Would really like to read a post by you on the subject.

After participating in the comments over at The Atlantic, I have come to realize why I disagree with you and other supporters of weapon bans – I look at the nature of war very differently than you do. I see it as one of the worst things that humanity can ever engage in, something that’s so horrible, so immoral, so evil (I try not to use “evil” too often lest it lose it’s meaning, but I think it’s appropriate here) that the instant you choose to/are forced to engage in war, the only way to restore yourself to anything resembling decency is to win (or lose) the war fast and then restore civility to both warring parties again.

I should probably sit down at some point and write up my thoughts on the nature of warfare in a careful, coherent manner. I wouldn’t expect you to agree, but at least we might come to a better understanding of why I think that allowing the use of horrible and immoral weapons might actually be more “ethical” than banning them. It’s a screwed up idea, I know, but then everything about war is.

There is, however, one thing you and I can probably agree on entirely – we’ve got to have a good way to ensure that mines and cluster munitions are cleaned up after the war is over.

In saturation bombing, the amount of explosive you need to put on the target to achieve the same effect is much larger than in a cluster bomb attack of equal lethality. Consequently, the chance of mis-drops, long or short rounds, and really big unexploded ordnance goes way up. I’m not at all sure that the danger to nearby civilians would be reduced if you banned use of cluster bombs, even in fairly close proximity to populated areas. Indeed, you might easily have more unintended deaths. Yes, it’s tragic (and newsworthy) when you have maimed kids. It’s even more tragic–albeit less newsworthy–when the kid’s entire family is vaporized in the mis-drop of a 500 lb. or 1000 lb. iron bomb.

I also have a non-rhetorical question for you: My understanding is that cluster munitions can be set to explode on contact or to have delayed fuzing that explodes later or when handled. The delayed versions serve pretty much the same purpose as anti-personnel mines. Do you have any idea whether anybody has characterized the risk to kids and other civilians in terms of the fuzing of the cluster munitions? It’s quite possible that the bulk of the bad stuff that’s happening is the result of delayed-fuzed bomblets.

I’d think that it would be fairly straightforward to get international agreements against delayed fuzing, along the same lines as the Ottawa Treaty. Of course, the major arms producers wouldn’t ratify such an agreement, just as they didn’t the Ottawa Treaty. That doesn’t mean that its existence wouldn’t be a powerful deterrent to the use of delayed fuzing.

The history of war demonstrates, though, that a country’s decision to terminate a conflict isn’t decided on the basis of civilian casualties, but on damage to its military. The US is one of the few exceptions to the rule.

Which would make it a good candidate to use land mines and cluster bombs againt, right?

Of course, even without a damnable signing statement, there’s a pretty good idea that this kind of amendment would be struck down by the SCOTUS if it ever got there as being an unconstitutional infringement on the authority of the President as CIC.

Generally, as I’ve said previously, I’m of the opinion that the best way to wage war is to make it fast and brutal, and to win fast. Modern wars are trying too hard to be “moral”, with guided munitions intended to reduce the slaughter. I appreciate that the military and government want to make war easier to stomach, but if it were harder to stomach, then we might do it less. And there’s not much that’s harder to stomach than seeing the devastation of Dresden, or Hiroshima, or any number of napalmed Vietnamese villages, or the highway of death in Gulf War I.

I approve of the idea of trying to apply rules and international law to warfare, but in every conflict I can think of that was fought with one side trying to adhere to international law and the other side not, the side that fought all-out won. It sucks badly, but there it is.

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

Because submunitions (miniature bombs nested inside the mother bomb) dropped by the US in Iraq, "some shaped like tiny bottles with short ribbons and others that are yellow with tissue parachutes, litter gardens and roof tops," according to U…