160 Nations Ban These Weapons. The U.S. Now Embraces Them.

Do Russia and China field these weapons? Would these weapons be useful in a war against Russia or China? Maybe the authors can edit the piece to answer some basic questions about military efficacy. Seems from the first sentence this report has a conclusory point of view.

We can always count on the Trump* administration to make the wrong choice. We see this played out daily while his submissive party props up each and every disastrous decision, including attempted bribery.

As America continues its reverse gallop into immorality, cruelty and vindictive pettiness under the current chief executive, one can only wonder how much more depravity can be dredged up from the national swamp before the official American dinner includes a coal-ash-and-dioxin gazpacho.

Climate change will see these weapons used.

Is anybody surprised? Although the use of anti-personnel mines is not a war de jure in the United States, it is a de facto crime in most of the rest of the world. But then again, the United States has a long, long history of condemning war crimes committed by others while ignoring, disguising or denying those committed by its' own personnel. The best known example, of course, was the My Lai massacre where the murder of several hundred Vietnamese civilians resulted in one low level officer served a grand total of three-and-a-half years. And yet, 20 years earlier dozens of Japanese officers were hanged for doing a heck of a lot less. This is simply the next logical step. In fact, under the current administration the United States doesn't even bother to disguise or deny -- war crimes are actively and openly encouraged and rewarded by the sitting President. So please -- the next time an American serviceman or woman is abused, mistreated or murdered by some foreign enemy ... just keep all the feigned outrage to yourselves.

Wake up because this is not about protection. It’s about lining the pockets of the defense industry which does not want peace because they want to make money at any cost . Disgraceful!

If it’s inhumane it will be in trump’s arsenal. the president who leads from behind. But this isn’t the first time. Johnson was furious with CBS for showing footage of American troops using shotguns as marijuana bongs. Not so much peeved that they were doing weed, it was the shotguns disallowed by the Geneva conventions.

I'm left to wonder in my confusion on why this administration can not be called "fascist" in the "balanced" media. Is it because the word carries links to purely pejorative meanings divorced from cold definition? Is it because the word has been preempted by groups advocating violence? I know that I'm not the only one who easily sees the same hate and fear propaganda methods, loyalty to authority, and callous disregard for facts and ethics as what lead to WW2, but I see a fear in calling it what it is. Why is that?

Thankfully we live in America Were we don’t have to listen what other countries do with their weapons

Trump and his minions are damaging and dismantling every aspect of our country. In the face of an avalanche of ill-advised, deliberately wicked and inhuman policies and decisions, the public is overwhelmed. I applaud the Times for publishing this story but I have seen equally horrifying examples get lost in the churn of the news cycle. Our country is dying by a thousand cuts inflicted by the shameless army of Trump’s allies. It will take decades to uncover and understand the poisonous fruits of efforts such as this. For the moment we can take comfort that Trump has not decided to mine the southern border. Vote as if your life depends upon it because surely it does.

What's next? Biological weapons to deploy in an adversary's water supply?

Because the cruelty is the point.

"follow the money" Who benefits? The arms industry, for one. Not only will the U.S. government buy more, but other countries, controlled by dictators and autocrats who are not subject to constraint by their citizens, or international regulations, will as well. The ever increasing deregulation by the Trump administration regarding environmental and energy concerns empowers corporate greed and irresponsibility.

The public became aware of the weaponization of anthrax research until it was circulated around the legislators' mailbox; I am wondering whether there are other biological agents such as virus research hidden in the dark corner somewhere under the supervision of Defense or CIA?

It strikes me as quite bizarre that so many US citizens are so revolted by the idea of wet markets and the killing of “wild” animals, yet don’t seem all that disturbed by the use of weapons to maim and kill humans. In the case of cluster munitions and mines, this often involves civilian children. At least the animals are actually, and thoroughly, consumed as food.

America, the land where streets are paved with gold. gleefully ignores its own history and as such repeats it precisely, failures and all. The gist of this article points to the military contracts. . .MONEY. The history lesson neglected: President Eisenhower's farewell address admonishing all to 'be ware of the military industrial complex'. And who better to know this than the only 5 star general and supreme ally commander of WW2?

The Pentagon does have a policy for use of these weapons. If they are going to protect US troops and/or help us win a conflict they will be used.

The US has become a rogue nation ever since the "preemptive" attack on -- and occupation of -- Iraq. This new directive proves the transformation is now semi-permanent. I understand that the 2020 candidates need to stress their plans for improving our domestic lives and protecting the environment from the ravages of the Trump administration. At the same time, however, I hope they don't forget to push for a saner foreign policy. The country has lost its moorings at home and abroad, and is morally sinking fast. November cannot come soon enough.

"... the Pentagon seems to lack a coherent strategy for them" This is your concern? The Pentagon, The Generals are the most harrowing manifestation of America's collapse under the flaccid weight of Trump/McConellism. Our heroic men and women in service, their sage and crusty leaders, these last, most honorable, most fully American of us all were the first to cave. They collapsed so fast it seemed they've been waiting all their lives for the chance. That "Be all you can be" tripe lies in ruins, exposed and rotten. There is no honor among these people, no commitment to anything like a higher ideal. Not much resembling brains, or common sense. They jumped giddy and ready for change into the midst of faux triumphalist chauvinism and narrow-mindedness heedless of the loss of credibility, capacity, allies. Heedless of the safety of their own troops. Of course these old boys welcome the resurrection of uncivilized, unacceptable weapons. Of course they care not one whit about loss of moral standing, of honor, of respect. Of course it doesn't occur to them the vastly increased danger they place on loser grunts down there where Trump doesn't see them. Nothing is so appalling, nothing as disillusioning as the total, catastrophic moral collapse of every facet of our armed forces. Even the ugliness of forced-Evangelicalism pales. My USMC dad, WWII vet, proud lieutenant, Republican to his core, is rolling in his grave. He knew what he was about. He knew right from wrong.

This administration has little respect for human life (unless it is "unborn") beyond our shores or even here at home, if that life is one of color or poor. It is sad that in this day and age a supposedly advanced nation, a supposed world "leader" contemplates increasing use of life destroying land-mines. The case is made that Russia & China still deploy them. Sorry, a "leader" is supposed to lead. "Well, they're doing it, so so should we" is not leadership.

Too bad there’s no one in Republican governance who cares to develop weapons against our biggest threat, which the military itself has called a “threat multiplier”, global warming. The sky’s the limit when it comes to weapons in case of a hypothetical war; but there’s no money for the actual threat at our door. In fact, while every year is hotter than the last Republicans deny science, increase pollution with heat-trapping gasses, and build primitive cluster bombs instead. Maybe Trumps going to line the Mexican border with them to protect us from gardeners and nurses aides.

The really scary thought about these types of weapons is that with our current Commander and (Bone Spur) Chief he would use these weapons because he has no idea what war really is.

These weapons are banned but killing drones are ok? The hypocrisy of it. The majority of the countries banning these weapons are not countries that have the ability to defend or come to aid of other countries. These countries are basically banning these weapons in the hope that they dont get used against them. That's a completely different rationale than the rationale for us banning them. If a larger scale war breaks out we need to be sure to win it or life for the entire world will be changed and under the control of some type of political or religious tyranny. Humanity will be subjugated. Do you want to take that risk?

Whether it be immigration, SNAP or cluster bombs, trust trump to adopt the most inhumane policies possible. And by the way, landmines are forever.

The House of Representatives, in the next budget, needs to ban these barbaric weapons.

Sure. Build 'em. Stockpile them. And require a DECLARATION OF WAR by Congress to actually use them.

1) This was coming when we refused a permanent ban. 2) Note that the Russia/China new trade route is overland by rail. By fomenting land mining, this strongly endangers the increasing trade. 3) The US economy is about to collapse and the new military spending is an extension of that day. 4) This also prepares for the possibility of an EMP taking out communications and mobility. 5) And YES, this is war on the public. 6) While this appears to be aimed at the countries across the world with adjacent borders, we could find ourselves in the unenvious position of being seen as too comfortable with our sea-to-shining-sea unbombed and unterrorized protected land.

Move this story up.

Why is it we humans are more warmongers than peace lovers, and inciting moves to provide weapons meant to be highly effective to destroy each other? No moral standing here. No strength here, weakness and insecurity instead, with prudence (doing what's right, however difficult) thrown to the winds. Can't we show some restraint, and decency, in the name of integrating our rich differences, show the value of solidarity instead.

“What’s really troubling is that, in a way, this gives a green light to others who would be less responsible using these weapons.” Rachel Stohl, arms control expert at the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan policy research organization It would be less diplomatic and more honest to admit that the U.S., under Trump, is the less responsible country the world should be worried about. Mines kill and dismember civilians for decades after conflicts end. There is no rational reason for our country to sink to such barbarity. But our country is not being ruled by a rational man or Party.

This is a decision that likely was not directly made by Trump, but is entirely consistent with his ethos, which is all about “winning.” Given his apparent complete lack of empathy, both “collateral damage” (i.e., civilian causalities) and long-term consequences are irrelevant to him. One action he took that has received relatively little scrutiny was approving changes to the rules of engagement for troops fighting ISIS, the result of which has been a significant increase in civilian causalities. Trump wanted to be able to say that he had defeated ISIS quickly and decisively and had no interest in trying to minimize civilian causalities in the process. If the United States military is second to none, as Trump tells us endlessly, why must we use weapons that most of the rest of the world has eschewed and that we know when used will kill and maim innocents for decades after their use? The international standing of the United States has gone from generally positive under Obama to being considered the most dangerous nation in the world under Trump

It's disheartening, as you grow older, to discover that our ideals, driven home by our parents, religious institutions and civics classes, are pure propaganda. I've been naïve for much of my life, buying into the notion that the United States holds the moral high ground. I will die knowing better.

The "ban" is a cruel joke. Other countries have these weapons and would not hesitate to use them when circumstances warrant. At least the USA is being honest regarding this issue.

Given the high reactivity of anything Trump to any kind of critique, I'm reluctant to share my thoughts about this latest anti life position regarding weapons of destruction. Suffice it to say: On behalf of me, I'm sorry world that are leaders are so sad.

About seven years ago, I traveled across Cambodia and Laos. As a tourist, I distinctly remember meeting a disfigured man who related to me that he was injured by a landmine while plowing his fields. He wasn't the only person I saw begging with missing limbs and saying they had been harm by landmines or cluster bombs. Frighteningly, these weapons can maim and kill others decades after they were placed there. Unfortunately, like landmines, Trump's policies will be hurting our nation for decades to come as well.

When words, curses, insults, and firings fail to satisfy his blood lust, Trump takes politics to another level...

The United States military needs to get down off their high horse of perfectibility, and finally admit, that they are not the end all of all things military, and quite honestly, anything else that they they care to pontificate about.

How can we possibly allow more land mines into the world? Come at me, IRS - you’re not getting my taxes until this dangerous, self-dealing traitor is out of office.

Are there any actual human males left in world leadership positions or are they all damaged cybernetic organisms?

120 countries signed the Ottawa Convention banning cluster bombs that have wounded and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians worldwide. The United States government is NOT a signatory. This is shameful. The only ones to gain from their production are the munitions manufacturers and their controlling stockholders.

I detest Trump, but I'm in favor of having these weapons on hand, just in case. Land mines have great tactical value in certain kinds of conflicts, although not the kind we're currently engaged in. Cluster munitions are also useful for certain purposes in certain kinds of conflicts, although again not the conflicts we're currently engaged in. For those conflicts for which such weapons are effective, I would think most Americans would want to prevail in such a conflict as quickly as possible and with as little loss of our sons and daughters as possible. If these weapons help with both aims, they should not be off the table. As to the countries that signed off on this treaty banning such weapons, I would wager that just about every single one of them is either not in danger of becoming involved in major armed conflict or do not have the technical resources to produce such weapons in any quantity...or both. It's easy to agree to not use something you'll never need or can't have anyway.

As a former field artillery officer I can solidly say that this reporter did not talk to enough people about the effectiveness or need for cluster munitions. US Army doctrine gives several reasons for the employment of cluster munitions. First it is the only anti armor capability for artillery systems. High explosives are largely ineffective against armor (including the Excalibur round) and the copperhead was retired due to its unfortunate tendency as a laser guidied munition to hit the designator. Cluster munitions are significantly more effective per round as well and recent experiences in Ukraine have shown that the Russians have no qualms using that lethality. The fact is that if the United States were to get into a true shooting war in Europe or Korea, these weapons on balance would save thousands of American lives. The fact that 164 countries who may never have the reason nor capability to even consider having such wars is not a reason that we should not. Every countries national security needs and commitments are different.

I understand the need for an adolescent, who has never experienced the horrors of war, to think it's a good idea for a country to use all the weapons at it's disposal but, as an adult, I have to ask, is a country that is willing to use these banned weapons really worth fighting for?

I can see in someone's mind that inclusion of cluster bombs and antipersonnel land mines are leveling the the playing field (battle field) against IEDs and booby traps from a lessor developed enemy. But I'm starting to see a preparation of a forthcoming war as a military force with all of the accessories. The US may not use all these accessories but it's there if it's needed. So, will I see that the next president after trump, thank him for building the Greatest Armed Force in the history of the world? (I don't think so, because next president will understand the need that wars between nations has got to stopped because humanity has a new fight, and that is, against Nature.)

Your senate has given Trump a free rein, he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Under you republic's rules he cannot be checked.