´óÏó´«Ã½

America's actions will be dictated by the best military strategies and hardware to accomplish the goal of protecting its security by having the means to accomplish anticipated missions, not by populist morality of the moment and especially by demands of those outside the United States. It should never be forgotten that for over 50 years, the US was prepared on a moment's notice to launch a global thermonuclear war which would have killed hundreds of millions instantly and not too long after resulted in the extinction of all human life on earth. This is the ultimate atrocity, the worst conceivable violation of human rights from some persepctives. All other atrocities from cluster bombs to torture of prisoners to genocide pale by comparison. Ironically this is what kept the entire world free from being enslaved by the tyranny of Communism. Interestingly enough, in the strange psychology of nuclear weapons, now that there is no USSR and no longer a strategic rationale to maintaint these weapons on high alert, there are still thousands of them on each side aimed at each other ready for immediate use. Even after 15 years, nobody has figured out an acceptable way to stand them down. If the US ever does abandon the use of cluster bombs because it momentarily caved in to the popular will of its own people, its infinitely inventeive technology will create a replacement that is even more effective, more deadly. Maybe a micronuke

Mark:

Your views get more and more demented by the day. You should have been in Dr Strangelove, riding that bomb instead of Slim Pickens.

Maybe there should be a remake and you could satisfy your love affair with war with by riding a micronuke (or would it be too small? You're the expert).

It is good news that these countries have agreed to ban cluster bombs, most of whose victims are civilians, a third of them children. Even the Pope wants them banned.

But, as far as you are concerned, all's fair in love or war (in your case they are the same thing), isn't it? Children? Sure, they're acceptable collateral damage to keep the world (or, rather, the US) free.

Mark

how can you compare nuclear weapons and cluster bombs they are in two different categories. Both have to be discussed ethically on their own grounds, most people in world (not just us Europeans!/ e.g many Americans) would welcome more of this ethical debate in the white house. Are you confident in the USA's ability to act morally in war?

Mgnbar

Why on earth should I care if the USA acts morally in war? All I want it to do is act effectively. As for the rest, leave it for the back benchers on the sidelines in Europe to whine about it. Armies are not about morality, they are about national defense...even if that means a pre-emptive strike...in other words the best defense is a good offense. Every chess player worth his salt knows that.

Marcus AureliusII - take heart, the UK and others will deploy - hopefully in 2012 - new cluster bombs that will comply with the terms of this treaty; effective weapons to put in the hands of the good guys, and putting an end to most civilian casualties. It is unfortunate that there will be a hole in operational capacity for a few years, but that is what happens when we are ruled by people who have no military understanding and are indifferent to the deaths of our own service personnel.

The most advertised cluster bombs I have seen on T.V. are the ariel ones more than the ground implantations. I wonder when a fighter pilot releases his/her cluster do they see children any more than young people wandering onto land that is mined. All war and slaughter is cruel and affects the innocents on both sides, nevetheless, terrorists have a moral code different to democracies who are expected to fight "cleaner" even if this places them at a disadvantage. I think the ability to clean up the threate of war after peace agreements are implemented is a necessitity. The problem with ground mining is the permanency and uncertainity left behind. At least this debate illustrates the problem for heads of security forces who are not war mongers and still have to respond on behalf of their country.

offering

I'd much rather my nation's security were defended by what you call "war mongers" than by people who were indecisive having second thoughts about the morality of wars of defense, even if they are pre-emptive. Among America's war mongers were Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and yes even Lincoln. So were Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. Every American president since Eisenhower has sworn to kill up to one third of humanity to defend America if it becomes necessary. The only morality a General or Commander-in-Chief should understand is to win his wars at the least cost to his own nation no matter what the cost is to the enemy. Those are the only kind I want defending me.