So when 111 nations of the world gather to ban cluster bombs, the term naturally came to mind:
Twelve days of negotiations ended after diplomats from scores of nations delivered speeches embracing the accord. It requires signatories not to use cluster bombs, to destroy existing stockpiles within eight years, and to fund programs that clear old battlefields of dud bombs.
I'm sure the speeches were moving.
But we will not sign the pact--well, not this year. Cluster bombs are very useful whether you are talking about massed infantry, air defenses, artillery emplacements, or truck convoys. It is possible that precision single-warhead or projectile buses that dispense precision sub-munitions will make cluster bombs obsolete, but the need for the effects that a cluster bomb now provides has not disappeared--at least not for serious nations.
Yet more illuminating was the exception that some of our allies insisted on:
Nonetheless, the treaty adopted Friday contains several concessions sought by the United States and its NATO allies, many of whom plan to sign the deal.
The pact would allow countries that sign the treaty to keep cooperating militarily with those that do not. Earlier drafts of the treaty sought to prohibit such cooperation, an idea fought by the United States and its NATO allies on the grounds this would make joint peacekeeping work difficult if not impossible.
And imagine the thought of having to go to war without the help of America. Our allies weren't going to extend the spirit of their speeches that far.
And if at war, our allies would be happy if America had the weapons we need to win. Hopefully, our allies won't take us to court if we use cluster bombs to drive off any attackers who strike the troops of our allies.
