Michelle, being the messenger is all too often a thankless task but, anyway, take a bow! Great article.

I bank with the ANZ and I am horrified to learn that this bank is using my money (such as it is) to fund American arms manufacturers. It shows a total lack of ethics and morality.

I will close my account and move elsewhere. But where? Probably the other banks are doing the same thing, eg, putting profits before people.

The irony is that the ANZ has advertising which suggests that it cares about people. Contributing to blowing the limbs off children really suggests the opposite to me. Obviously, ANZ caring is only about extracting money from people to re-invest.

All Banks should be forced to show where their funds go.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

The treaty is in response to particular design limitations of the weapon, isn't it?

The problem as far as civilians were concerned being that an excessive proportion of the early designs of cluster bombs failed to explode as designed. However the new designs are far more reliable. Could new designs also have a 'fail-safe' so that after being armed in the air bomblets would automatically explode at a set time after after hitting the ground?

Apart from the cheapness of the individual bomblets, is there is any difference at all with other munitions? There are unexploded larger bombs, mortars and shells being used to devastating effect in booby traps against the allies in Afghanistan for example.

At the risk of provoking an intemperate hue and cry, there is a unique strategic advantage for Australia in having the weapon because it is a small nation in population with a far smaller army than its neighbours. Australia could easily be over-run and relies too heavily on the nuclear umbrella of the US.

However we have a small but well-trained air force, which makes such technology as cluster bombs attractive where used against a numerically superior invader. It should not be forgotten that the few aircraft at our disposal need to be conserved and protected. In a previous emergency, all aircraft were rapidly moved to Southern States to reduce risk. In WW2 there was the 'Brisbane Line'.

One of the alternatives is smaller battlefield nuclear weapons. Would they be opposed equally if available?

Also, might it be more reasonable (than eschewing weapons of strategic advantage to a small higher technology country) to put more limits on the enthusiasm of government, the LNP in particular, to commiting troops and 'advisors' through improving the transparency of decisions?

None of this should be taken as support for particular weapons, however Australia needs to first give priority to its own defence and an alternative is to apply say cluster bombs solely for its own defence and as a final resort to being over-run during invasion.

As well, Australia should implement compulsory military service along Swiss lines.

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/switzerland/switzerland_military.html

Dear David G,

Investigate the policies of Bendigo bank.

My Dear Michelle Fahy,

All bombs are equal but some are more equal. Is that what you say?

Think again!

There is lots of money to be made in the arms industry.Many people's super is unwittingly tied up with it.

Look on the bright side.It keeps the pop down,maims children and it's OK so long as the bombs aren't clustering over your home.Out of sight ,out of mind.

This isn't the first time and australian finance company has been involved in financing cluster munitions. I remember some months ago now reading an article stating that Australian Super had amended some of their rules to allow them to invest in cluster munitions as well. It doesn't matter whether the investments or lending is direct or indirect. Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of how business structures work can tell you that you can set up shelf companies or holding companies with the sole purpose to disburse loan or investment funds. An indirect interest in cluster munitions equates to a direct interest with just a few obstacles thrown in the way.