One of the main reasons is due to technological advantage through the patented self-destruction mechanism on the 40mm AGL rounds which makes it “safer” and “more ethical” when employed on the battlefield. It should be of no surprise that Singapore employs such technology on its mines and cluster munitions as well. Cluster munition technology has grown by leaps and bounds in the local context and is certainly the effective weapon of choice in certain tactical scenarios. Though I am not at a liberty to mention which forms of platforms such munitions are launched from, it is suffice to say that they can and will be used to secure strategic locations.

If one of Singapore’s aims is to secure strategic location to increase strategic depth in the scenario of an attrition war, it would be foolhardy for the SAF to use faulty munitions that are difficult to clear which may result in much fraternal damage for its own force.

Cluster bombs may not be perfectly “safe”, but neither are the smart munitions that were mentioned. Furthermore, there are also certain strategic roles played by cluster munitions that cannot be fulfilled by other forms of weapons technology.

However, I’d like to note that safety on locally made cluster munitions render most arguments against the use of it futile and if there were to be any importing of any cluster munition by any armed force, I’d rather they import “safer” cluster munitions than the “cheaper” munitions from the US, Vietnam and PRC.

In Singapore, almost every father, brother, son, boyfriend or husband may be called to duty when all else fails and as citizens I think our soldiers deserve every advantage they have to increase their chance of survival.

the soldiers are the ones who would be risking their lives on the field, there is no reason to ask the ultimate sacrifice from our guys in defending us, and at the same time deny them the best weapon we can afford on stupid humanitarian ground.

war is not an expression of humanity, its the opposite.

There is no war and accordingly makes the rationale artificial for banning CMs on the basis of SAF killing civilians. See point 1 to 5 above.

Your view: Yes. Our neighbours know it…therefore having a strong diplomatic relationship with our neighbours are important.

Our neighbours are not signatories to the CCW treaty either. Do we want a war with them? No. So the basis of us banning CCWs isn’t going to change a thing.

Your view: Spending on military defence is very important… to them if a war again break out. In Singapore,…do you want that to happen?

I think we can agree to disagree on the utility of CMs in the SAF. The issue of whether military spending has been well spent is another issue.

Your view: SMART bomb is superior to Cluster Bombs….But CB is different…it kills too but many… We have many other weapons that can do strategic strikes …do we need to use a BOMB as DUMB as Cluster Bomb?

I do not disagree that CMs have the ability to kill civilians. But the issue of whether the SAF will want to use CMs to kill civilians is something I disagree with.

Your view: In fact, I find that these world we live in is full of conflicts each day but we all has a responsibility not to worsen it… Will you care? Will ST care? … all these evil CB still laying around HDB, market place and so for waiting to kill the innocent.

Actually, I agree that the sale of CMs should be stopped. Nevertheless, the topic is about production and ownership rather than sale.

ST eng stopped the sale of landmines and it has pulled its brochures on CMs. Singapore’s stance on landmines is well documented and so is its reservation on ownership. The issue is no different for CMs in relation to SG.

However the assumption that the SAF ownership of CMs will result in civilian loss of life is presumptuous.

Your view: What we can buy, others can buy too. What we can use, others can use on us…not many countries are not calling a ban on it…

Even if SAF bans CMs does not eliminate the possibility that other will use CMs on SG. Human lives are precious. However banning CM ownership by the SAF is not justifiable.

A) Wrong. The rationale for Singapore to have nukes as opposed to cluster weapons are entirely different and the rationale for using it is on an entirely different plane.

Of course. Firstly, we dont have even with money we cant buy them. Why? If we buy them do you dare to tell the world we have it and use it as a deterrent What are the consequences can you think of?

(B) Singapore does not restrict nor can it dictate what other countries do or do not do. We already have cluster munitions for a number of years. Our neighbours know it and Singapore has not hidden that fact. I don’t see the sky falling. As spoken, the way to minimise the impact of cluster munitions (or any kind of munitions) is the prevention of conflict.

Yes. Our neighbours know it, please tell me what is going through their thoughts on our possession of Cluster Bombs? Do you think they find us friendly neighbour?
Yes, if we cant dictate what other countries do with the Cluster Bomb therefore dont sell them. Why have the blood of the innocent on us? Our tax payer ’s money goes into building CB to maim innocent lives? If we sell such weapons to countries like burma, north korea or any other human rights abused states is not morally right. No. The sky will not fall, as i dont see it falling when the nuke hit nagasaki. The US still use the nuke on Japan during WW2 killing thousands so can conflict be prevented by having a NUKE in their hands. Can conflict be prevented by having Terrible Weapons in our hands? Conflicts will occur no matter what weapons we have…therefore having a strong diplomatic relationship with our neighbours are important.

C) As much as we spend on defence, it is our desire that our military incl cluster munitions would never be used. But we still spend on defence because our military is in itself a deterrance. It doesn’t apply to just cluster munitions but our entire military. Ironically, most of what Singapore produces in terms of arms are not weapons that are developed by Singapore but merely licensed.

Spending on military defence is very important. Bear in mind, where are the accountability in over spending on hardwares that will never be called into action in a conflict. Expensive weapons must be justifiable why and what purpose they are bought and will it ever be put into good use. Do we expect to go to WAR anytime soon within a few years or months. Buying EXPENSIVE JUNKS to deter Conflicts are not sensible thing. Every Armed Forces in the world is a deterrence no gahmen will stop putting tax payer’s money into them. We know that but cautious approach to expand and improved our forces should take priority than buy buy buy any kind of $$$$ toys. Latest news from BBC and CNN, countries are banning CB altogether. We Singapore are kiasu and kiasee coz we spend on the license now and manufactured so much CB it doesn’t make sense to throw them out. Israel has them too but for them their name is already so SMELLY in the middle east, ARABS there ain’t kind to them if a war again break out. In Singapore, our names are not smelly here…do you want that to happen?

(D) Cluster munitions are not developed nor meant to kill civilians neither are smart weapons. However both do kill civilians. Cluster munitions due to its enhanced effectiveness has the ability to kill more. It is unrealistic to think that by not using cluster munitions in a war, one can avoid long term hatred or other similar consequences. No amount of smart weapons can avoid civilian loss of life in a war. I repeat, the prevention of war is the only method in which civilian loss of life can be avoided.

SMART bomb is superior to Cluster Bombs. SB is used to strike key buildings be it military or industrial and death is swift and innocent humans are spared unless targeted wrongly. That itself can be blamed on the weapon firer.

But CB is different…it kills too but many are left unexploded and many innocent lives are taken when they accidentally step on it. These innocent lives have no mine detecting legs, children,elderly and farmers are unfortunate victims. Please take a look at those pictures, tell me whether fighting a WAR requires sacrifice of innocent lives necessarily. We have many other weapons that can do strategic strikes …do we need to use a BOMB as DUMB as Cluster Bomb?

I am not living in a make believe world as MM and PM said during a MSK escape. I am in the real world.

In fact, I find that these world we live in is full of conflicts each day but we all has a responsibility not to worsen it. There are many innocent lives killed by mines and cluster bombs even after many donkey years that conflict has passed. Imagined a Made in Singapore CB killed one whole family in their rice field one day. Will you care? Will ST care? What if a war happen here in Sg where land area is so small, our enemy throw thousands of cheap, insensitive and deadly CB on us. Even if WAR with our enemy ends in us wining it, all these evil CB still laying around HDB, market place and so for waiting to kill the innocent.

What we can buy, others can buy too. What we can use, others can use on us too. Dealing our enemy with intelligent weapons that win a war and not destroy their people lives unnecessarily. Human Lives are so much more precious than a cheap Cluster BOMB. Selling one CB is like killing a life in the future. I hope all of us understand the impact of it. If not many countries are not calling a ban on it.

Your view: Of course. Singapore has every right to defend itself with whatever means. We can even have nukes to blast out enemies rite? Why cant we have it? And why not use it?

(A) Wrong. The rationale for Singapore to have nukes as opposed to cluster weapons are entirely different and the rationale for using it is on an entirely different plane.

Your view: As mentioned, we can used cluster bomb on our enemies does it mean we will not be receiving the same CB from our enemies? By land area, we are defnitely more easy to have higher civilian casualties than any potential enemies. But by telling the whole wide world we have cluster bomb, we just invite our potential enemies to purchase this technology against us. An ARMS race of deadly consequences. What kind of technology cannot be bought with money?

(B) Singapore does not restrict nor can it dictate what other countries do or do not do. We already have cluster munitions for a number of years. Our neighbours know it and Singapore has not hidden that fact. I don’t see the sky falling. As spoken, the way to minimise the impact of cluster munitions (or any kind of munitions) is the prevention of conflict.

It is also idealistic to think that if Singapore banned cluster munitions, our enemies in a war in Singapore would refrain from maximising civilian casualties.

Your view: If Singapore not using it why spend money buying and bulding it. Even trying to sell it to other countries?

(C) As much as we spend on defence, it is our desire that our military incl cluster munitions would never be used. But we still spend on defence because our military is in itself a deterrance. It doesn’t apply to just cluster munitions but our entire military. Ironically, most of what Singapore produces in terms of arms are not weapons that are developed by Singapore but merely licensed.

If everyone can live with each other without conflict, I agree we won’t need a military. But we live in a real world.

Your view: We can use high tech weapons ….Unwarranted killing may result in a long term hatred and irrepairable consequences. Win the WAR the smart way not butchering innocent people.

(D) Cluster munitions are not developed nor meant to kill civilians neither are smart weapons. However both do kill civilians. Cluster munitions due to its enhanced effectiveness has the ability to kill more. It is unrealistic to think that by not using cluster munitions in a war, one can avoid long term hatred or other similar consequences. No amount of smart weapons can avoid civilian loss of life in a war. I repeat, the prevention of war is the only method in which civilian loss of life can be avoided.

The US military can do a lot to minimise civilian loss of life as in the use of smart weapons. That’s also because they’re far bigger than Singapore. Can small Singapore take or afford such military risks? I don’t presume to think that Singapore can be like the US.

(E) Ultimately, the ban on cluster munitions especially in the context of Singapore is idealistic. It would be nice to ban tanks, aircraft, bombs and bullets too but we live in the real world.

“1) Singapore’s ownership of submunitions or cluster munitions has never resulted in the loss of a single civilian life.”

Of course. There isn’t a WAR yet.

” Singapore’s use of any munitions is governed by its right to self defense which takes priority over any detrimental effects on the lives of civilians (that’s not to say civilian life is not important).”

Of course. Singapore has every right to defend itself with whatever means. We can even have nukes to blast out enemies rite? Why cant we have it? And why not use it?

“As a consequence of (2), the perceived threat of submunitions or cluster munitions to civilians in the context of Singapore’s ownership is an artificial one based on the presumption that Singapore will use such cluster munitions in a manner detrimental to civilians.”

If Singapore not using it why spend money buying and bulding it. Even trying to sell it to other countries?

“(4) In view of (3), it is a consequence that Singapore’s continued ownership of submunitions will NOT result in the loss of any civilian life except in the unlikely event of a war in which Singapore has to defend itself (and even then on the assumption that submunitions WILL be used or that it is used in a manner that is detrimental to civilian life).”

As mentioned, we can used cluster bomb on our enemies does it mean we will not be receiving the same CB from our enemies? By land area, we are defnitely more easy to have higher civilian casualties than any potential enemies. But by telling the whole wide world we have cluster bomb, we just invite our potential enemies to purchase this technology against us. An ARMS race of deadly consequences. What kind of technology cannot be bought with money?

“(5) It is not denied that submunitions are more effective than normal munitions. If (1) to (4) holds, then (5) makes the case for Singapore’s rejection of the cluster munitions treaty.”

We can use high tech weapons to deal with our enemies. Strategic strikes on buildings and vehicles. There are SMART BOMB, Tomahawk missile, GPS guided BOMB, LAser Guided BOMB, Heavy BOMBing on selected military siteand many advanced technology that help us win war. Wining a WAR is not about who kill the MOST CIVILIANS. The US invaded IRAQ they empolyed advanced weapons to deal with a backward enemy.

For a small country like us, we should be using high tech weapons that disable enemies machinery and force their soldiers to lose heart. Boosting our morale and dealing the enemy a heavy hand. Unwarranted killing may result in a long term hatred and irrepairable consequences. Win the WAR the smart way not butchering innocent people.

FG

(1) Singapore’s ownership of submunitions or cluster munitions has never resulted in the loss of a single civilian life.

(2) Singapore’s use of any munitions is governed by its right to self defense which takes priority over any detrimental effects on the lives of civilians (that’s not to say civilian life is not important).

(3) As a consequence of (2), the perceived threat of submunitions or cluster munitions to civilians in the context of Singapore’s ownership is an artificial one based on the presumption that Singapore will use such cluster munitions in a manner detrimental to civilians.

(4) In view of (3), it is a consequence that Singapore’s continued ownership of submunitions will NOT result in the loss of any civilian life except in the unlikely event of a war in which Singapore has to defend itself (and even then on the assumption that submunitions WILL be used or that it is used in a manner that is detrimental to civilian life).

(5) It is not denied that submunitions are more effective than normal munitions. If (1) to (4) holds, then (5) makes the case for Singapore’s rejection of the cluster munitions treaty.

PROOF: As the element of proof, it is not difficult to prove (1). Notice also that if one replaces submunitions with the phrase “simple bombs”, the above is equally applicable.

On the contrary, I have not read a single concrete piece of evidence that disproves (1) to (5) above.

The argument against cms is like saying, car drivers kill more people than bicycles (or for that matter, cluster munitions). So we should ban cars to keep people safe.

Cluster bombs and landmines are bad weapons. It only costs US$1 to produce 1 landmine but it costs hundred times more to remove it once it’s in the ground. Cluster bombs are worse than landmines because they are spread more easily over large areas of land and it has been consistently shown that large numbers are unexploded on impact.

From wikipedia:
“While all weapons are potentially dangerous to civilians, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict.

Cluster munitions are opposed by many individuals and hundreds of groups, such as the Red Cross,[3] the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high number of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon.”

On national defence:
The campaign to stop the SG govt from producing more cluster bombs does not mean that SG will have no other means of defending itself. We can use other kinds of weapons, weapons that have the same deterent effect without causing the disastrous effect of cluster bombs and landmines. If SG is only dependent on cluster bombs and landmines to scare enemies to defend itself, we can throw away the Navy, airforce, artillery, tanks, etc.

All this while, the arguments for landmines and cluster bombs is just plain talk.
You’re talking about deterent effects, but war between countries continue despite the “deterent effect”.

You say we must be realistic… Well, the reality here is that there are more than 70 million landmines on the ground already. How much more do you want to put there?

Do you understand that right now, in the world, since various wars, there are more than 70 million UNEXPLODED landmines on the ground?

How do you propose to remove them? And if governments (especially the US) have not taken the appropriate responsibility to remove them after the wars (Vietnam wars, korean wars, wars in Africa) , what do you think happens to the land?

The land is WASTED. Nobody is safe to use it for farming or for economical development. Yet, precisely because the people are poor, they risk their lives to continue using the land. And many end up losing limbs or worse still, dead.

Is it fair for the children and descendants to continue to suffer? Lets leave fairness out if you think WAR IS UNFAIR anyway.

Limited land is all we’re fighting for on this planet. Land to farm for food, etc. By placing landmines and cluster bombs, to prevent your enemy or yourself from ever using the land, in the end only results in a land full of dangerous weapons. A land nobody can live in.

In the end, you’re just limiting the amount of space people can live on the planet. This will only lead to more conflict as countries are unable to sustain their populations.

When governments do wrong things, how easy do you think they’ll own up? The politicians just want to protect their rice bowl. They won’t admit their wrongs at all. We need to continue to highlight these pigheaded actions of governments and armies.

“The only way for evil to triumph in the world is for the good to do nothing.”

There is a reason why cluster munitions was developed in the first place. If one takes away cluster munitions, that will mean having more smaller bombs (eg SDBs) or having a bigger bomb (eg ATACMs) to compensate for the bang. Either way, no difference.

Singapore’s defence relies on its ability to deter potential aggressors. The existence of such munitions in its inventory enhances that ability. All of SAF’s munitions, from bombs to bullets to cluster munitions have the ability to kill civilians. In an ideal world, it would be nice to eliminate all such weapons completely. In the real world, it doesn’t work that way.

That’s the main point. Civilians = women, children, non-combat people.

There is strong and conclusive evidence that unexploded cluster bombs and landmines have caused an outrageous amount of deaths and casualties in the world, often in war-ravaged countries like cambodia, laos, vietnam.

When you compare the numbers of people killed during the war and the numbers killed after, you will find that the number of people killed AFTER the war is LARGER.

if u think cluster bombs are okay, because it’s just a matter of kill or be killed by your enemies, why dun we manufacture chemical weapons and poison gases too? If your point is that the end justifies the means, then all kinds of weapons, as long as it kills your enemy, should be allowed then?

No. The end does not justify the means.

There is a reason why chemical warfare and nuclear weapons are so abhorred. It is because they continue to cause great damage to people LONG AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.

Isn’t that the same as cluster bombs (which has been proven to cause a lot of civilian deaths long after wars are over)?

Learn from history or remain an idiot. History has shown that CLUSTER BOMBS KILL AND MAIMED MORE CIVILIANS AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.

Like chemical warfare and other really too abhorent weapons, cluster bombs should be banned. Singapore should stop producing it.

And the excuse given is to defend a country against potential invaders. And then it goes into an arms race with its neighbours.Who are these invaders? We don’t live in the colonial age when colonial powers vie with each other for supremacy militarily. In my opinion there’s only one country that is actively displaying its military prowess, and it is using the defence excuse to do just that.

MeowMeowMan is against cluster bombs, the idea of armies, weaponries and all form of violence

“The absence of major producers such as United States, China and Russia” make this conference just so much talk without any hope of achieving anything. Even if Sg stop the production, the buyers will just buy from the big 3 or others.

I think there are many other worthwhile projects that we can concentrate on which have greater chance of getting some results.

Thanks anyway

The impact of cluster bombs is not just for now or when they are being used. The impact might last for decades and more, even when peace has been agreed and taken place. I am strongly against the manufacturing, possession, intention to use as well as the selling of such weapons. We do not need to manufacture greater evil to this already evil world. We do not need to even have the intention to use such dangerous and cruel weapons in times of conflict. We definitely do not need to stain our National Treasury with blood money by making profits out of selling such weapons.

Seriously.

Well, just my 2 cents but I agree with the global ban on cluster bombs.

(I still think that the whole world should disarm.)