The benefit of cluster munitions is when they are used for their designed purpose. The fact they are not being used "CURRENTLY" is due to the fact that we are not engaged in full-scale conflict. They were designed to stop major assaults by the Soviet-Bloc/China/North Korea, those threats have not gone away.

The simple fact that weapons systems are not "currently" used, does not mean they will not be needed. That, I strongly suspect, is the reason for the caveat(s) in the legislation.

The failure rate in several BATCHES of the ammunition, as found during "Desert Storm" topped out at around 23%, that was for MRLS Ammunition. That has been dealt with, apparently, but regardless, the unexploded devices are sufficient to cause area denial, preventing use of the target area.

Then again, that is one type of cluster munition (that had been stored for over a decade, improperly as was conceded), all that says to me is that the contractor should be penalised for providing munitions that don't meet fitness for purpose.

When (not if) we need the support of our allies, using this very type of munition, we will need that assistance immediately. Large scale assaults are of their very nature difficult to stop without the requisite weaponry. This type of weapon system is one of the very few options that some poor b*st*rd may have to rely upon to avoid being overrun (by such patrons of Human Rights as China and North Korea).

Don't like it, perhaps try and introduce legislation to stop these Countries trying to prey upon their neighbours. Otherwise, it may well be your son or daughter (thank god for political correctness) that has to stand their ground without the appropriate weapons.

Thank you for your further opinion, Custard.

Was that your last stand, or are you willing to provide some corroborating evidence for your statements?

Adelaide, I commend you for sharing your considered and informed views.

There is the suggestion from people like custard and hasbeen that by banning the use of cluster bombs we are taking away life saving mechanisms from our own soldiers.

"Banning effective weapons systems means that the people on the ground are left with only ineffective weapons systems." - Custard

"Should my neighbours son, who is there right now, be one of those put in extra danger?" - Hasbeen

This is ridiculous. They make it sound like Australian soldiers throw cluster bombs in the face of their enemies saving themselves from what would otherwise be certain death.

If you want to protect Australian soldiers overseas surely sending them to a land littered by cluster bombs is not a good start. There is no way that Australian soldiers would drop cluster bombs on our own soil...what kind of government would allow their lands to be rendered dangerous and useless for decades to come?

Why would we not use them at home but think it's acceptable to use them abroad?

They are nationalists who need to look at the larger picture.

Custard,

you note that

"The fact [cluster munitions] are not being used "CURRENTLY" is due to the fact that we are not engaged in full-scale conflict. They were designed to stop major assaults by the Soviet-Bloc/China/North Korea, those threats have not gone away."

But Custer, I thought those threats of full-scale conflict were meant to be countered by our Allies' nuclear arsenals, and the sobering effect of reflection, by enemy military strategists, on mutual assured destruction.

Are you now placing cluster munitions and atomic bombs in the same category of last-resort, indiscriminate weapons?

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that one of the signatories in the open letter is former Chief of the Defence Force, Peter Gration...this speaks volumes.