Unilateral agreements to scrap certain munitions

Post Reply New Topic

What about the morallity of asking your military to achieve a goal properly equipped so as to incur minimum casualties? In certain situations preventing them using a very effective weapon is going to cost lives. If your government conscripted you (not entirely out of the question) how would you feel about fighting a war with your military's hands tied behind its back? No landmines, and no cluster bombs, let's say. Of course, the US government have more sense than the British government in that regard, so the situation wouldn't occur, but your views on being placed in this hypothetical position would be of interest.

Just to correct your point on threats we face, as our government is usually in cahoots with your president, then we're liable to be facing the same ones as you. Indeed, our military is currently engaged alongside yours in several foreign countries where both have used the weapon in question. We may only be of limited use, but that's better than us not being there at all. We'd be even less use if we came minus a whole bunch of munitions some dumb new-labour females, and limp-wristed liberals thought morally dubious.

Oh, then there's the Falklands, whilst I'm mentioning areas we face threats. We had something of a spat there a while back with the Argies, you may recall. I expect they're even more keen to get their grubby little paws on the place with the price of oil as it is.

And laying waste to an entire countryside with radioactive weapons or cluster bombs or chemical weapons or landmines that kill decades after the combat is over is sure to encourage delight with the citizenry during the time after the conflict when normal relationships are attempted.

Its all about the money. Nothing further. Money. funding. Thats it. Any country that deliberately and with malice aforethought sends its own sons and daughters to die in cold blood with shite equipment that DOES NOT WORK is categorically NEVER going to give two s**ts about some random foreign kiddy who might pick up a cluster bomb because it looks interesting.

Our government. Face Bovverd. NO.

can't they just make a unilateral agreement to scrap war?

Unilateral agreement...isn't that an oxymoron?

I'm aware of that apparent contradiction. I'm tempted to give some long and convoluted explanation regarding my choice of words, but reckon what I was referring to is clear. Anyway, please refrain from pedantry and address the subject being discussed, if it's not too much trouble.

I disagree with unilateral disarmament - it is a stupid and dangerous idea and will only leave that country open to attack by some other country who sees them as an easy target. It might be a nice warm and fuzzy idea but in the cold light of day, it is lunacy!

I dont understand your argument . Are you deriving an ought from an is?