A few psychological and technical issues arise from your and Mr. Borrie’s postings. This quote in particular, “A few viewers … are unable to see beyond their tired prejudices … even claiming the video was faked. No mindset adjustment for them then.” This goes beyond the legitimate criticisim of ill-informed comments and suggests a strong bias in favour of those who oppose cluster munitions and the way in which they were employed in Lebanon. The first psychological problem associated with this is that such comments are clearly supporting a certain political viewpoint, which should be unacceptable to impartial experts. Secondly, the solitary mention of the word “war” distorts the context of the use of these munitions, therefore switching the terms of the debate and avoiding what is potentially a very useful discussion of high-intensity strike operations. Thridly, the postings do not discuss local reactions to the use of cluster bombs by both sides. This is not meant to cause offense, but noting the psychological reactions of the populace is a necessary complement to the discussion of physical damage, especially from a military perspective.

To turn to the technical side of the problem, I think it is difficult to term cluster bombs an “arms control” issue, simply because their use in conventional conflict is currently accepted at least in some form by most states. Furthermore, since the decision to discuss this has been made, it is strange that there is no mention of so-called “smart” cluster munitions, such as the Sensor Fused Weapon or munitions which pose a relatively low risk to civilians due to their nature, such as the Rockeye. Finally, a discussion of alternative technical anti-personnel and anti-materiel solutions is absent.

I understand your desire to state your views, but once you do that it is better to launch into a wide-ranging discussion including psychology and technology instead of making the issue purely political. To be blunt, the “clarity of purpose” should involve giving issues arising from the need to kill enemy personnel equal weight to those arising from the need to save the lives of civilians.

Sincerely,

Karl Schenzig

On a lighter note, I guess it is time for the DoD, UNICEF and DC Comics to translate their landmines/UXO awareness comic book into Arabic.

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/super.htm

http://maic.jmu.edu/Journal/4.3/focus/superman/superman.htm

http://www.irinnews.org/LoadFilm.aspx?MultimediaFileId=131220068.wmv&ImageId=2006113017

plain WMV:
http://www.IRINnews.org/audiofiles/131220068.wmv

It explains not just the munitions, not just the victims, but also the economic impact. Do you clean up your field so you can harvest your crops, forget the harvest wasting a years work, or hire a couple of day laborers to do some cleanup at $3/bomblet? That is, if there are still people willing to do that.

It also shows the professional cleanup work which may be done by the end of the year. The water bottles unicef hands out have pictures and a warning on the labels.

The video starts with a bit preachy intro, after that its all completely matter of factly.