The civilian threat appears to be a very real part of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backell (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unexploded ordnance

This assertion:

However, in the past, manufacturers' claims about new cluster munitions have proven unreliable and the same problems with unexploded ordnance have persisted. Previous claims for example about the reliability of the CBU-87 with BLU-97 submunitions were not borne out by reality in Afghanistan and Kosovo.[14]

is not supported by the cited reference. Page 41 of the citation described failure rates, but does not provide any manufacturers' claims about failure rates for comparison.

Pstemari (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any comparison with other unexploded ammunition, it seems to me that cluster bombs suffer the same faliure rate of artillery shells missiles and cannon shells. The fact that their munitions end up in a single area instead of being spread more randomly seems to be the only difference from say autocannons. All I'm saying is a comparison would be good for the article.

81.229.86.111 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cluster bombs are fragmentation weapons.

I went ahead a deleated the second paragraph in the article because it did not accuratly describe the effects of cluster bombs in relation to general purpose bombs, and I suspect a little bias. Most cluster bombs at least those in the US inventory do have fragmentation effects, although they can be combined with shaped charges and certain metals to produce incindiary effects. I think this article needs alot of cleaning up it seems to me that it focus to much on the efforts to ban the weapon and not enough on the weapons themselves. Another problem I noticed is in the incindiary section, although there have been fuel air explosive bomblets, this article seems to say that all thermmobaric weapons are cluster bombs. I suggest that anyone who wants to take edit this page take a look at globalsecurity.org, they have lots good information, and please forgive any grammer or spelling mistakes I had to right this in a hurry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.36.194 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please update this article

Human Rights Watch: Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians.[3]: "Human Rights Watch researchers have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas in Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called upon Russia to immediately stop using cluster bombs, weapons so dangerous to civilians that more than 100 nations have agreed to ban their use... Human Rights Watch said Russian aircraft dropped RBK-250 cluster bombs, each containing 30 PTAB 2.5M submunitions, on the town of Ruisi in the Kareli district of Georgia on August 12, 2008. Three civilians were killed and five wounded in the attack. On the same day, a cluster strike in the center of the town of Gori killed at least eight civilians and injured dozens, Human Rights Watch said. Dutch journalist Stan Storimans was among the dead. Israeli journalist Zadok Yehezkeli was seriously wounded and evacuated to Israel for treatment after surgery in Tbilisi. An armored vehicle from the Reuters news agency was perforated with shrapnel from the attack."

"This is the first known use of cluster munitions since 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon." --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More on cluster bombs in Georgia, consistent with Ove Dullum: According to Helena Cobban, a well known journalist and author who is on HRW's Middle East advisory board, the HRW accusation against Russia for using cluster bombs is flawed[4] - her blog, imho an RS because of her expert status.John Z (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the very large variety of cluster munitions available to the Russian armed forces (probably greater than available to the US - there's the better part of 10 available for MRLs compared to the US 2 or 3), they also have 152mm artillery shells for years that have a small number of large submunitions and hence are in compliance with the Dublin agreement. I'd be bit surprised if they were not used but it needs evidence from blinds.Nfe (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of countries

I've moved [5][6] a bunch of lists (Countries that have used cluster munitions, Countries that have produced cluster munitions, and Countries that have stocks of cluster munitions) here from Convention on Cluster Munitions, because I think this is where readers would expect to find them. Sorry about all the flag icons, I think they look awful but that's the way the lists were and I don't want to remove them without discussing it first. Per WP:FLAG, flag icons should be informative, not just decorative. I don't see what purpose is served by having them in an alphabetical list of countries. Polemarchus (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you are missing one country who produced them alright: Chile. [7]190.160.136.131 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives?

Should we have a section that goes over the alternatives and future plans of various nations?

Neutrality/Topic of this article

This article in my opinion has a clear anti-cluster bomb bias. It spends a great deal of time discussing civilian injuries from cluster bombs and giving reasons why they should be banned and very little of the article actually discusses why they are used and what their military effectiveness is. The history of cluster bomb use section is particularly troubling. It does not discuss the military reasons that cluster bombs were deployed or their military effectiveness. Instead, it talks about how terrible they were for the civilian population, which while true and properly cited doesn't give the whole story. In order to be unbiased, military benefits of cluster bomb use must be balanced against the humanitarian effects.

This is perhaps analogous to an article about peanuts giving a "history section" that's a blow by blow accounts of every baby who died from an allergic reaction and using citations from a group of grieving parents who want peanuts banned. Someone reading the article would come off with the incorrect impression that peanuts are a terrible baby killing weapon.

Wikipedians shouldn't just take propaganda from one side of a debate and write an large sections of an article based solely on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.110.100 (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Cluster Bomb" is itself pejorative. If you want a neutral article then reverse this: "Cluster bomb From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Sub-munition)". Hcobb (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you think clusters have other military goals than beeing terrible? Yeah sure they planting trees and help the wounded. Also they reduce CO2, hell what do you think they do?. Cluster Bombs arnt peanuts, peanuts are meant for eating, weapons for killing. -- 90.135.146.78 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. (Look it up.) Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right... so let's start torturing and executing prisoners, using nerve gas at every opportunity, and hell those ICBMs are just wasted sitting in their bunkers and submarines. And civilians - well - we should just warm up the gas chambers now. The point is that the collateral damage from cluster bombs, and the expense of cleaning up afterwards outweighs their military usefulness - the political/economic cost is just to high.

As for the article - I agree that it needs more content on the technicalities and history of development, as well as a history section that doesn't just include the last ten years. Happy to work with anyone who wants to expand it. Megapixie (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The article looks fair to me, as it stands. How ironic that Hcobb is concerned about the slandering of cluster bombs, and at the same time, so cavalier about the cruelty of war. If we accept the truth that war is cruel then certainly the cruelty of its weapons should be profiled in Wikipedia. Huangdi (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't possibly see how this article's history section can be seen as unbiased and am utterly miffed by people who do. It's history deals with *side effects* of the cluster bomb's use, not their intended uses. Of the thousands of uses of cluster bombs it singles out the cases in which they caused civilian deaths and declares that their history. It doesn't at all deal with their primary military purposes and doesn't appears to have been written by anyone who remotely knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.55.47 (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is definitely NPOV as currently written. As stated above, it concentrates too much on opposition to these weapons. Perhaps the greatest downfall of this article compared to other articles on weaponry is that it does not discuss the doctrine of its use. Furthermore, the statements by megapixe and others are inflammatory. This is not the appropriate venue for discussing the philosophy of war. (As a side note, if anyone seeing my username (RadManCF, Rad for Radioactive) thinks that I support the indiscriminate use of nuclear and radiological weapons, they are incorrect. I am a nuclear engineering student, and devoted to the PEACEFUL uses of nuclear technology.) RadManCF (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article should be re-writted IMO. Yes there's a good reason why cluster weapons are problematic in terms of danger to civilians, but these things had a valid military use for a good period of time. Not to mention that the "countries that have used cluster munitions" section has an overly incriminating tone as if it were "countries that have used chemical weapons", when the two are not equatable by a long shot Masterblooregard (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Contents in WIKI articles

WIKI pages are doing a great job been a good collection of resources. Concepts of Wiki is also good. But remember how terrorist acitivities are maturing in the recent past. Even though the use of commiunity contribution is a good technique it has to do with a great control. Specially with the military contents. In 21st century "Human rights" and "right to speek" are the modern and the deadliest weapons used by the terrorists. Also they use those as their protection shields. Since WIKI is being the most popular site it also provides a very good supportive ground for the front organizations of terrorist groups. This article provides a very good example for that(False content about the SRI LANKA). Edit history provides a good evidence of how much that person with the nick name "Skyfireworks" want to have that false and misleading content on this wiki page. Since those type of guys are purposefuly working on these acitivites they have plenty of chances and (most importantly) time than other contributors. If this contiues it will not take that much long to ruin the wikipedia. Any way it is good to see that WIKI editors taking actions like this (by protecting the article).

One of my suggestion is to have two sets of articles. one is to provide contributions.Other is to publish in protected mode after reviewing and standardizing it. I dont know how much that will fit into wiki concept. But always remember total freedom with new technology can vanish the entire human race from the earth.(Hope we all understand how powerful internet is.) Thanks again who ever looked in to this problem and made this page a protected one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.245.162 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're suggesting is called flagged revisions - it's currently being discussed and may be implemented at some point soon.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok but what is the mechanism available to protect the content been further modified after revising and standardizing it? Specialy these guys will not hesitate to put any misleading content under any cercumstances. Also they will not listen to any generous requests. Thats why they are called terrorists. 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)112.135.240.142 (talk)

Please assume good faith. Calling your fellow editors "terrorists" is a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - even if they refuse to discuss issues with you.

The mechanism as it currently stands is to revert incorrect information (avoiding edit-warring) or to seek dispute resolution. This should be a last-resort - you should always try and discuss contentious issues here on this talk page (or on an editor's talk page). In this case it seems you have tried this (I assume based on your comment about generous requests) so you might want to consider dispute resolution. After reading the dispute resolution article you could possibly try requesting a third opinion from a neutral editor.

There's no requirement for you to create an account, but you may find it useful. One approach to dealing with contentious articles is to protect the article from editing - this will either be semi-protection (which restricts the article to editors who have a registered account) or full protection (which restricts the article to administrators).

Hope this helps.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is really good to see that WP has some mechanisms to solve these problems. Also I really dont want to call other editors "terrorists". But my concern is we all lost in the case of finding terrorists becoming editors. If you look at the "Edit history" of that article you will be able to get a clear picture. And also I would like to tell that my comments on this is to protect wiki. I used wiki as a resource to get information for my teachings as well as in research works too. Not only me I have seen lot of others are doing the same also.(assuming the contents on wiki are reliable). According to my understanding if we do not identify the threat properly always the end will be a disaster. Any way I hope these discussions will be able to provide directions to better solutions.112.135.241.150 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Taiwan be included?

If I'm not mistaken, Taiwan has researched and developed its own cluster bomb named Wan Chien. It appears that no large scale production has been planned, and the four prototypes are still being evaluated. --K kc chan (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it could be, as long at least a source is given too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Types of Fuses

In the section on Development, there is this sentence: "The US used the M41 20 lbs fragmentation bomb wired together to clusters of 6 or 25 with highly sensitive or proximity fuses." What are you trying to say? Are we talking about two different kinds of fuses, or just one? If the "highly sensitive" fuses are not "proximity fuses", what kind are they? Perhaps the word "or" between sensitive & proximity should be removed. c.pergiel (71.117.211.59 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

This Article needs to be divided into two sections

Folks, I know this is not going to happen, but this article needs to be divided off into two articles so neutrality and POV can be maintained. One article needs to be titled "CLUSTER BOMB (History/Hardware)" and the other article needs to be titled "CLUSTER BOMB (The Politics)". Finally, I have added a paragraph on the Spanish developed 81mm and 120mm anti-armor submunition mortar projectiles, which while as they say "To little, To Late" is to my knowledge the only submunition where any that fail to explode are rendered 100% safe (ie they won't explode unless you deliberately make them explode by rigging the fuze or setting an explosive charge near them). Although the Spanish Army (120mm) and the Spanish Marines (81mm) knew they had the only "safe" submunition projectile in the world, Spain signed the Wellington Declaration and according to Spanish Marine I discussed the issue with, they have been taken out of operational stocks. Whether they have been destroyed or not is unknown. --Jackehammond (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no strong arguments where POV and neutrality are problematic in the current version. In fact I think splitting it in itself introduces POV. Therefore I oppose the suggestion to split into two articles because:

1) Splitting off the ethics/political from the hardware could be interpreted an implicit approval of their use by Wikipedia.

Additionally there are some practical problems with such a split.

2) The history, especially the history of use is essential to understand the ethics/political debate (so if a split were to be made that part should go there)

3) Without basic explanation of the hardware the ethical/political debate is not intelligable; but copying that information would basically recreate the current article.

An alternative that I think would be ok, especially if this article further grows, is to create a main article (this one) which refers to more extensive "sub"articles (on the hardware and on the ethical/political debate). Arnoutf (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. But I would be wasting my time explaining the obvious. And the obvious is why this article is so important to so many. But again, thanks for your feed back.

--Jackehammond (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

• I'm not familiar with cluster bombs, but I've been intrigued by the accusations and retractions regarding Sri Lanka. e.g.

For The Record Los Angeles Times Saturday, February 28, 2009 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 3 inches; 116 words Type of Material: Correction

Sri Lanka bombs: An article in Section A on Feb. 4 about Sri Lankan government forces fighting with Tamil Tiger rebels reported that United Nations spokesman Gordon Weiss said a hospital in the war zone had been hit by cluster bombs, and the headline said, "U.N. cites Sri Lanka cluster bomb use." The Times did not, however, publish later wire reports that quoted Weiss as acknowledging that it was artillery fire, not cluster bombs, that hit the hospital. Those later articles quoted Sri Lankan Brig. Udaya Nanayakkara as saying, "We don't have the facility to fire cluster munitions. We don't have these weapons." Weiss said the U.N. accepted the government's assurance that it didn't have them. [8]

Then I noted these two revisions that contradict the information available at: http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/countries/

• Revision as of 01:07, 16 February 2010 by 79.77.137.174
• Revision as of 01:16, 16 February 2010 by 79.77.137.174

AFFECTED COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

36 countries and territories are known to be affected by cluster munitions from use in armed conflict:

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Chechnya, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falklands/Malvinas, Georgia, Grenada, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Montenegro, Morocco, Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Zambia

USERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS

15 countries have used cluster munitions:

Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Israel, Libya, Morocco, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Former Yugoslavia (Serbia), Sudan, United Kingdom, United States

PRODUCERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS

34 countries have produced or are still producing cluster munitions:

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States

STOCKPILERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS

85 countries have stockpiled cluster munitions:

Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zimbabwe

• Therefore Sri Lanka should only be in the stockpilers' list. I also noted that one of the external links, www.slhr.org, is dead. I'm going to fix these problems in the article. -- Harshula (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)