Talk:Convention on Cluster Munitions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Date
(woooooot!!) Ok, with that out of the way :)
The Convention on Cluster Munitions is a treaty created on 30 May 2008 in Dublin, Ireland.
Should this really say May 30, 2008. It is in the news page here on wiki, today May the 29th. Not only that, but none of the sources are from the future. — robbiemuffin page talk 00:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- <spaceywaveyeffect>I am the Editor of Wikipedias Future. I have come from the future to inform you the adoption of international treaties!</spaceywaveyeffect> Yeah, I changed the tense, for the next few hours. - BanyanTree 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks for correcting your mistake, wikipedia! It is no longer writing in the Present-in-the-future tense! ;) (Note at this point in time, now 4-5 hours into the day where the treaty is due to almost get passed, it is still not yet created.) — robbiemuffin page talk 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List
This article, especially since it's listed on the main page, needs list of signatories and notable non-signatories, as well as official reactions/statements from governments; this would be similar to many other treaties or actions/attacks. —OverMyHead 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are no signatories yet and won't be until December. I've added a list of Wellington Declaration subscribers, since I can't find a list for the Dublin conference. I assume one will come out once the formal ceremony is held. I have to say that I'd prefer editors pick and choose important responses and explain them in prose, as has been started with the US-UK interaction, rather than the list of countries and pasted government boilerplate responses that one tends to see on Wikipedia. - BanyanTree 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We definitely need a list of non-subscribers, even if only "notable" nations (although, I would prefer it to be an exhaustive list). It might also be nice to provide information on why these nations have not subscribed. There are obvious non-subscribers (USA, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Taiwan, Colombia, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, etc.). However, there are also some not-so-obvious ones (Suriname, Guyana, etc.). It would be nice to know why. --Thorwald (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There were 111 countries who agreed to it today. I can't find a full list online, though.--Pharos (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ah, and so it begins. This article will no doubt become yet another hatchet job against the United States and any other nation that sees cluster munitions as a military necessity. There is no talk of a ban on nuclear weapons, indiscriminate area effect weapons with lasting impact, but cluster munitions, oh yes, we must discuss those. 98.218.141.145 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Background?
I think this article could use some background on the rationale behind this treaty: why do the proponents want cluster munitions banned? How solid is their reasoning? What are the objections raised by the dissenting nations, and how solid is the reasoning behind them? Such information would certainly help to make this article more informative. Flewellyn (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with this. The article relates that they are especially dangerous to civilians, I'm guessing they have a very large area of effect. This should really be clarified and expanded on. Bridies (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Clusterbombs are used for destroying tanks...not bombing cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.166.43 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cluster bombs are used for a variety of missions, not only destroying tanks but also anti-infantry, destroying aircraft, airfields and more. There is information on the background of the reason for the treaty in the history section but maybe it should be moved to its own section to make it easier to find.--SirOdinFranz (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cluster bombs have a very simple purpose: to blow stuff/people up over a wide area. Whether or not you have ethical concerns is for another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.228 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)