最新新闻 | 论坛 | 英国新闻 | 美国新闻 | 国际新闻 | 政治报纸 | Sci技术新闻 | 战争&恐怖主义新闻 | 体育新闻 | 多媒体 | 设置主页

星期六， 2008年7月12日
谈论这个报告在RINF论坛 >

Our own David Hambling, who has written extensively on these sorts of munitions, isn’t buying it. “This policy seems very reactive and defensive; rather than taking a lead, it’s more like a rearguard action to hang on to what they have,” he writes in to say.

For an organization which normally rises to new challenges with impressive feats of technological development, the tone is oddly defeatist: where else do you hear munitions people saying “what we have is the best possible - no technological advance can replace than existing cluster munitions.”

Meanwhile, it’s worth looking at cluster bomb alternatives already being developed by industry - I’m thinking reactive material options and munitions like miniature bombs like CLAWS.

My view: we can do better than this.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version