Planet Debate 09-10 Cluster Munitions Aff 1

Planet Debate 09-10 Cluster munitions aff
Cluster munitions aff

Cluster munitions aff.........................................................................................................................................................................1
FYI – Cluster munitions....................................................................................................................................................................2
Inherency – Afghanistan...................................................................................................................................................................3
Inherency – Afghanistan...................................................................................................................................................................4
Inherency – Iraq ...............................................................................................................................................................................5
Inherency – Iraq................................................................................................................................................................................6
Inherency – Stockpile........................................................................................................................................................................7
Inherency – Stockpile........................................................................................................................................................................8
Inherency – International consensus.................................................................................................................................................9
Inherency – Oslo.............................................................................................................................................................................10
Inherency – Oslo.............................................................................................................................................................................11
Inherency – Oslo.............................................................................................................................................................................12
Inherency – Oslo.............................................................................................................................................................................13
Inherency – Use..............................................................................................................................................................................14
Inherency – Obama.........................................................................................................................................................................15
Cluster munitions generally bad.....................................................................................................................................................16
International law.............................................................................................................................................................................20
International law.............................................................................................................................................................................21
Civilian deaths.................................................................................................................................................................................22
Civilian deaths.................................................................................................................................................................................23
Civilian deaths.................................................................................................................................................................................24
Humanitarianism.............................................................................................................................................................................25
A2: Replacement weapons worse...................................................................................................................................................26
Environment adv.............................................................................................................................................................................27
Military adv.....................................................................................................................................................................................28
A2: CCW solves..............................................................................................................................................................................29
A2: CCW solves..............................................................................................................................................................................30
A2: New munitions are safer..........................................................................................................................................................31
A2: 1% UXO rule solves................................................................................................................................................................32
Oslo good........................................................................................................................................................................................33
1
2
FYI – Cluster munitions

Cluster munitions defined
Borrie 9
[John Borrie, (Project Dir., UN Institute for Disarmament Research), UNACCEPTABLE HARM: A HISTORY OF HOW THE TREATY TO BAN CLUSTER
MUNITIONS WAS WON, 2009, 8.]
At its most basic, a cluster weapon or munition can be described as a container or dispenser from which explosive
submunitions (sometimes called bomblets) are scattered. These submunitions are generally the dangerous parts of a
cluster munition because they are designed to explode on impact or after a time-delay and cause damage through blast
and fragmentation. (Unless a cluster munition container actually falls from the sky and lands on someone, it is
explosive submunitions that should be regarded as the dangerous components of a cluster munition.) Explosive
submunitions can be delivered in cluster munitions dropped, dispensed or launched from aircraft or, as has increasingly
been the case in recent years, be surface-launched: besides artillery shells containing submunitions, systems are also
used that deploy submunitions from rockets or mortar shells.
Goose 8
[Stephen Goose, (Dir., Arms Division, Human Rights Watch), BANNING LANDMINES: DISARMAMENT, CITIZEN DIPLOMACY, AND HUMAN
SECURITY, 2008, 218.]
Most people think of cluster "bombs" dropped from aircraft, but other common cluster munitions include artillery
shells and ground rocket systems. The bombs, shells, and rockets typically contain dozens or hundreds of sub-
munitions (or bomblets) that are released in the air and strewn across a wide area or "footprint." The submunitions
usually are designed to explode on contact, though many fail to do so and remain dangerous to the unsuspecting touch.
Human Rights Watch 9

[BANNING CLUSTER MUNITIONS: GOVERNMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2009, 1.]
Cluster munitions are weapons that scatter explosive submunitions across a wide area. Dropped from aircraft or fired
from the ground, a container munition opens in the air and releases the smaller submunitions to explode across the area
below. The number of submunitions packed into a container range from fewer than ten to many hundreds.
2
3
Inherency – Afghanistan
Cluster munitions used in Afghanistan
Sanders 9
[Barry Sanders, (Journalist), THE GREEN ZONE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF MILITARISM, 2009, 128.]
As we have seen in the section on Iraq, human rights groups have almost universally condemned the use of cluster
bombs as inhumane weapons (though I think the distinction between humane and inhumane weapons for killing is a
useless and even ludicrous one). On October 25, 2001, Chief of Staff, General Richard Myers announced that "yes, we
have used cluster bomb units...There have not been a great deal of them used, but they have been used." If you're a
military person instead of a civilian on the ground, "not a great deal" sounds like it might mean only one or two. But
that's far from the case. Between October 2001 and March 2002, the United States dropped 1,228 cluster bombs
containing 248,056 bomblets over Afghanistan.158 In Herat, according to Human Rights Watch, between October
2001 and June 2002 latent bomblets killed 44 percent of their victims, while landmines killed 21 percent.159 (Again, I
think comparative numbers on death and dying are degrading, and I offer them only to make a point about lethality. A
parent of a dead child does not care about categories.
248,000 submunitions used in Afghanistan

Large-scale use of cluster munitions in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and in Iraq in 2003 deepened the recognition of the
humanitarian and legal problems posed by these weapons. In Afghanistan, the United States dropped some 248,000
submunitions causing dozens of avoidable civilian casualties, including more than 120 in the first year after the strikes.
In Iraq, Human Rights Watch concluded that two million submunitions used by the US and United Kingdom caused
hundreds of civilian casualties during the 2003 invasion, more than any other weapon (other than small arms fire).
Many cluster strikes in Afghanistan

[BANNING CLUSTER MUNITIONS: GOVERNMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2009, 254]
In Afghanistan, the US dropped about 1,228 cluster bombs containing 248,056 bomblets between October 2001 and
March 2002. In a limited sampling of the country, Human Rights Watch confirmed that at least 25 civilians died and
many more were injured during cluster strikes in or near populated areas.
3
4
Inherency – Afghanistan
232 cluster strikes in Afghanistan alone
Borrie 9
In 232 cluster strikes, the United States hit targets across Afghanistan, including military bases, frontlines, villages
where Taliban and Al-Qaida troops were hiding, and cave complexes. "Human Rights Watch found ample evidence
that cluster bombs caused civilian harm" and that at least 25 civilians died and many more were injured during cluster
strikes in or near populated areas -- illuminating "common and recurrent problems with these weapons" and
"fundamental flaws that require additional changes and new international regulation". And submunition failure rates
again appeared to be significant -- leaving lethal, unexploded submunitions for civilians to encounter.
12,000 unexploded ordinances left in Afghanistan now
Sameit 8
[Mark Sameit, (J.D. Candidate, Wm. & Mary Law School & Captain U.S. Marine Corps.), WILLIAM AND MARY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
REVIEW, Winter 2008, 571.]
The primary danger and criticism of the cluster bomb is that it has a 5 to 7 percent dud rate, which leaves 10 to 14
unexploded bomblets with each use. When this seemingly small failure rate is multiplied by the 1,100 CBU-87s used
during Operation Allied Force in Kosovo and the 1,210 CBU-87s used in Afghanistan, the magnitude of the problem
becomes apparent, with an estimated 11,000 unexploded ordnance in Kosovo and 12,000 in Afghanistan.
The US used cluster munitions against the Taliban
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 222.]
The United States' use of cluster munitions in Afghanistan in its post-9/11 campaign against the Taliban brought the
issue back into the headlines. From October 2001 into 2002, the United States dropped some 248,000 submunitions.
Human Rights Watch again conducted an investigative mission and found that the U.S. Air Force had largely heeded
the criticism from Kosovo and made a deliberate effort to minimize use of cluster munitions in populated areas, but
that dozens of avoidable civilian casualties still occurred during strikes, and more than 120 in the first year after.
4
5
Inherency – Iraq
Cluster munitions used in Iraq
Sanders 9
Thus, cluster bombs behave somewhat like Depleted Uranium, releasing their allotment of death over a long period of
time, turning grazing fields and agricultural plots and picnic spots into places of fright and fear, where, at any moment,
ordinary unsuspecting Iraqis can unexpectedly find themselves blown into bits. Marc Galasco, the senior military
analyst at Human Rights Watch, abhors the military's use of cluster bombs, more even than its willingness to use
weapons loaded with depleted uranium: "The single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon is that
is in use." Galasco wants to see them outlawed, and wants the United States to lead the way.
Even after major combat operations ended – the Air Force continued to deploy cluster munitions in Iraq
Sanders 9
[Barry Sanders, (Journalist), THE GREEN ZONE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF MILITARISM, 2009, 98-9]
Few if any news agencies report on cluster munitions. That's why the Mennonite Central Committee -- which has
studied cluster bombs for more than thirty years -- filed a Freedom of Information Act request for disclosure of the
military's use of cluster bombs since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In its response to the Mennonites, the
Air Force confirmed that "63 CBU-87 cluster bombs were dropped in Iraq between May 1, 2003 and August 1, 2006.
These 12,726 BLU-97 bomblets ...dropped since May 2003 do not include, according to statistics provided by Human
Rights Watch, almost two million cluster sub-munitions used by coalition forces in Iraq in March and April 2003."
High failure-rated submunitions were used in Iraq
Borrie 9
The 2003 Iraq conflict would also eventually confirm suspicions among NGOs that submunition failure rates in
operational use were significantly higher than the failure rates claimed by cluster munition manufacturers and the
militaries deploying them. Moreover, HRW researchers subsequently found that US and UK forces repeatedly used
cluster munitions in attacks on Iraqi positions in residential neighbourhoods, often as part of unobserved counter-
battery fire. Human Rights Watch concluded, "Since Iraqi forces often occupied populated areas on the edges of
towns, the attacks left thousands of duds in urban neighbourhoods and villages near the major cities of Iraq".
US deploys cluster bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq
Bolton 9
[Matthew Bolton, (Staff), THE GUARDIAN, Nov. 26, 2009. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2010 from www.guardian.co.uk.]
While the US has not used landmines since 1991, it has stockpiles of some 10m antipersonnel mines and 7.5m anti-
vehicular mines, and has used cluster bombs, which leave behind explosive "duds" that act as de facto mines, in
Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
5
6
Inherency – Iraq
2 million submunitions used from March to April of 2003 alone
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 222.]
Reality from the ground again dramatically intruded on the international diplomatic efforts, as United States and
United Kingdom forces fired some two million submunitions during the March -- April 2003 invasion of Iraq. While
the U.S. Air Force to an even greater degree than in Afghanistan avoided use in populated areas, the U.S. Army had
not learned this lesson and cascaded cluster munitions, mostly rocket and artillery systems, into Baghdad and many
other urban environments. A Human Rights Watch field investigation concluded that cluster munitions had caused
hundreds of civilian casualties during the invasion, more than any other weapon (other than small arms fire).
6
7
Inherency – Stockpile
US stockpiles cluster munitions
Sanders 9
[Barry Sanders, (Journalist), THE GREEN ZONE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF MILITARISM, 2009, 97-98.]
Perhaps the most insidious munitions in the military arsenal are the cluster bombs, the CBU-87B and the BLU-97B.
Dropped from an aircraft, a 2000-pound cluster bomb releases 202 bomblets at a preset altitude, which float down on
tiny parachutes and detonate upon hitting the ground. Those bomblets have the capacity to spray an area 400 feet by
800 feet with molten steel slugs designed to penetrate armor and to kill every living thing in its vicinity. An officer on
the aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson, in his own understated way, describes the effect of a behemoth bomb,
especially on human beings: "A 2000-pound bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for
anyone within a square mile." One stands in a kind of stupefied awe at such an instrument of killing, that, from as far
as one mile away, can create something the military refers to as "a significant emotional event."
The military has 300,000 cluster munitions in inventory
Sanders 9
[Barry Sanders, (Journalist), THE GREEN ZONE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF MILITARISM, 2009, 140]
While the military has designed the fuses to de-activate after four hours, field commanders report a very high failure
rate -- coincidentally, just like all the other cluster bombs -- making this a munition that keeps on giving. These mines
also have the capability of turning even nastier than the conventional cluster bomb, because of something called the
variable time feature, which allows the mine -- either antiperson or antivehicle -- to explode unexpectedly for a period
of up to four days. The military calls these moments of deadly surprise, in another of those euphemisms of the
powerful, the "harassment feature." Imagine, then, along with the hidden landmines, the unexpected explosions from
probably thousands of these Gator bombs. The United States military has approximately 300,000 of them in its
inventory. To own them is to have the itch to employ them. We can only guess where next.
US fuels cluster munitions use

The US has been the most prolific user of cluster munitions, and one of the biggest producers and exporters as well. It
stockpiles cluster munitions containing between 700 million and one billion submunitions.
US has a large stockpile of cluster munitions

.
An October 2004 report to the US Congress by the Department of Defense provides details on a stockpile of 5.5
million cluster munitions containing about 728.5 million submunitions. This figure however does not appear to be a
full accounting of cluster munitions available to US forces. In particular, the tally does not include cluster munitions
that are part of the War Reserve Stocks for Allies (WRSA). In 1994 the stockpile, including the WRSA, consisted of
8.9 million cluster munitions containing nearly one billion submunitions.
7
8
Inherency – Stockpile
Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy all use cluster munitions

Cluster munitions are particularly ubiquitous in the stores of US ground forces. According to the report, the Army has
about 638.3 million cluster submunitions (88% of the total inventory) and the Marine Corps has about 53.3 million
(7%). The report states, "Cannon and rocket artillery cluster munitions comprise over 80% of Army fire support
capability," and they "comprise the bulk of the Marine Corps artillery munitions." The Air Force stockpiles about 22.2
million air-delivered cluster bombs (3% of the cluster inventory) and the Navy about 14.7 million (2 %).
US is the largest user of cluster munitions
Borrie 9
Despite its refusal to participate in the Oslo process and traditional opposition to international legally binding measures
of any kind on cluster munitions, US policymakers were certainly not ignorant of the risks cluster munitions pose to
civilians. As we have seen in the course of this book, the US is historically the largest user of cluster munitions, in
military actions in Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam, Grenada in 1983, Lebanon in 1983, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
in the first Gulf War in 1991, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, and Iraq in
2003. Precise estimates of the number of cluster munitions the US possesses today are hard to come by, but NGOs
believe the military's total stockpile contains between 700 million and one billion submunitions.
Extensive cluster munition use
Borrie 9
MUNITIONS WAS WON, 2009, 196-7.]
By far the most submunitions are in the inventories of US ground forces, however, with the Army possessing around
88%, and the Marines 7% of US submunitions. A Defense Department report to Congress in October 2004 noted,
"Cannon and rocket artillery cluster munitions comprise over 80% of Army fire support capability" and these ground-
launched systems were used extensively in the 2003 Iraq invasion.
The military employs cluster munitions
Sameit 8
The United States Military employs several types of combined effect munitions ("CEM") depending on the range of
the target. The three primary weapons for dispensing CEMs are the Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile for long-range
attacks launched from ships or submarines, the Joint Standoff Weapon for medium-range attacks, and the Cluster
Bomb Unit ("CBU-87") for direct attacks. Each CEM is filled with 150 to 200 "soda-can sized bomblet submunitions"
known as cluster bombs. These bomblet submunitions are further filled with hundreds of pieces of shrapnel that can
cause injury at up to 150 meters.
8
9
Inherency – International consensus

Consensus against cluster munitions is now at a critical stage
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 220.]
While the number of conflicts in which cluster munitions have been used to date is still relatively limited, the danger of
the problem growing exponentially is great. At least fourteen states and a small number of nonstate armed groups have
used cluster munitions in at least twenty-six countries and five other areas. According to Human Rights Watch, thirty-
four countries have produced over 210 different types of cluster munitions, and at least thirteen countries have
transferred over fifty different types of cluster munitions to at least sixty other countries, as well as nonstate armed
groups.
9
10
Inherency – Oslo
US opposes Oslo ban on cluster munitions

The United States of America has not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It did not participate directly at all
in the diplomatic "Oslo Process" in 2007-2008 to develop and negotiate the convention, which as of April 2009 had
been signed by 96 nations, including most of the US's closest military allies.
US resisting cluster munitions restrictions

At the international level, the US was not interested in any new rules or regulations on cluster munitions, much less
any sort of prohibition. Its position was that the best way to address cluster munitions, as one of many types of ERW,
was through the implementation of existing humanitarian law and improvements in the technical reliability of
munitions. During the discussions, then negotiations, on ERW in the Convention on Conventional Weapons from
2001-2003, the US would only accept provisions dealing with post-conflict remedial measures, but would not discuss
possible use restrictions or specific weapons systems, such as cluster munitions.
US opposes any restriction on cluster munitions

Some states kept the issue of cluster munitions on the CCW agenda, however, and in response to concerns raised over
their indiscriminate effects, the US in 2004 said it would join an effort aimed at "increasing reliability of cluster
munitions through improved fusing and self-destruct mechanisms" and said that ehancing the reliability of munitions
systems is an important goal from a military as well as a humanitarian point of view. The US was still not interested in
discussing any restrictions on use of the weapon.
Cluster munitions ban failed in the Senate as recently as 2006

In September 2006, Senator Dianne Feinstein, along with Senator Patrick Leahy, introduced the first legislative action
in the US to address cluster munitions. Their proposed amendment, to "protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster
munitions," would have prevented the use of cluster munitions by US armed forces in or near any concentrated
population of civilians. It was defeated 30-70.
10
11
Inherency – Oslo
US resisting cluster munitions pressure through the CCW

As international pressure to deal with cluster munitions grew in 2006, especially after Israel's massive use of the
weapons in south Lebanon, a number of CCW States Parties began calling for the negotiation of a new international
legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions. At the opening of the CCW Third Review Conference in November
2006, however, the US position was that it was unnecessary to talk about new rules of international humanitarian law.
Instead, states should apply existing laws "rigorously" and focus on the implementation of Protocol V on ERW. The
US rejected a specific proposal for a mandate to negotiate a legally-binding instrument "that addresses the
humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions. The US agreed not to block a compromise proposal from the
United Kingdom for a vague mandate to "consider further the application and implementation of existing international
humanitarian law" to weapons which might cause ERW, with a particular focus on cluster munitions.
No support for a cluster munitions ban

After the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions by 107 States (including 71 CCW States Parties) in Dublin
in May 2008, the US said that it chose not to participate in the process because it did "not support a sweeping ban on
cluster munitions" and stated that it did not view the new convention as establishing a norm against the use of cluster
munitions. Senators Feinstein and Leahy introduced a joint resolution calling on the US to sign the convention when it
opened for signature in December 2008.
Interoperability concerns prevent US adoption of a ban

While not participating directly in the Oslo Process and the negotiations, the US worked hard to influence them. A
State Department official said the US had communicated its views on the process and draft convention to more than
100 nations. Foremost among the concerns it raised with other states about the possible impact of a future convention
that prohibits cluster munitions was the issue of "interoperability" (joint military operations involving the US and
States Parties to the convention), with the US seeking to ensure that a new convention did not inhibit its ability to
employ cluster munitions in NATO and other coalition military operations.
11
12
Inherency – Oslo
US actively undermining the Convention

During the negotiations, campaigners in Dublin, the US, and elsewhere protested US efforts to undermine the
convention. US Senator Patrick Leahy visited the Dublin negotiations, where he urged delegates to be guided by the
conviction that this is, above all, more than a military issue. It is a moral issue. Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams,
through statements to the media, challenged the US to come to Dublin to "do its own dirty work and not hide behind its
allies. Victims of cluster munitions used by the US in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Iraq joined campaigners outside the
US embassy in Dublin on 23 May 2008 to protest what they called the "elephant not in the room" at the Dublin
negotiations.
Obama not yet on board with new Oslo agreement

The US did not participate in the Oslo Signing Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3-4 December
2008, although 20 other observer states attended. When asked, a White House spokesperson could not explain why the
Bush administration was not signing. An Obama spokesperson released a statement that said: "President-elect Obama
is deeply concerned about the well-being of civilians in situations of conflict, as reflected by his support of the
legislation in 2006 that would have prohibited the use of cluster munitions near concentrations of civilians. As
president, he will carefully review the new treaty and work closely with other countries to ensure that the United States
is doing everything feasible to promote protection of civilians in conflict.
US works outside of the Convention
Williams 9
[Jody Williams, (Coordinator of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines), BOSTON GLOBE, Apr. 13, 2009. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2010 from
www.boston.com.]
The United States did not play a fundamental leadership role in the process that resulted in the Mine Ban Treaty and
walked out of the final treaty negotiations. Ten years later the country stood outside the process -- officially at least --
that created the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
12
13
Inherency – Oslo
US prefers technical improvements over international restrictions
Borrie 9
Nevertheless, technical improvements to cluster munitions remained the solution in which the US government
preferred to put its faith, rather than new international rules or regulations on the weapon. As has been seen in previous
chapters, the US delegation to the CCW opposed discussion of possible use restrictions on cluster munitions or any
prohibition of specific weapons until 2007. While outcry about the Southern Lebanon conflict in 2006 led many
governments in the CCW to favour the idea of a cluster munition protocol, the US insisted that a solution to the
hazards to civilians that cluster munitions posed was simply a matter of more rigorous implementation of existing
humanitarian law rules applicable to all weapons, and said it did not even see the need for further discussion in the
Group of Governmental Experts on explosive remnants of war format that followed the agreement of Protocol V in late
2003. And, when the Oslo initiative emerged, the US was deeply critical of it.
No concessions on cluster munitions now
Borrie 9
But the success of the February 2007 Oslo conference, and the rapid increase of an international initiative aimed at a
treaty banning cluster munitions, saw the US delegation in the CCW start to change its tune. While still opposed to the
Oslo process and a ban treaty, by June the US said it was prepared to consider CCW negotiations on the weapon. In
November 2007 the US delegation joined consensus on a mandate to "negotiate a proposal" during 2008 -- all the
while continuing to insist that cluster munitions were "legitimate weapons when employed properly and in accordance
with existing international humanitarian law" and that "in many instances, cluster munitions result in much less
collateral damage than unitary weapons would if used for the same mission".
Allied commitments prevent a full ban
Borrie 9
Nevertheless, the Bush administration's range of attempts to influence a treaty negotiation process it publicly shunned
were not primarily aimed at affecting which specific weapons a Convention on Cluster Munitions would ban. The
Dublin conference's negotiations on interoperability were where its influence was felt. US allies such as Australia,
Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan and the UK would strive to secure an outcome that would not impede US use of cluster
munitions, and avoid damage to their defence relationships with Washington.
13
14
Inherency – Use
US likely to continue to use cluster munitions
Borrie 9
One of the big assumptions of military lawyers from NATO countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK in
interoperability work in the Oslo process, for instance, was that in view of their characteristics cluster munitions were
more likely to be used by US forces than anti-personnel mines ever would be.
14
15
Inherency – Obama
Obama is continuing the Bush policy opposing a cluster munitions ban

On 10 February 2009, leaders of 67 US organizations sent a joint letter to President Obama requesting a review of US
policy on landmines and cluster munitions. As of April 2009, no response had been received.
15
16
Cluster munitions generally bad

Cluster munitions are dangerous

Cluster munitions have been singled out for criticism on the basis of two problematic characteristics. Due to the way in
which they scatter many small submunitions, these weapons have a tendency to strike both military and civilian
populations and objects when used near populated areas. Furthermore, cluster munitions have consistently left large
numbers of submunitions unexploded, but still dangerous, in the post-conflict environment. Often compared to
antipersonnel mines, these unexploded submunitions have impeded access to community resources and caused death
and injury to civilians long after conflict has ceased.
Cluster strikes are a major cause of civilian deaths

The US used 10,782 cluster munitions, containing about 1.8 million submunitions, in the three weeks of major combat
in Iraq between March and April 2003. Human Rights Watch's field investigation concluded that cluster munition
strikes, particularly ground attacks on populated areas, were a major cause of civilian casualties; hospital records show
cluster strikes caused hundreds of civilians deaths and injuries in Baghdad, al-Hilla, al-Najaf, Basra, and elsewhere.'"
In after-action reports, US forces called their own cluster munitions "relics" and "losers" and questioned the weapon's
utility.'"
Cluster munitions kill innocents
Lewis 8
[Patricia Lewis, (Dir., UN Institute for Disarmament Research), THE HUMANITARIAN IMPACT OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS, 2008, vii.]
The current international debate surrounding cluster munitions and the discussion of a ban or tightened restrictions on
their use has focused attention on the humanitarian impact of these weapons. In addition to killing and injuring
civilians and damaging infrastructure at the time of use, they invariably leave behind unexploded submunitions which
continue to pose a threat to human life, restrict access to natural resources and impede post-war recovery and
development processes for many years after their use.
16
17

Cluster munitions cause humanitarian crises
Lewis 8
[Patricia Lewis, (Dir., UN Institute for Disarmament Research), THE HUMANITARIAN IMPACT OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS, 2008, 2.]
Cluster munitions have a humanitarian impact on civilian populations at the time of use and post-conflict. There is an
immediate danger of injury or death to civilians during cluster munition strikes, especially in built- up areas. After
hostilities have ceased, unexploded submunitions pose a threat to the population, with the potential to cause death or
physical and psychological trauma, and disrupt economic activities and daily life. The fear of such dangers, and the
resulting influence on behaviour, can have real effects on the well-being of individuals and communities. Furthermore,
submunitions can prevent or hinder the safe return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), and hamper
humanitarian, peace-building and development efforts. Unexploded cluster munitions also pose a physical threat to
humanitarian workers and peacekeepers.
Cluster munitions cause unintended casualties
Lewis 8
[Patricia Lewis, (Dir., UN Institute for Disarmament Research), THE HUMANITARIAN IMPACT OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS, 2008, 8.]
The wounding effects of munitions that have failed to function as intended -- such as unexploded submunitions -- can
be more severe than those of antipersonnel mines. While anti-personnel mines are relatively small explosive devices
intended to kill or incapacitate an individual through "point detonation" against specific parts of the body, ERW vary
greatly in their physical characteristics and explosive force. Moreover, because they are devices that have failed to
function as intended, individual items of ERW are unpredictable. Although it is difficult to generalize, incidents
involving ERW tend to cause multiple casualties more often than anti-personnel mines, and result in fatalities more
often as wel1.
Cluster munitions are the moral equivalent of brutality
Ghoshray 8
[Saby Ghoshray, (Vice President for Development & Compliance for the World Compliance Company), CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, June 2008, 682.]
The scenario of overcrowded hospitals with injured children provides in this context only a snapshot of the widespread
destruction, which includes extensive civilian casualties from cluster bombs, deformed babies because of exposure to
U.S. depleted uranium, and bustling markets leveled by high-altitude bombings. As the evidence of this brutal
dimension of occupation percolates through the shield of embedded journalism, we are awakened by the stark reality
of present day Iraq. How long can we continue to ignore mounting evidence of betrayal? A betrayal of the very
cornerstone of equality and justice envisioned in the Nuremberg Principles, and that Justice Robert H. Jackson
trumpeted in our civilizations' commitment towards developing a robust form of International Law.
17
18

Cluster munitions cause excessive and persistent harm to civilian populations
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 218.]
As was the case with antipersonnel mines, cluster munitions have been singled out for prohibition because they are
clearly not "just another weapon." Cluster munitions have a long and consistent history of causing excessive and
persistent harm to civilian populations. In a May 2007 statement in support of the Oslo Process, Jody Williams on
behalf of the Nobel Women's Initiative called cluster munitions a "pernicious weapon of ill-repute" that has "become
synonymous with civilian casualties."
Cluster munitions indiscriminately kill civilians
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 218.]
The very nature of the weapon makes it objectionable, not just its potential to be misused by military forces. While
there are many different types of cluster munitions, most, if not all, are highly inaccurate weapons that indiscriminately
blanket a broad area, often the size of a football field or more. Most, if not all, are very unreliable weapons that fail to
function properly, resulting in landmine-like contamination.
Equivalent of landmines
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 219.]
Cluster munitions pose double danger to civilians, both during attacks because of their indiscriminate wide area effect
(making it impossible to target precisely military objectives) and long after because of the landmine-like effect of a
multitude of duds. And like landmines, the impact of cluster munitions goes beyond needless civilian casualties, as
cluster contamination can have far-reaching socioeconomic ramifications, hindering post-conflict reconstruction and
development.
Unexploded bomblets create virtual minefields
Wiebe 8
[Virgil Wiebe, (Prof., Law, U. St. Thomas), PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW, 2008, 897-898.]
Cluster munitions spread large numbers of smaller bomblets, often referred to as submunitions, over wide areas often
the size of several football fields. They are dropped from the air, delivered in artillery shells, or packed into rocket
warheads. In many cases, a significant percentage of the bomblets fail to explode on impact, creating virtual minefields
of unexploded ordnance.
18
19

Destructive potential outweighs military utility
Wiebe 8
[Virgil Wiebe, (Prof., Law, U. St. Thomas), PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW, 2008, 952.]
Nations have used cluster munitions extensively over the past four decades in multiple conflicts around the world.
Each time they are used, significant concerns have been raised about their relative military utility when balanced
against the death and destruction to civilians and civilian property. Their wide-area coverage and poor targeting
dramatically increase the likelihood that civilians will be injured during a conflict. Their unacceptably high failure
rates result in thousands if not hundreds of thousands of unexploded bomblets which kill and injure children and
adults, deny access to agricultural and grazing land, and prevent rapid post-conflict reconstruction and development.
Cluster munitions kill innocents – long after the battle has ended
Wiebe 8
[Virgil Wiebe, (Prof., Law, U. St. Thomas), PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW, 2008, 964-5.]
With each new conflict in which cluster munitions are used, the news stories unfortunately can be written in advance:
cluster bombs are dropped on a town and immediately kill scores of civilians; curious children pick up and play with
unexploded bomblets and are killed and maimed; cluster bombs are dropped on an agricultural area, and a farmer
returns to his field to harvest or plant crops and is killed or maimed. The deadly tolling of cluster bomblet zvoncici
rings out not only during the heat of battle, but continues long after open hostilities have ceased. The doomed who fall
as a result of cluster munitions are not only the young combatants eulogized by Wilfred Owen, but also the curious
children who will certainly die as a result of unexploded cluster bomb ordnance.
19
20
International law
International law necessitates minimizing civilian casualties
Wiebe 8
[Virgil Wiebe, (Prof., Law, U. St. Thomas), PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW, 2008, 902-3]
Parties to a conflict are obligated to take precautions in planning attacks in order to spare civilians, civilian
populations, and civilian objects. This includes choosing weapons with the purpose of minimizing damage to civilians
and civilian objects. Those being attacked must protect civilians "to the maximum extent feasible," including moving
people away from military targets and not locating military objectives in populated areas. These principles provide a
useful backdrop to more detailed consideration of the cases.
Current cluster munitions usage violates international law
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 219.]
While it is possible to use cluster munitions without violating international humanitarian law, in every conflict where
there is significant documentation and the evidence is clear, the weapon has been used in violation of IHL
[international humanitarian law]. Experience has shown that in conflicts where cluster munitions are used, they usually
are used in or near populated areas and in very large numbers. Often older and highly unreliable models are used,
sometimes alongside newer models. Indiscriminate and/or disproportionate use -- where the negative effect on
civilians exceeds the military benefit -- is the standard, not the exception.
2008 treaty bans cluster munitions
McDonald 8
[Avril McDonald, (Research Associate of the TMC Asser Instituut, The Hague), DISARMAMENT FORUM, 2008 (#3), 18.]
States moved from banning chemical weapons in 1993 to outlawing blinding lasers in 1995, and then antipersonnel
mines in 1997. The latest disarmament campaign has succeeded in prohibiting cluster munitions (for those states that
join the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions).
International consensus over cluster munitions

A total of 49 countries, as well as representatives of several UN agencies, the ICRC, and the CMC, participated in the
Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions held 22-23 February 2007. The conference ended with 46 states endorsing the
Oslo Declaration, a statement of intent to conclude by 2008 a legally-binding instrument prohibiting the use,
production, stockpiling, and transfer "of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians" and providing a
framework to address the humanitarian problems that these weapons have already caused.
20
21
International law
80% of the world is on board
Williams 9
www.boston.com.]
This year is the 10th anniversary of the international treaty banning antipersonnel land mines. The treaty has been
called a "gift to the world." Today 156 nations -- 80 percent of the governments in the world -- are party to it. Its
implementation and compliance has been remarkable -- again a tribute to government-civil society partnership and
cooperation. A similar model of "new diplomacy," closely following the template of the Mine Ban Treaty, negotiated a
treaty banning cluster munitions in Dublin in May. In December, it was signed in Oslo 94 nations; now it stands at 96.
Cooperation over cluster munitions now
Borrie 9
MUNITIONS WAS WON, 2009, xvii.]
This book is entitled Unacceptable Harm for two reasons. First, on 23 February 2007, 46 states made a historic
declaration at a conference in the snow-covered hills above Oslo in Norway to complete an international treaty by the
end of 2008 to "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm
to civilians" and to "establish a framework for cooperation and assistance that ensures adequate provision of care and
rehabilitation to survivors and their communities, clearance of contaminated areas, risk education and destruction of
stockpiles of prohibited cluster munitions.
Cluster munitions ban is an important international legal norm
Herby 8
[Peter Herby, (Coordinator, Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross), BANNING LANDMINES: DISARMAMENT, CITIZEN
DIPLOMACY, AND HUMAN SECURITY, 2008, 212.]
As was the case for antipersonnel mines a decade ago, the stage is set for action at the international level. In February
2007, Norway convened like-minded states to a meeting to negotiate a new instrument dealing with the humanitarian
problems posed by cluster munitions. Forty-seven states endorsed the Final Declaration of the Oslo Conference, in
which they committed themselves to conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that will
comprehensively prohibit cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. In addition, States Parties to the
Convention on Conventional Weapons, which includes all major military powers, will address the cluster munitions
issue in 2007, ensuring the engagement of nearly all cluster munition producers and users in one or both of these two
processes. Although the legal norms that may emerge from this mobilization are not yet clear, what is evident is that a
norm-building process is underway. As with antipersonnel mines, it is already influencing the behavior of states,
legislators, and weapons designers, and the driving force is the "public conscience."
21
22
Civilian deaths
Cluster munitions cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians
Borrie 9
There are the problems at time of use as cluster munitions are intended to saturate an area with explosive
submunitions, which cannot be individually targeted at military objectives. This raises issues under the principle of
distinction between combatants and civilians, a principle that is fundamental in international humanitarian law.
Submunitions end up in civilian infrastructure
Borrie 9
Because of cluster munitions' area effect, it follows that failed submunitions may disperse over a significant area,
remaining in streets, ditches, bombed buildings or agricultural lands. Because massive numbers of these inaccurate and
unreliable weapons can be fired in a very short time, it is easy to see why concerns have escalated about the potential
humanitarian consequences of cluster munition proliferation. Sometimes, cluster munitions can fail to dispense their
cargo of submunitions, which poses a different kind of hazard.
Cluster munitions continue killing long after a battle is over

Humanitarian concerns have been raised about cluster munitions since the 1960s, and the 1970s saw the first
government-backed proposals for a prohibition. These unsuccessful efforts were primarily a response to the
widespread use of cluster munitions in Southeast Asia. The proponents of a ban at that time did not know that
unexploded submunitions from these cluster munitions would still be killing and injuring civilians in Lao PDR,
Vietnam, and Cambodia more than four decades later.
Failure rates are high
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 219.]
While all weapons have a failure rate, cluster munitions are more dangerous because of the large numbers of
submunitions they release and because certain design characteristics determined by cost and size considerations
increase the likelihood of submunition failure. Manufacturers and militaries have indicated that failure rates for
submunitions under test conditions often range between 5 and 20 percent. Actual failure rates in combat conditions
have been higher. As a result, cluster munition strikes predictably leave behind great quantities of unexploded
submunition duds. This unexploded ordnance can be highly unstable and can explode at the slightest touch, becoming
de facto landmines that kill or injure civilians returning to the area after an attack.
22
23
Civilian deaths
Civilians ought not be victimized during conflict
Herby 8
[Peter Herby, (Coordinator, Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross), BANNING LANDMINES: DISARMAMENT, CITIZEN
DIPLOMACY, AND HUMAN SECURITY, 2008, 212-3]
In the past decade, antipersonnel mines have been prohibited, a protocol assigning responsibility for clearing explosive
remnants of war has been adopted and is in force, and a large proportion of existing cluster munitions may soon be
slated for elimination due to their severe long-term effects on civilians. The common thread in these developments is
that today there is an expectation that civilians should not face the same fate from other munitions as they have from
antipersonnel mines. Indeed, it could be argued that the unique movement which created the Mine Ban Treaty norm is
on the way to establishing an even more fundamental norm of "public conscience" that is not weapon-specific. Simply
stated, this norm is that civilians must not be victimized, after the fighting stops and long after wars have ended, by
weapons that have ceased to serve any military purpose.
Cluster munitions are unsophisticated and indiscriminate in their effects
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 218-9.]
There is a common misperception that cluster munitions are sophisticated weapons. In fact, almost none of the vast
existing stockpiles of cluster munitions are "advanced" from a humanitarian point of view. Very few of the
"containers" (the bombs, shells, or rockets) are guided in any way, even fewer of the submunitions have any guidance
mechanisms, and none of the containers and submunitions are precision-guided. Only a tiny percentage of
submunitions employ technology in an attempt to make them more reliable, such as self-destructing devices, and
experience has shown that even those with such devices fail all too often.
Even if the weapons themselves are targeted – their wide area & hazardous duds make them indiscriminate
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 219.]
Antipersonnel mines are inherently indiscriminate because they are designed to be victim-activated, without
distinguishing whether their victim is civilian or military. The landmine campaign has argued that this makes any use
of antipersonnel mines a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL), also know as the law of armed conflict.
Cluster munitions, on the other hand, are designed to explode on impact and as such are not inherently indiscriminate
but clearly prone to indiscriminate use because of their wide area effect. Moreover, the predictably numerous
hazardous duds left by cluster strikes are indiscriminate in effect.
23
24
Civilian deaths
Cluster munitions have not been used carefully or responsibly
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 219-20]
Various countries protest that their forces use or intend to use cluster munitions responsibly, but this does not stand up
to the scrutiny of past use by a wide range of nations, none of whom used the weapon responsibly, including Israel,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Cluster munitions caused more civilian casualties than any other
weapon system during both the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
24
25
Humanitarianism
US cluster munition stockpile risks a humanitarian disaster
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 220.]
Most worrisome, at least seventy-six countries stockpile cluster munitions, and the number of submunitions in existing
arsenals is staggering, likely in the billions. The United States alone has an estimated one billion submunitions. If even
a small percentage of existing stocks are used in the future, there will be a global humanitarian crisis that far exceeds
that posed by antipersonnel mines ten years ago.
Cluster munitions kill kids because the bomblets look like MREs
Sameit 8
Another danger associated with cluster bombs is their disproportionate killing of children. Cluster bombs are bright
yellow, the size of a soda can, and have a parachute on top which makes them appealing for young children to pick up.
The bright yellow color of the cluster bomb is also the same color as the food packets distributed by the United States.
General Myers commented on the unfortunate similarity of colors in food aid packages and cluster bombs: [I]t is
unfortunate that the cluster bombs, the unexploded ones are the same color as the food packets. We have dropped fliers
that show the pictures and the proper language explaining why you want to go to one and you don't want to go to the
other. We hope that helps.
Civilian deaths from cluster munitions are preventable
Borrie 9
Another difference was that, this time, NGOs explicitly warned the international community ahead of the invasion of
the problems cluster munition use would cause. Human Rights Watch stated in March 2003 that "The use of cluster
munitions in Iraq will result in grave dangers to civilians and friendly combatants. Based on experiences in the Persian
Gulf War in 1991, Yugoslavia/Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, these dangers are both foreseeable
and preventable".
Stockpiles should be destroyed
Borrie 9
Stockpile destruction is another issue, as dozens of states possess cluster munitions, often of especially antiquated and
unreliable kinds. The adherence of many states possessing such weapons to the CCM means now that they will never
be used or transferred to others and then used or abandoned (with attendant humanitarian consequences).
25
26
A2: Replacement weapons worse

Humanitarian rules would restrict worse weapons
Borrie 9
Another feature of military utility-centered arguments about cluster munitions that scenarios like the hypothetical one
above illustrate is that, in effect, if you don’t let us use this weapon, well be forced to use something worse. This is a
claim heard repeatedly over decades in opposition to restrictions on virtually any weapon system, and seems to
overlook the fact that international humanitarian law rules still apply if alternative weapons to cluster munitions are
used -- rules such as that of distinction, the rule against indiscriminate attack, the rule of proportionality and the rule on
feasible precautions." Humanitarian law rules apply to the use of all weapons.
26
27
Environment adv
Cluster munitions hurt the environment
Sameit 8
In addition to the tragic human consequences of cluster bombs, their effect on the environment can be equally
devastating. "They deny access to farm and grazing land, pose a danger to livestock, impede access to shelter and
water, and delay rehabilitation of essential infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and irrigation systems that are critical
to a viable national economy." A typical strike uses five cluster effect munitions, which would result in an average of
over thirty-five unexploded submunitions. If these unexploded munitions were located in an agricultural area or within
a village, the fear of these munitions could effectively force the villagers to abandon their homes because they have no
way of knowing if there are more or less than thirty-five unexploded bombs.
Cluster munitions create environmental damage
Sameit 8
As discussed, cluster bombs clearly create environmental damage by denying the population's use of the environment.
This damage can last more than one year if the area is not cleared of unexploded mines, and it clearly threatens human
life, which would bring it under the proposed modifications to the Foreign Claims Act. The need to properly account
for and internalize the true cost of using cluster bombs is even more pressing than the Pancevo example because of
their widespread use. Not only do these weapons affect the citizens of the countries where they are dropped, but they
are responsible for the deaths of twenty- five United States Soldiers during the Persian Gulf War. Of these twenty-five
casualties, seven were trained mine clearance personnel who died attempting to clear these weapons from an airfield in
the middle of the day.
Cluster munitions litter the environment with unexploded munitions
Sanders 9
Cluster munitions have a high failure rate, making them more lethal than ordinary bombs. After they explode, cluster
munitions leave on the ground many of their small, undetonated bomblets, which go off whenever a person or animal
or child happens to touch one, or accidentally brushes against one. Most munitions have a failure rate of 3 percent. The
Pentagon ascribes a "conservative dud rate" of 5 percent to its cluster munitions. Human Rights Watch reports a failure
rate for cluster munitions as high as thirty percent."' Given the killing nature of military hardware, that high failure rate
seems deliberate, an integral part of the design of cluster bombs, makes them function more like landmines than
ordinary bombs.
27
28
Military adv
Cluster munitions kill US service personnel

Between 17 January and 28 February 1991, the US and its allies (France and the UK) dropped 61,000 cluster bombs,
containing some 20 million submunitions on Iraq and Kuwait. A significant number of surface-delivered cluster
munitions were also used; one source estimates that over 30 million dual purpose improved conventional munition
(DPICM) submunitions were used in the conflict.'" The number of civilian casualties caused by the cluster strikes is
not known. At least 80 US military casualties were attributed to its own cluster munition duds.
The military hates cluster munitions use
Williams 9
www.boston.com.]
Obama made a good first step last month when he signed a law permanently banning nearly all cluster bomb exports
from the United States. Some of our closest military allies have already signed the cluster convention, including
Germany, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom. During the invasion of Baghdad, some US commanders refused to
use the weapon, recognizing it both as a violation of the laws of war and a weapon that would threaten their own
troops as they rapidly advanced through areas already littered with the weapon by cluster munitions strikes.
Unexploded submunitions hampered the military in Kuwait
Sameit 8
The Defense Department is not ignorant of the dangers and problems cluster bombs create. During Operation Desert
Storm, unexploded submunitions killed twenty-five service personnel and directly hampered the retaking of Kuwait
International Airport.
Cluster munitions risk military lives
Sameit 8
REVIEW, Winter 2008, 574-5.]
The United States must face the seemingly improbable decision to use cluster bombs against targets, face a widespread
long-term cleanup, and risk the very lives of the military members it intends to protect through the use of these
weapons. In addition to risking lives, the United States would likely face a high cost and long effort to locate and
destroy the unexploded submunitions.
28
29
A2: CCW solves

US proposals to address cluster munitions through the CCW are just a distraction

At the next CCW meeting, in June 2007, the US announced a shift in its stance on international action, indicating that
it was now prepared not only to talk about cluster munitions, but even to consider future negotiations as long as they
occurred in the framework of the CCW. Some observers described the shift as more of an attempt to deal with the Oslo
Process than an attempt to address cluster munitions, with no real indication that US views on cluster munitions had
changed at all."' The US maintained that "cluster munitions continue to be legitimate weapons when employed
properly and in accordance with existing international humanitarian law" and argued that "in many instances, cluster
munitions result in much less collateral damage than unitary weapons would if used for the same mission.
US supports technical improvements – not banning cluster munitions – in the CCW negotiations

At the beginning of the CCW negotiations in 2008, the US opposed any sort of ban on cluster munitions and suggested
that identifying good military practices relating to the use of cluster munitions, such as "protections and safeguards that
can be implemented through the targeting process," could be beneficial, but only in the form of best practice measures,
not legally-binding treaty provisions. The US supported addressing technical improvements for the reliability of cluster
munitions as a "long term" approach to addressing humanitarian concerns, but stated that "the cost and complexity of
implementing such improvements suggest that it will not be possible to achieve consensus on requiring [technical]
improvements immediately or on a short-term basis.
Empirically – the US has backed out of CCW cluster munitions regulations

By November 2008, when CCW negotiations were scheduled to conclude, the US was one of the strongest supporters
of a draft protocol on cluster munitions. The US favored an optional set of restrictions on cluster munitions, although it
maintained that in practice these would result in the replacement of 95% of cluster munitions in its stockpiles. It
insisted on the necessity of a transition period before key requirements took effect. It opposed a deadline for stockpile
destruction. While it supported the inclusion of provisions for assistance to the victims of cluster munitions, the US
was among the few states that raised objections to a broad definition of victim which included the victim's family and
affected communities,'" and proposed weakening language on victim assistance taken from the Convention on Cluster
Munitions.'"
29
30
A2: CCW solves

CCW empirically fails at restricting cluster munitions
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 231.]
The great unknown at the time of this writing is the fate of cluster munitions in the Convention on Conventional
Weapons. While certain CCW states had scuttled the proposal in November 2006 to begin negotiations on clusters
inside the CCW, the success of the Oslo Process brought a rapid reassessment of that strategy. The CCW meeting in
June 2007 was recast from one that would devote a couple of hours at most to cluster munitions to one that spent
nearly the entire week on the subject. At the meeting the United States in particular went from insisting that there was
no need even to continue discussions on cluster munitions to stating that it was prepared to negotiate a new legally
binding instrument -- but only in the CCW. This sudden shift looked not so much like an attempt to deal with cluster
munitions but an attempt to handle the runaway Oslo Process.
30
31
A2: New munitions are safer

Only a small percentage of the stockpile employs safety mechanisms
Wiebe 8
[Virgil Wiebe, (Prof., Law, U. St. Thomas), PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW, 2008, 963.]
Even assuming new-fangled technology can "fix" all of the concerns currently associated with cluster munitions,
hundreds of millions of defective submunitions remain in stockpiles around the world. Relying on Pentagon data,
Human Rights Watch reported in 2005 that the U.S. had stockpiled about 728,500,000 submunitions, of which only
about 31,000 had self-destruct devices to lower the dud rate.
31
32
A2: 1% UXO rule solves

The US 1% rule does not apply until 2018

On 9 July 2008, the US Department of Defense released a new policy stating that by the end of 2018, the US will no
longer use cluster munitions that result in more than 1% unexploded ordnance (UXO). Until 2018, effective
immediately, use of cluster munitions that exceed the 1% UXO rate must be approved by the Combatant Commander?'
The government has stated that the 10-year transition period "is necessary to develop the new technology, get it into
production, and to substitute, improve, or replace existing stocks.
New dud rules are higher

It appears that subsequent to the Cohen policy, a waiver was granted in an Operational Requirements Document
(ORD) approved by the Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) that established a new, higher,
hazardous dud requirement for M30 GMLRS rocket DPICM submunitions. This higher dud rate requirement sets a
"less that 2% dud rate between ranges of 20-60 kilometers" and "less than 4% dud rate under 20 kilometers and over
60 kilometers.
The US 1% dud rule for cluster munitions is not being achieved

Of the 728 million submunitions cited in the report, only 30,990 have self-destruct devices (.00004%). The Department
of Defense report cites failure rates of 2-6% for most of the submunitions, based on lot acceptance testing and
stockpile reliability testing. Previous Department of Defense documents have indicated much higher failure rates for
the most common submunitions.
32
33
Oslo good
Strengthening the Oslo cluster munitions ban will advance humanitarian goals
Goose 8
SECURITY, 2008, 232.]
Despite the concerns about states that are not yet on board the Oslo Process, the Mine Ban Treaty experience shows
that many states are likely to join in only very late and that some of those states then become the most active and
ardent supporters. The landmine experience also has shown that a good, strong treaty will have a powerful effect even
on those that do not sign on right away. It will set a new standard of behavior that nearly every government will adhere
to. By 2007, just two governments were using antipersonnel mines, even though forty are not party to the 1997 Mine
Ban Treaty. A similar effect is likely for cluster munitions as the weapon will be stigmatized to such an extent that
governments will be increasingly reluctant to use it. Once a treaty is in place, very few will want to endure the
international condemnation that will accompany any use of cluster munitions anywhere in the world.
33

Planet Debate 09-10 Cluster Munitions Aff 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Planet Debate 09-10 Cluster Munitions Aff 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Planet Debate 09-10 Cluster munitions aff

Cluster munitions aff

FYI – Cluster munitions

Human Rights Watch 9

248,000 submunitions used in Afghanistan

Human Rights Watch 9

Many cluster strikes in Afghanistan

Human Rights Watch 9

12,000 unexploded ordinances left in Afghanistan now

The US used cluster munitions against the Taliban

High failure-rated submunitions were used in Iraq

US deploys cluster bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq

The military has 300,000 cluster munitions in inventory

US fuels cluster munitions use

Human Rights Watch 9

US has a large stockpile of cluster munitions

Human Rights Watch 9

Human Rights Watch 9

US is the largest user of cluster munitions

Extensive cluster munition use

The military employs cluster munitions

Inherency – International consensus

Human Rights Watch 9

US resisting cluster munitions restrictions

Human Rights Watch 9

US opposes any restriction on cluster munitions

Human Rights Watch 9

Cluster munitions ban failed in the Senate as recently as 2006

Human Rights Watch 9

Human Rights Watch 9

No support for a cluster munitions ban

Human Rights Watch 9

Interoperability concerns prevent US adoption of a ban

Human Rights Watch 9

Human Rights Watch 9

Obama not yet on board with new Oslo agreement

Human Rights Watch 9

US works outside of the Convention

No concessions on cluster munitions now

Allied commitments prevent a full ban

Human Rights Watch 9

Cluster munitions generally bad

Human Rights Watch 9

Cluster strikes are a major cause of civilian deaths

Human Rights Watch 9

Cluster munitions kill innocents

Cluster munitions generally bad

Cluster munitions cause unintended casualties

Cluster munitions are the moral equivalent of brutality

Cluster munitions generally bad

Cluster munitions indiscriminately kill civilians

Unexploded bomblets create virtual minefields

Cluster munitions generally bad

Current cluster munitions usage violates international law

2008 treaty bans cluster munitions

International consensus over cluster munitions

Human Rights Watch 9

Cooperation over cluster munitions now

Cluster munitions ban is an important international legal norm

Submunitions end up in civilian infrastructure

Cluster munitions continue killing long after a battle is over

Human Rights Watch 9

Failure rates are high