# How do you tell a cluster bomb from Food packet...you can't! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 30, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568 "2001-10-30T18:13:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/21 "2001-10-31T11:11:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by Broomstick_ > > **Will there be unfortunate accidents? Of course there will, this IS a war we’re talking about.** > > This seems to indicate that **Broomstick** is of the opinion that, balancing the knowledge of innocent children dying against the necessity of war, it is acceptable that “unfortunate accidents” will occur. I simply used the words “perfectly acceptable” in place of “Of course there will [be accidents]” and “innocent children” in place of “unfortunate accidents”. I’m am always surprised when someone professes to know my opinion better than I do. Please do NOT substitute YOUR fucking opinions for mine. If I had _meant_ “innocent children” and “perfectly acceptable” I would have used those phrases. I did NOT mean those terms, therefore they are NOT there. For the record - I think it is horrible that _anyone_ gets killed by violence inflicted by their fellow human beings. I don’t like seeing _soldiers_ come home in body bags, much less civilians of any sort, and even more so children. On the other hand, I will NOT succumb to the illusion clearly shared by some of my fellow citizens that you can have a war _without_ civilian casualities (I won’t even address the folks who want us to go to war without _military_ casualties). You can’t. If you have a war innocents will die, whatever your intention. War is when you kill people and break things. People die horrible, painful, pointless deaths. Women are raped. Children are maimed. This is what war is on a personal and human level. Acknowledging something horrible in no way condones it. Your use of the term “sand-nigger” offends me. It dehumanizes the enemy, makes them Other, and therefore easier to kill. The Afghanis, the Taliban, and even Osama bin Laden are human beings who bleed and feel pain as acutely as any other people. I happen to think they’re really scummy human beings (and now I feel compelled to apologize to pond scum for the comparison) but that doesn’t mean I’m going to take pleasure in their deaths. The whole idea that there are droves of children running across minefields to pick up colorful objects is a bit over the top. Most of the (admittedly few) instances we’ve seen of people picking the food up have shown _adults_, perhaps with a child or three in tow. I recall seeing some older children - 12-14 age range - also out in a field gathering, but that’s old enough to have some caution. Do we know what’s happening everywhere? No, of course not. But that’s no reason to assume the very worst of all possible outcomes. I do know, for sure, that if there WERE droves of children being killed and maimed in this manner their broken bodies would be on display for the news cameras - they’ve done that for civilians killed by US bombing raids, after all. I think some of this “endangering the civilians with food drops” ranting is patronizing towards the Afghanis. As I said, uneducated does not equal stupid. These people are expert at surviving in a war zone. They may be unlettered, dressed in rags, and unbathed for months at a time for all I know, but in their current environment I’m sure they’re a lot smarter about living to see tomorrow than I would be. Are the food drops going to feed millions? No. Are some of them going to be diverted to enemy fighters? Undoubtably. Is it still worth doing? Yes, I think so. We will feed who we can. Will it have the effect we want? Damn if I know - no one has ever simultaneously dropped bombs and food over a country before. ---
**Author:** ![obidiah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@obidiah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obidiah)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/22 "2001-10-31T13:34:48Z")
Good friend **Broomstick** , Again in your post you have said it is acceptable for chilren to die in this conlfict. I am not professing to know your “fucking” opinion. Nor did I say you “condone” the losses. There is a big difference between accepting something and condoning it. But when you say > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Broomstick_ > **On the other hand, I will NOT succumb to the illusion clearly shared by some of my fellow citizens that you can have a war without civilian casualities (I won’t even address the folks who want us to go to war without military casualties). You can’t. If you have a war innocents will die, whatever your intention. War is when you kill people and break things. People die horrible, painful, pointless deaths. Women are raped. Children are maimed. This is what war is on a personal and human level.** I can’t help but read into this “acceptance”. **Broonstick** , you may not want it to be so, but you ARE willing to **accept** civilian losses. What I said was > [@](#): > > _originally posted by obidiah_ > **Soooo…it is your opinion that is perfectly acceptable for innocent children to die because we are at war?** You said it, I rephrased it. I’m not making you out to be some evil bastard, you know. I just want to make it perfectly clear what compromises you, me and America are willing to deal with in this “war” on “terrorism”. I am certainly **NOT** willing to accept the deaths of more innocent people. I am sorry the term “sand-nigger” offends you. It offends me as well. On the other hand, is it not your stance that some innocent Arabic people will die? I find it odd that you are willing to accept (and don’t get me some bullshit lecture about this…I have to infer that you in some way accept the necessity of this war and therefor accept the losses that go with it) civilian deaths yet cackles raise at a racial slur. As for the rest of you post, I agree. I don’t think droves of children are dying because of this, nor do I think these people are stupid. I have spent time with people in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. I know fully well they are not stupid. Good friend **Spiny** , > [@](#): > > _oringinally posted by Spiny Norman_ > \*\*Then you need to think out an alternative to war. One that works. I’ll applaud when you pick up your Nobel. > > Nefarious comparison: Children die in traffic every day. We know that our convenient transportation comes at the cost of X childrens lives per year. This isn’t alright, this isn’t OK, but it happens anyway.\*\* [By the way, I don’t drive or own a car] Why does my alternative to war need to work when war doesn’t? Do you think it is not reasonable to explore other avenues? Our government is demanding one simple thing of the Taliban: Give up bin Ladin. Simple, right? The Taliban even said “OK” to this, providing: 1- They see direct evidence of his involvement in the bombings 2- He is released to a country other than America (Pakistan was suggested) 3- He is tried in international court of law, not an American court. Now, does this seem unreasonable to you? If we were in their position we would demand the same things, except that we refuse to let ANY of our Troops be tried in an international court of law because we are **\Americans and therefor ordained by God to be right all the freakin’ time\** No, this really isn’t unreasonable. However, we have choosen a more violent course of action instead. In President Bush’s address to the nation he said he would [parapharase] “exhaust all diplomatic (amoung other)avenues” [/para] to bring these people to justice. He did not do this. When the Taliban wanted to talk, he said no. I think it might have saved a lot of time, death and money to at least hear what they had to say. Now that opportunity is lost. As of today we officially have a ground presence in Afganistan. Not nobel prize quality, but it is a start. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/23 "2001-10-31T16:01:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > I suppose a 3,4 or 5 year old would know that and **never, ever** pick up the wrong package, huh? > \*\* 3, 4, and 5 year olds will pick up anything, color be damned. Yellow, Red, Electric Blue, or Screaming Pink, it’d still be attractive to kids. Shall we put “Mr. Yuck” stickers on the ordnance, then? Ooops, that won’t work either, cause you’d have to handle the ordnance to see the stickers! The bad facts are: You can color the ordnance to make it hard for kids to see, but then demining teams will miss them too. Then, years from now, some poor shmuck is going to step on it, kick it, or pick it up, with unpleasant consequences. - or - You can color it brightly, so demining teams can find and remove it _now_, knowing that kids may find it too. When you use cluster bombs, those are your choices. Your only other choice is to not use cluster bombs. Kids, at least, can be taught to keep hands off of anything of a specific color. Sure, you’ll miss out on having little kids hunting down food packets, but there you are. It’s war, and it ain’t pretty or nice. The fact that we’re trying to feed the populace that we’re bombing is unique, unprecedented in my knowledge, and people are whining that it’s not perfect? Sorry: Nothing is perfect, especially on the first try, but at least it’s being attempted, and that’s more than anyone else has ever tried. ---
**Author:** ![obidiah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@obidiah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obidiah)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/24 "2001-10-31T16:43:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Tranquilis_ > **Your only other choice is to not use cluster bombs** This option doesn’t seem so bad to me. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/25 "2001-10-31T17:03:32Z")
Nor to many others. The trade-off is that you then have to be willing to risk higher friendly casualties as the price of your high-mindedness. You have to decide what’s more important to you: Friends, neighbors and countrymen coming home in bags, or someone else’s kids at risk. Tough call. ---
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/26 "2001-10-31T17:43:21Z")
**obidiah** , I can’t help thinking that when you say **Broomstick** “accepts” civilian casualties, despite your protestations, you are implying she “approves of” this happenstance. I believe what **Broomstick** means is that she is “willing to put up with” civilian casualties because she sees no reasonable alternative to this country’s current course of action. It doesn’t mean she likes it. It doesn’t help her sleep better at night. She may well be as disgusted with it as you are. Your thinly veiled characterization of her as warmongering hypocrite is unfair and uncalled-for. ---
**Author:** ![obidiah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@obidiah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obidiah)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/27 "2001-10-31T18:50:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Kamandi_ > **obidiah, I can’t help thinking that when you say Broomstick “accepts” civilian casualties, despite your protestations, you are implying she “approves of” this happenstance.** No, there is no implication. There is a huge difference between ‘acceptance’ and ‘approvial’. I never said anyone here approves or condones these losses. I still am at a loss at how we can accept it when it might be unneseccary. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Kamandi_ > **I believe what Broomstick means is that she is “willing to put up with” civilian casualties because she sees no reasonable alternative to this country’s current course of action. It doesn’t mean she likes it. It doesn’t help her sleep better at night. She may well be as disgusted with it as you are.** I have at least tried to point out a reasonable alternative in my last post. It is frightening that a course of action that could have avoided deaths was completely ignored by our government. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Kamandi_ > **Your thinly veiled characterization of her as warmongering hypocrite is unfair and uncalled-for.** **Kamandi** , is why I said to **Broomstick** : > [@](#): > > **I’m not making you out to be some evil bastard, you know. I just want to make it perfectly clear what compromises you, me and America are willing to deal with in this “war” on “terrorism”. I am certainly NOT willing to accept the deaths of more innocent people.** **Tranquilis** , > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Tranquilis_ > \*\*The trade-off is that you then have to be willing to risk higher friendly casualties as the price of your high-mindedness. You have to decide what’s more important to you: Friends, neighbors and countrymen coming home in bags, or someone else’s kids at risk. > > Tough call.\*\* Not a tough call. What about we do neither? Everything does not to be “A” or “B”, black and white, us or them. The present course of action we have embarked on will guarantee both Friends, neighbors and countrymen coming home in bags **AND** someone else’s kids [being put] at “risk” (ie “dead”). ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/28 "2001-10-31T19:05:07Z")
Sorry, **obidiah** , it’s noble vision you have, but it’s one that keeps foundering on the rock of human mendacity. As long as there are people like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, OBL, Saddam Hussein, Milosovich, and so on, there will be war, or there will be tyrany. Certainly we can do things that reduce the necesity for war, but when you’re attacked, you either take action to stop the attackers, or you can sit there and die. Come to think of it, a lot of people have decided that as a superpower, it’s our moral responsibility to stop people from attacking _others_ (Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Somalia). When _everyone_ decides to play nice, we can turn our swords into ploughshares, but not until. ---
**Author:** ![obidiah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@obidiah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obidiah)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/29 "2001-10-31T19:45:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Tranquilis_ > \*\*Sorry, obidiah, it’s noble vision you have, but it’s one that keeps foundering on the rock of human mendacity. > > As long as there are people like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, OBL, Saddam Hussein, Milosovich, and so on, there will be war, or there will be tyrany. Certainly we can do things that reduce the necesity for war, but when you’re attacked, you either take action to stop the attackers, or you can sit there and die. Come to think of it, a lot of people have decided that as a superpower, it’s our moral responsibility to stop people from attacking others (Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Somalia). When everyone decides to play nice, we can turn our swords into ploughshares, but not until.\*\* I know you are (mostly) right, although I think we, as Americans and as a superpower, can work towards setting an example that veers away from violent action. I’m saddened but mostly disheartened about the events of the recent past. I think we had a chance to start down a road that moved away from “an eye for an eye” and towards “love your brother”. I know well that this is a foolish idealist notion, but we have to start somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/30 "2001-10-31T19:51:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by obidiah_ > Do you think it is not reasonable to explore other avenues? Our government is demanding one simple thing of the Taliban: Give up bin Ladin. Simple, right? The Taliban even said “OK” to this, providing: > 1- They see direct evidence of his involvement in the bombings > 2- He is released to a country other than America (Pakistan was suggested) > 3- He is tried in international court of law, not an American court. > > Now, does this seem unreasonable to you? On the face of it, it doesn’t seem unreasonable. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a serious offer. It was pure propaganda and delaying tactics. Almost certainly, no evidence we could have presented would have been considered good enough.(Not to mention the fact that we could not have turned over our evidence to them without revealing our intelligence sources, thereby rendering them useless.) Even if it was accepted, no country acceptable to the Taliban would have also been acceptable to the US. Which they knew full well. (Also, IIRC, the Taliban did not call for ObL to be tried in an international court, but an Islamic court. Bit of a difference.) Besides which, we have been trying for years through _diplomatic channels_ to get them to turn over bin Laden. They have repeatedly refused to do so under any circumstances. They praised him as a hero of Islam and stated their intention to defend him “to the last drop of Afghani blood.” Finally, the US said, “Okay, we’ve had enough. Turn him over _now_ or else.” Again, the Taliban said, “Fuck you.” It was only after the bombing started that they made their bogus offer. I don’t like war any better than you do. But I do recognize that, under some circumstances, it is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/31 "2001-10-31T20:21:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > **I am sorry the term “sand-nigger” offends you. It offends me as well. On the other hand, is it not your stance that some innocent Arabic people will die? I find it odd that you are willing to accept (and don’t get me some bullshit lecture about this…I have to infer that you in some way accept the necessity of this war and therefor accept the losses that go with it) civilian deaths yet cackles raise at a racial slur.** A clear accusation of hypocrisy. _You’re_ the one who raised the term “sand nigger” in an attempt to villify **Broomstick’s** position. To paraphrase (as you seem so fond of doing): “How can she accept the needless killing of civilians yet be offended at a simple word? How ridiculous! Her whole argument must be wrong!” You are attempting to take this discussion off topic in order to falsely weaken your opponent’s moral position. Your error is in ignoring the concept that one can grudgingly accept the brutal realities of this war and still view racism against its victims as wrong. The two are not related. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/32 "2001-11-01T01:26:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Again in your post you have said it is acceptable for chilren to die in this conlfict. I said I **ACKNOWLEDGE** it. I did NOT say I “accept” it. Would you please stick to the actual words I have, in fact, used some forethought in choosing? Please? I _acknowledge_ civilian deaths in warfare the same way I _observe and recognize_ childhood leukemia, deaths caused by drunken driving, the horrors of drug addiction, serial killers, animal abuse, and any number of other horrific things. I in NO WAY “accept” any of these and believe that they should either be eliminated or, failing that, minimized. Are you clear on this now? I _observe_ that throughout history EVERY war has had civilian casualities. That is an _observation_, NOT a moral judgement. To clarify things I then, in a subsequent post, made explicit my stand - that _any_ death by violence is abhorent to me. Do NOT twist my words to imply that I in any way find our current situation pleasurable. Other posters have it correctly that I currently think war may be the lesser of our choice of evils here. I may be wrong on that, because I am an imperfect human being and I certainly do not have access to all the facts here. But I _am_ sure, completely sure, that these Al-Queada and allied terrorists WILL continue to target our people if we do not do something to stop them. What is the best solution? Well, let’s debate our choices here, if you want, but not by twisting each other’s words, OK? Here’s a moral distinction for you to gnaw upon. The US, despite its flaws and failings, has devoted much effort and time and money to devising weaponry that can be targeted more precisely than any other munitions in history, largely in an attempt to _minimize_ unintended damage and death. The terrorists, however, delibrately target non-soldiers to _maximize_ civilian deaths, including those of women, children, and the aged. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > You said it, I rephrased it. Then stop “rephrasing” what I say, because you _obviously_ do not want to understand what I am saying. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > I am certainly **NOT** willing to accept the deaths of more innocent people. Whether you accept it or not, more civilians WILL die before this is over. On both sides. Here’s a little problem for you to consider, something that almost happened on September 11: A civilian airliner is hijacked, with 44 on board. You have credible evidence (3 prior hijackings resulting 5000 deaths and the destruction of billions of dollars of real estate) that this airliner will be crashed into a large building with the intention of causing thousands of deaths. Do you: 1. Shoot down the airliner, which will cause 44 deaths for sure (possibly a few more on the ground when it falls) but definitely preventing an opportunity for greater death and destruction 2. Finding civilian deaths “unacceptable”, allow the jet to continue on its way, attempt to negotiate with the hijackers, and hope what these guys really want is to go to Cuba instead of into the side of the Sears Tower. If you can come up with a third alternative that spares everyone I’d sure like to hear it - go for it. Remember, the stated goals of our enemy Osama bin Laden is our _complete destruction_. His followers are willing to die to accomplish those ends. How do you negotiate with this mindset? C’mon, obidiah, I want to hear YOUR solution to the problem. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Why does my alternative to war need to work when war doesn’t? What makes you think war doesn’t “work”? The US fought a war to be free of Britain - and it worked. The goal of the Republic in the civil war was to restore the Union - and it worked. World War II was fought to defeat the Axis powers - and it worked. Moving outside the US - the Russian Revolution was fought to overturn the Tsarist system - and it worked. The Vietminese fought the American War (as they call it) to drive the US out of their country - and it worked. Alexander the Great fought wars to win territory - and it worked. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Do you think it is not reasonable to explore other avenues? Our government is demanding one simple thing of the Taliban: Give up bin Ladin. Simple, right? The Taliban even said “OK” to this, providing: > 1- They see direct evidence of his involvement in the bombings Of course, if we made everything public, it would be obvious where their own organization has leaks and those leaks would be eliminated - probably in a very final manner. Most of the world’s governments that have been shown the evidence say the evidence is clear. [/quote] > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > 2- He is released to a country other than America (Pakistan was suggested) If a man commits a murder in Ohio and flees to Kentucky, is it then right to say “We’ll extradite him to Indiana (where he has committed no crime) but not to Ohio”. Excuse me - the crimes - and even the Taliban admit they were crimes - were committed on American soil. Surely that is where the crimes should be tried. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > 3- He is tried in international court of law, not an American court. No - they specified an ISLAMIC court. Under some interpretations of Islam (extreme, true, but obviously to be taken seriously) it’s OK to kill “infidels”. Meaning the most guilty of parties (by our laws) could be acquited in such a court. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Now, does this seem unreasonable to you? Neville Chamberlain sounded extremely reasonable in his time. Nevertheless, he was wrong. He appeased the Nazis and declared “peace in our time”. Ten years later as many as 50 million people had died in WWII, only a fraction of them military personnel. We need to consider the long as well as the short term. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > If we were in their position we would demand the same things, except that we refuse to let ANY of our Troops be tried in an international court of law because we are **\Americans and therefor ordained by God to be right all the freakin’ time\** Oh? Is that why American servicemen accused of raping Japanese women have been tried in Japanese courts? Is that why an American teenager in Singapore, convincted of painting graffiti, was tried in their courts and flogged in accordance with the sentence handed down by that court? I don’t claim Americans are perfect, but we do try. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > As of today we officially have a ground presence in Afganistan. If you think they ground troops only entered Afghanistan today your a fool - they’ve been there since before we started bombing. Just not in large numbers. Spies, personnel setting up targeting systems… a multitude of reasons to have people on the ground. Obidiah, you have critiqued our current course of action. You have not offered another viable course. Please try again. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/33 "2001-11-01T01:39:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiny Norman \* > \*\*Unexploded ordnance of all kinds still is a **huge** problem, because all of it looks “interesting” to small children (and, sometimes, adult souvenir hunters). > > It’s just that there’s no way one can design any munition with 100% reliability - some will be duds - and some of the duds will be picked up with tragic results. Which all goes to show that war sucks. > > There will be non-combattant casualties. These happen in war. > > Some will be from unexploded ordnance, no matter what colour said ordnance has. And it can’t be helped, once there’s war. It just can’t. Whether we “accept it” or are “allright with it” or not, it will happen. War sucks. \*\* Good posts, SN. Does anyone have any idea of the numbers. How many cluster bombs are being dropped? What % of cluster bombs fail to explode? ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/34 "2001-11-01T02:55:24Z")
I’m unsure of statistics for the current conflict. In Desert Storm: > [@](#): > > The dud rate for a standard cluster was approximately five percent. [http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/ffm.html](http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/ffm.html) So… 202 bomblets per cluster, 5% failure rate… around 10 bad things left behind for every cluster bomb dropped. We need to chat with some folks about quality assurance here… Cluster bombs can only be dropped in combat zones where there are no civilian areas nearby. This means they are dropped on front line positions where the general messiness of war means there’s already unexploded ordinance everywhere from dud mortar shells to mines. We definitely need to find a way to clean all this stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/35 "2001-11-01T03:32:43Z")
The Human Rights Watch and the Pentagon also use 5% dud-rate in planning and estimation. > [@](#): > > We definitely need to find a way to clean all this stuff up. That’s why the bomblets are painted yellow in the first place: To make it easier for demining and EOD teams to find and dispose of the nasty little suckers. ---
**Author:** ![obidiah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@obidiah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obidiah)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/36 "2001-11-01T04:25:18Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Broomstick_ > \*\*Here’s a little problem for you to consider, something that almost happened on September 11: > > A civilian airliner is hijacked, with 44 on board. You have credible evidence (3 prior hijackings resulting 5000 deaths and the destruction of billions of dollars of real estate) that this airliner will be crashed into a large building with the intention of causing thousands of deaths. > > Do you: > > 1. Shoot down the airliner, which will cause 44 deaths for sure (possibly a few more on the ground when it falls) but definitely preventing an opportunity for greater death and destruction > > 2. Finding civilian deaths “unacceptable”, allow the jet to continue on its way, attempt to negotiate with the hijackers, and hope what these guys really want is to go to Cuba instead of into the side of the Sears Tower. > > If you can come up with a third alternative that spares everyone I’d sure like to hear it - go for it. > > C’mon, obidiah, I want to hear YOUR solution to the problem.\*\* 1. Stop treating everyone in the world as inferior and third rate. Examine the cause of these terrorist acts. What was the catalyst? Is it possible that perhaps WE might not look as good to other countries as we do to ourselves? Is it possible that WE could be a huge cause of so much angst in the world? Yes, it is. I hate to be the one to break this to everyone, but we brought this on ourselves. I’m not in anyway justifying what happened…I find the death of any innocent people horrid. However, we had better get off our high and mighty hobble-horse and take a look at what is happening around us on this planet. We ARE NOT “right” and we ARE NOT “good”. These are completely subjective terms and have absolutely NO meaning in a global context. For example, take a look at our European allies. They aren’t so sure about this war on terrorism and they aren’t so sure the want to be unified behind us. What worries me is all this blind “war is an unfortunate necessity” bulldada. It does not need ot be the way and WE need to be the first to head the direction that leads AWAY from all this hate. > [@](#): > > \*\*What makes you think war doesn’t “work”? The US fought a war to be free of Britain - and it worked. The goal of the Republic in the civil war was to restore the Union - and it worked. World War II was fought to defeat the Axis powers - and it worked. > > Moving outside the US - the Russian Revolution was fought to overturn the Tsarist system - and it worked. The Vietminese fought the American War (as they call it) to drive the US out of their country - and it worked. Alexander the Great fought wars to win territory - and it worked.\*\* What did these wars solve, exactly? How are we in a better position, a better place? Are we free of violence? Did the “war to end all wars” do anything but promote MORE violence? Did defeating the Nazi’s stop genocide in Rhowanda? What exactly was accomplished? Did the Civil war put an end to civil unrest and hatred in the US or did it amplify it? Did it end slavery in America? No. We killed each other and went home to lick our wounds. What would have happened if we could have avoided these wars? What WILL happen if we work to start avoiding them now? This is my question. It seems to me (and this is only my opion from what you and others have posted) that we have a defeatist attitude towards this: “Other posters have it correctly that I currently think war may be the lesser of our choice of evils here.” I would hope “the lesser of our choice of evils” is to work in te future to AVOID the kind of mess we are in now. > [@](#): > > **Oh? Is that why American servicemen accused of raping Japanese women have been tried in Japanese courts? Is that why an American teenager in Singapore, convincted of painting graffiti, was tried in their courts and flogged in accordance with the sentence handed down by that court? I don’t claim Americans are perfect, but we do try.** There is new legislation being passed in the House (as a rider) to ban the trying of american military in an international court of law for war crimes or crimes against humanity…that is way I brought that point up. The american teenager was not military personel. > [@](#): > > **I don’t claim Americans are perfect, but we do try.** This is a really interesting thing to say. How do we try? By doing this: > [@](#): > > **The US, despite its flaws and failings, has devoted much effort and time and money to devising weaponry that can be targeted more precisely than any other munitions in history, largely in an attempt to minimize unintended damage and death. The terrorists, however, delibrately target non-soldiers to maximize civilian deaths, including those of women, children, and the aged.** A lot of that time and money could have been devote to other things that might not have revolved around killing people. > [@](#): > > **Obidiah, you have critiqued our current course of action. You have not offered another viable course. Please try again.** I have started to do that a number of posts ago: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by obidiah_ > **I know you are (mostly) right, although I think we, as Americans and as a superpower, can work towards setting an example that veers away from violent action. I’m saddened but mostly disheartened about the events of the recent past. I think we had a chance to start down a road that moved away from “an eye for an eye” and towards “love your brother”. I know well that this is a foolish idealist notion, but we have to start somewhere.** > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Broomstick_ > **If you think they ground troops only entered Afghanistan today your a fool - they’ve been there since before we started bombing. Just not in large numbers. Spies, personnel setting up targeting systems… a multitude of reasons to have people on the ground.** My unit was busy invading Iraq on December 15th, 1990 well before our “official” ground presence confirmed . That is why I added “official”. I assure you I understand the logistics involved. **Broomstick,Ferrous** , I would like to say I was WAY off the mark concerning the Islamic court of law. I really didn’t know that and apologize for my ignorance on the matter. **Kamandi** , Dang! If you spent half as much time defending all the innocent people dying in the world right now as you do **Broomstick** , we would be in a good way. (Hey, settle down, that was a joke. (Admittedly not a good one, though)) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/37 "2001-11-01T04:39:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > What did these wars solve, exactly? How are we in a better position, a better place? Are we free of violence? Did the “war to end all wars” do anything but promote MORE violence? Did defeating the Nazi’s stop genocide in Rhowanda? What exactly was accomplished? I’ll give you a personal answer. Hitler killed six million Jews. If we had lost WW II, then I and my family wouldn’t be alive. But, **obidiah** , you already know this. Why are you asking these silly rhetorical questions? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/38 "2001-11-01T11:48:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by Broomstick_ > > Here’s a little problem for you to consider, something that almost happened on September 11: > > > > A civilian airliner is hijacked, with 44 on board. You have credible evidence (3 prior hijackings resulting 5000 deaths and the destruction of billions of dollars of real estate) that this airliner will be crashed into a large building with the intention of causing thousands of deaths. > > > > Do you: > > > > 1. Shoot down the airliner, which will cause 44 deaths for sure (possibly a few more on the ground when it falls) but definitely preventing an opportunity for greater death and destruction > > > > 2. Finding civilian deaths “unacceptable”, allow the jet to continue on its way, attempt to negotiate with the hijackers, and hope what these guys really want is to go to Cuba instead of into the side of the Sears Tower. > > > > If you can come up with a third alternative that spares everyone I’d sure like to hear it - go for it. > > > > C’mon, obidiah, I want to hear YOUR solution to the problem. > > 1. Stop treating everyone in the world as inferior and third rate. _BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP!_ **THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER.** It’s a dodge. C’mon, Obidiah - the WTC and pentagon are on fire, the jet is heading to Washington and god knows what the target is - **DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW** or you _know_ people are going to die. You can NOT go back in time and revise US foreign policy, you don’t have time to make nice with everyone in the world we have offended. You have _maybe_ 5 minutes, tops, to solve this moral dilemna. This is not hypothetical, this REALLY HAPPENED on September 11. How do you solve the problem of Flight 93? I happen to know what our government decided to do, although it turns out the passengers took matters into their own hands first. So - you’re in charge for the moment, Obidiah, what do you do? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Examine the cause of these terrorist acts. What was the catalyst? Is it possible that perhaps WE might not look as good to other countries as we do to ourselves? Is it possible that WE could be a huge cause of so much angst in the world? Ah, blame the victim! I don’t deny that we have done some dumb shit oversease. However, the poor and oppressed do not inevitably turn to terrorism. The Koreans and Vietminese have never attempted to attack us on our soil - and God knows Viet Nam has reason in the 60s and 70s. The Cubans indulged in espinonage and spying, but didn’t blow up our buildings either before or after the cold war, or even now. The Bosnians, Serbs, and Croatians are not doing this. Neither have Ugandians, Somalians, Lybians, Syrians, or even the Palestinians (who have so far confined their overt violence to Isreal). So terrorism on our soil is NOT an inevitable outgrowth of our policies, however wrong headed they may be. We are no more “forcing” the Arabs to attack us than the wife of an abusive husband is “forcing” him to break her jaw, or a woman is at fault for her own rape because of what she wears or where she was at the time. Terrorism of this sort is an invention of the late 20th Century and is found predominately where there is Islam. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > For example, take a look at our European allies. They aren’t so sure about this war on terrorism and they aren’t so sure the want to be unified behind us. Funny, that’s not the impression I’m getting. Sure, there’s hesistation about actual fighting - no one wants to be attacked in retaliation and Europe still has rubble from WWII. But there’s no question in the minds of Europe that this sort of thing has to be stopped or not country will be safe. The French have stopped at least two attempts to bomb the US embassy in Pais, and on to blow up the Eiffel Tower. The Germans have arrested quite a few of these guys on their own territory. Russia (they are part of Europe, remember?) is behind us because these guys are camped very close to them but, given their current situation, there is a limit to what they can offer. I could go on, but I’ll run out of room. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > It does not need ot be the way and WE need to be the first to head the direction that leads AWAY from all this hate. Problem is, why you lead away from war there’s the possibility of being shot in the back. The enemy WANTS war - they have declared a holy war and a duty to die. Peace requires two parties, but it only takes one side to make a war. May I remind you that it was WE who were attacked? We can sit and sing “Give Pease a Chance” all we want, but how do we convince THEM to try it? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > What did these wars solve, exactly? How are we in a better position, a better place? Well, for starters the US is no longer a British colony. WWII - Hitler was stopped, Mussolini was stopped, Japan was stopped. Maybe you don’t care about that, but Hitler wiped out the European branch of my family and certainly would have marched several million Americans into the Showers of Death had he had the chance. The Japanese occupation of other Asian countries was horrific. Truthfully, I’m not the famillar with the ravages of Italian fascism, but I’m told that wasn’t pleasent either. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Are we free of violence? You honestly believe the world can ever be free of violence? What about self-defense? Do you believe a person should use violence, if necessary, to defend themselves from maiming or death? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Did defeating the Nazi’s stop genocide in Rhowanda? What exactly was accomplished? Defeating the Nazi’s stopped genocide in Europe. Rhwanda doesn’t enter the picture on that one, and it’s a false link in your argument. Remember the Nazi goal was the elimination of EVERY Jew, Gypsy, and other “defective” _in the entire world_. To that end they most definitely killed 6 million Jews and about 6 million others - _all civilians_. Their plan, after the Jews and the Gypsies, was to start on the Polish, Russians, and other Slavs. That process of mass and multiple genocide was halted. Genocide in Rwanda, if I am thinking of the same episode you are, had no connection to WWII or Europe but is a continuation of tribal frictions that have existed for centuries. Different origin of the problem, probably requirinig a different solution. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > Did the Civil war put an end to civil unrest and hatred in the US or did it amplify it? Did it end slavery in America? No. Uh, yes, actually it DID end slavery in America. It was not longer legal to keep people in chains, whip them to death, buy and sell human flesh. Did it end all the abuses? No, but that wasn’t the point. Actually ending slavery wasn’t the original point, preserving the union as one country was the point, and THAT succeeded. It was not intended to put an “end” to hatred, civil unrest, or prejudice. It’s a little like having your doctor remove your ruptured appendix then complaining he didn’t also give you a nose job, straighten your teeth, and take care of your ingrown toenail. All that other stuff is unconnected to the reason you were cut open with a knife and stitched back up. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > What would have happened if we could have avoided these wars? If we have avoided the revolution? We’d still be a British Colony. If we had avoided the Civil War? We’d be two countries, not one, and I’m pretty sure we won’t be a world power. In fact, Britain probably would have come in and taken over because they did a lot of that sort of thing in the 19th Century. If we hadn’t fought WWII? Japan would rule the east, possibly west to the Urals. Hitler would, at the least, have all of Europe. A Europe in which there would be no Jews, no Gypsies, likely no Slavs (Poles, Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, etc.) certainly no African or Asian person in all of Europe. Italy would have much of Africa, if the Germans allowed them to exist in their Aryan paradise. Otherwise, the Nazis would probably take Africa. Eventually Japan and the Nazis would try to divy up the Americas. We would have no Allies to help us, we’d be cut off from the rest of the world and entirely dependent on our own resources while the Bad Guys would have the resources of 4 continents to draw from. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > What WILL happen if we work to start avoiding them now? This is my question. It seems to me (and this is only my opion from what you and others have posted) that we have a defeatist attitude towards this: > “Other posters have it correctly that I currently think war may be the lesser of our choice of evils here.” Give us a REAL choice that isn’t an “evil”. Not a platitude of “make peace” or “avoid war” - tell us how we can actually avoid killing without being killed ourselves. Details! I want details! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > I would hope “the lesser of our choice of evils” is to work in te future to AVOID the kind of mess we are in now. Alright, but we DO have a mess right now and it must be cleaned up. If you have milk in a glass bottle and it falls to the floor and it breaks I’ll concede your argument that plastic bottle might be a better choice but we STILL have spilled milk and shattered glass to deal with. So… don’t whine about spilled milk and glass bottles, give me a means to clean this up without anyone slicing themselves in the process. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Oh? Is that why American servicemen accused of raping Japanese women have been tried in Japanese courts? Is that why an American teenager in Singapore, convincted of painting graffiti, was tried in their courts and flogged in accordance with the sentence handed down by that court? I don’t claim Americans are perfect, but we do try.** > > There is new legislation being passed in the House (as a rider) to ban the trying of american military in an international court of law for war crimes or crimes against humanity…that is way I brought that point up. The american teenager was not military personel. Um… that’s proposed legislation, not law. Come back with that argument when it actually passes, not until And, strictly speaking - OBL isn’t military personnel, either, so by this line of reasoning he should be tried here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by obidiah \* > > > [@](#): > > > > **The US, despite its flaws and failings, has devoted much effort and time and money to devising weaponry that can be targeted more precisely than any other munitions in history, largely in an attempt to minimize unintended damage and death. The terrorists, however, delibrately target non-soldiers to maximize civilian deaths, including those of women, children, and the aged.** > > A lot of that time and money could have been devote to other things that might not have revolved around killing people. And then we’d have WWII munitions that would likely kill 10 times as many civilians when we felt compelled to fight. How about critizing Al-Queda for spending money on training terrorists instead of educating poor, oppressed Arabs, feeding the hungry, and helping them get jobs and stable homes? Certainly they _could have_ done this - hell, they payed for a dozen guys to become honest-to-God pilots who could have had long, satisfying careers with an airline. But no, they’d rather kill. Which point I am trying to make - 19 terrorists had the education and training to make a good life for themselves anywhere in the world but chose to kill themselves and 5000 other people. The hijackers were overwhelming Saudi, a country where Muslims are not oppressed (except, arguably, by their own government), not discriminated against, and not dealing with car bombs in the street. This is not _just_ a problem of poverty or oppression in and of itself. They men who attacked us on September 11 were NOT Afghanis, only one (if I recall) was Palestinian. This is NOT about Big Bad America the Bully, it’s about _ideology_. Our enemies in this conflict WANT war, and they SEEK death. They die EAGERLY. They WANT to die killing us. Their goal is our _complete destruction_. So…that is the problem here and now. Give us a solution that doesn’t involve death and I’ll listen, but it can’t involve time travel or good wishes. It has to be effective. Good luck ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/39 "2001-11-01T13:35:53Z")
::: Elly resists the urge to bitchslap people ::: ::: bites tongue, and twitches ::: Gaaaaaaaaaah! ::: runs out, slamming the door behind her ::: ---
**Author:** ![obidiah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@obidiah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obidiah)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568/40 "2001-11-01T14:26:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _posted by Broomstick_ > **This is not hypothetical, this REALLY HAPPENED on September 11. How do you solve the problem of Flight 93? I happen to know what our government decided to do, although it turns out the passengers took matters into their own hands first. So - you’re in charge for the moment, Obidiah, what do you do?** I think I missed this event. When did the US government shoot down an American Airline on September 11th? Being as YOU choose to make the event hypothetical, I gave a hypothetical answer. > [@](#): > > _posted by Broomstick_ > \*\*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP! THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER. It’s a dodge. > \*\* I think it is more like “you didn’t select A or B so I will call it a dodge”. I gave you an answer. Do you think all the answers are going to be A) or B) I suggested C) none of the above and offered my suggestion. My alternative could spare everyone if we start working towards it now. I’m not saying that we can end all the hatred in the world overnight. I am saying that we lead by example. > [@](#): > > _posted by Broomstick_ > \*\*Ah, blame the victim! > > I don’t deny that we have done some dumb shit oversease. However, the poor and oppressed do not inevitably turn to terrorism. The Koreans and Vietminese have never attempted to attack us on our soil - and God knows Viet Nam has reason in the 60s and 70s. The Cubans indulged in espinonage and spying, but didn’t blow up our buildings either before or after the cold war, or even now. The Bosnians, Serbs, and Croatians are not doing this. Neither have Ugandians, Somalians, Lybians, Syrians, or even the Palestinians (who have so far confined their overt violence to Isreal). So terrorism on our soil is NOT an inevitable outgrowth of our policies, however wrong headed they may be. We are no more “forcing” the Arabs to attack us than the wife of an abusive husband is “forcing” him to break her jaw, or a woman is at fault for her own rape because of what she wears or where she was at the time. > > Terrorism of this sort is an invention of the late 20th Century and is found predominately where there is Islam. > \*\* Surely you don’t **REALLY** think the US is the victim? > [@](#): > > **If you think they ground troops only entered Afghanistan today your a fool** If you think American is a victim your a fool. (I need to point out where I was called a fool otherwise I would be for accused for throwing accusations around) As for > [@](#): > > **Terrorism of this sort is an invention of the late 20th Century and is found predominately where there is Islam.** This is just flat out wrong. Terrorism has been a form of warfare since there _was_ warfare and it certainly isn’t “found predominately where there is Islam.” During the Civil war Confederate soldiers where considered “terrorists”. Terrorism is subjective and is based on a viewpoint. To many people we are considered terrorist. What about eco-terrorism? Is ELF also a function of Islam? What about Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City? What about the IRA? Just because Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Bosnia, the Serbs, the Croatians, Uganda, Somalia, Lybia, Syria, or the Palestinians have not invaded our soil does not mean that they harbor us good will. Citizens of many of these countries (and others such as Egypt, Brazil, Germany, Italy) have been involved in terrorist acts against the US. But please don’t think I am arguing on their side. All of this is reprehensible. I just think it is naive (at best) to feel like we are the “batterd wife” and the terrorists the “abusive husband”. As for the rest of your post, **Broomstick** , you cry for details and more details. I am not prepared to give an answer to all of the burning questions we are embroiled in today. I don’t have the answers. I wish I did. I have ideas and suggestions. You have dismissed them summarily so I won’t post them again as you can read them above. My point of view is that we now have an opportunity to move away from violence. Even today the Taliban has said they will surrender bin Ladin of they are shown evidence. Even if you find this notion horribly obscene (in terms of us “backing down”), wouldn’t that be better than seeing more people die? No, of course not. It is time we put an end to terrorism once and for all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-tell-a-cluster-bomb-from-food-packet-you-cant/90568.md?page=3)