Talk:Cluster munition

message: I would dispute that the "intention" of cluster bombs does not explicitly INCLUDE "they can kill or maim civilians long after a conflict has ended."  If is this is true, there ought to be hard evidence that they have tried to design this "side effect" out and failed.  The statements of public relations officials are not evidence.24.17.180.126 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That ... sounds illogical.  Irrational even. 62.196.17.194 (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Intention

message: I went ahead and changed "The United Nations and human rights groups have accused Israel of dropping as many as 4 million cluster bomblets onto targets in Lebanon" to a more forceful statement and changed the source of the information to the UN Mine Action Service, which has been linked to the wikipedia article. I think my change eliminates doubt and implicates Israel directly to its actions.  Also referencing a specific UN group gives the statistic more legitimacy. In my view, having the 'United Nations and human rights groups' be the direct object in a sentence implicating Israel in the dropping of as many as 4 million cluster bomblets is misleading. "Israel dropped up to four million submunitions on Lebanese soil" gives it more of a 'direct action' feel appropriate of such invasive military operations. No 'accusing' line necessary.Tyson (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations

message: on cnn i keep on reading that a single cluster bomb can "cover" 18 square miles... 
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/28/uk.cluster.bomb/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/19/cluster.bombs/index.html#cnnSTCText
is that even possible? i mean little boy (the nuke) only "covered" 4.4 square miles.... 
my personal theory is that the CNN author confused some numbers and took 29000 m2 to mean 29km2 and then converted that to miles..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.106.151 (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CNN figure

message: I understand that cluster bombs were used by the British forces against the Argentines on the Falkland Islands.  Should the Falklands be added to the lists of places where they have been used?
i don't think that the sea-harriers, as used, were equipped to carry cluster munition dispensers and no other suitable british aircraft were in the theatre.  so your comment that you 'understand' that cluster munitions were used looks rather 'contrived'.  
by the way,  the argentines bombed the british forces with napalm.  other napalm munitions, in argentine stores, which were later captured were in such a dangerous state that it was impossible to disarm them.   i only mention this because you seem to have forgotten about it and i'm sure that you would want the readership to have neutral information.86.219.113.191 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Falkland Islands

message: "... individuals and groups, such as the Red Cross and the United Nations": calling the UN and the world's perhaps most important NGO "individuals and groups" is perhaps slightly inaccurate? --82.253.157.158 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UN

message: Is the picture really of a cluster bomb, or is it a cluster bomblet?  
Is it a picture of the disposal of an unexploded munition or is the picture taken during an attack?
My concern is that the picture might give the reader a incorrect view of the scale of a cluster bomb attack.
--Drdan 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: bomb/bomblet

message: One of the statistics in this section mentions deaths of "up to 300 per year" in Viet Nam due to "cluster bombs and other objects left by the US military". The article used as support for the statistic is about a guy who was sawing an artillery shell open with a hacksaw. The "Clear Path International" article is about people who specifically go hunting unexploded ordinance "bombs, mines, artillery shells, and other kinds of munitions during the Vietnam War" not about cluster bombs. The 300 dead per year statistic due to cluster bombs is just a bit misleading. 
The article link about "In post-war Kosovo unexploded cluster bomblets caused more civilian deaths than landmines" is about bomb AND mine injuries and makes no distinction between deaths caused by the two. "More than 100 people have now died from bomb and mine injuries since the end of the war in Kosovo, in June last year." "Since the arrival of spring there has been a steady increase in number of casualties from mines and cluster bombs." Where is any support for claiming mines kill less people than cluster bombs? The only possible quote would be "Unlike most mines they often kill or maim more than one person at a time" but that is how a single cluster munition is more dangerous than a single mine, not how many deaths each type has caused in post-war Kosovo.
Gront 18:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice little POV jab quotation at the end there. Good work people. Haizum 06:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that statement is totally misleading.  All that it says is that 98% of victims who registered with some bleeding heart NGO in the UK are civilians, not all victims of cluster bombs.  I doubt that the thousands of combatants who have been killed by cluster munitions have managed to register with them. Zaku Two 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian deaths from unexploded cluster bomblets?

message: This section of the Article is to long and unnecessary and should be deleted or moved to an other Article. People who search the term "Cluster Bomb" want to know what a Cluster Bomb is and how it works. the Article is used to make propaganda against cluster bombs and is not a essantial information. If somebody wants an Article about the ban of Cluster bombs He/she should write one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladius1944 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipeida articles cover topics in full, as any encyclopedia will. I don't think this section is large enough yet, but large sections can be split into a second page. Also, it would probably become a pov fork, where two articles with opposite bias are created. There is already an article on the Convention on Cluster Munitions. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3. Threat to civilians 

message: This assertion:
However, in the past, manufacturers' claims about new cluster munitions have proven unreliable and the same problems with unexploded ordnance have persisted. Previous claims for example about the reliability of the CBU-87 with BLU-97 submunitions were not borne out by reality in Afghanistan and Kosovo.[14] 
is not supported by the cited reference.  Page 41 of the citation described failure rates, but does not provide any manufacturers' claims about failure rates for comparison.
Pstemari (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexploded ordnance

message: I went ahead a deleated the second paragraph in the article because it did not accuratly describe the effects of cluster bombs in relation to general purpose bombs, and I suspect a little bias.  Most cluster bombs at least those in the US inventory do have fragmentation effects, although they can be combined with shaped charges and certain metals to produce incindiary effects.  I think this article needs alot of cleaning up it seems to me that it focus to much on the efforts to ban the weapon and not enough on the weapons themselves. Another problem I noticed is in the incindiary section, although there have been fuel air explosive bomblets, this article seems to say that all thermmobaric weapons are cluster bombs.  I suggest that anyone who wants to take edit this page take a look at globalsecurity.org, they have lots good information, and please forgive any grammer or spelling mistakes I had to right this in a hurry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.36.194 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cluster bombs are fragmentation weapons. 

message: Human Rights Watch: Georgia: Russian Cluster Bombs Kill Civilians.: "Human Rights Watch researchers have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas in Georgia, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called upon Russia to immediately stop using cluster bombs, weapons so dangerous to civilians that more than 100 nations have agreed to ban their use... Human Rights Watch said Russian aircraft dropped RBK-250 cluster bombs, each containing 30 PTAB 2.5M submunitions, on the town of Ruisi in the Kareli district of Georgia on August 12, 2008. Three civilians were killed and five wounded in the attack. On the same day, a cluster strike in the center of the town of Gori killed at least eight civilians and injured dozens, Human Rights Watch said. Dutch journalist Stan Storimans was among the dead. Israeli journalist Zadok Yehezkeli was seriously wounded and evacuated to Israel for treatment after surgery in Tbilisi. An armored vehicle from the Reuters news agency was perforated with shrapnel from the attack." 
"This is the first known use of cluster munitions since 2006, during Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon." --93.177.151.101 (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More on cluster bombs in Georgia, consistent with Ove Dullum:  According to Helena Cobban, a well known journalist and author who is on HRW's Middle East advisory board, the HRW accusation against Russia for using cluster bombs is flawed - her blog, imho an RS because of her expert status.John Z (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update this article 

message: I've moved  a bunch of lists (Countries that have used cluster munitions, Countries that have produced cluster munitions, and Countries that have stocks of cluster munitions) here from Convention on Cluster Munitions, because I think this is where readers would expect to find them.  Sorry about all the flag icons, I think they look awful but that's the way the lists were and I don't want to remove them without discussing it first.  Per WP:FLAG, flag icons should be informative, not just decorative.  I don't see what purpose is served by having them in an alphabetical list of countries.  Polemarchus (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you are missing one country who produced them alright: Chile. 190.160.136.131 (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of countries

message: If I'm not mistaken, Taiwan has researched and developed its own cluster bomb named Wan Chien. It appears that no large scale production has been planned, and the four prototypes are still being evaluated. 
--K kc chan (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it could be, as long at least a source is given too. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Taiwan be included? 

message: * I'm not familiar with cluster bombs, but I've been intrigued by the accusations and retractions regarding Sri Lanka. e.g.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Saturday, February 28, 2009 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 3 inches; 116 words Type of Material: Correction
Sri Lanka bombs: An article in Section A on Feb. 4 about Sri Lankan government forces fighting with Tamil Tiger rebels reported that United Nations spokesman Gordon Weiss said a hospital in the war zone had been hit by cluster bombs, and the headline said, "U.N. cites Sri Lanka cluster bomb use." The Times did not, however, publish later wire reports that quoted Weiss as acknowledging that it was artillery fire, not cluster bombs, that hit the hospital. Those later articles quoted Sri Lankan Brig. Udaya Nanayakkara as saying, "We don't have the facility to fire cluster munitions. We don't have these weapons." Weiss said the U.N. accepted the government's assurance that it didn't have them.
Then I noted these two revisions that contradict the information available at: http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/the-problem/countries/
* Revision as of 01:07, 16 February 2010 by 79.77.137.174
* Revision as of 01:16, 16 February 2010 by 79.77.137.174
AFFECTED COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES
36 countries and territories are known to be affected by cluster munitions from use in armed conflict:
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Chechnya, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falklands/Malvinas, Georgia, Grenada, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Montenegro, Morocco, Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Western Sahara, Zambia
USERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS
15 countries have used cluster munitions:
Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Israel, Libya, Morocco, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Former Yugoslavia (Serbia), Sudan, United Kingdom, United States
PRODUCERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS
34 countries have produced or are still producing cluster munitions:
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States
STOCKPILERS OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS
85 countries have stockpiled cluster munitions:
Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zimbabwe
* Therefore Sri Lanka should only be in the stockpilers' list. I also noted that one of the external links, www.slhr.org, is dead. I'm going to fix these problems in the article. -- Harshula (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Sri Lanka as it stands right now (3.5 years after the thing I'm responding to, I know) is just an unreferenced sentence. I don't know about the issue, but there was an edit war over it about 4.5 years ago. The section was taken out entirely with this edit, but it gives a good idea of what it used to look like. Someone who actually knows about the issue should figure out how (and whether) to present it in keeping with NPOV. Although I hope it isn't quite so controversial anymore, I'll just fix the grammar and slap on a citation needed tag in order (hopefully) to avoid provoking anything. Hammer bear (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lanka 

message: I have seen a lot of pix of cluster bombs going off and their quite eerie looking... Do we not of a Public domain image of something like this ?Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No picture of Bombs being used? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm and http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/cluster-bck1031.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MkativerataCCI (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This article  relates to a cluster bomb allegedly made in Spain and used in Libya. I would expect it to be labelled in either Spanish or Arabic but it is labelled in English. Is it customary to label munitions in English, regardless of where they are made or sold? Biscuittin (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ammunition produced in NATO countries is labeled according to a set of rules published in official NATO STANAG documents. There are currently over 1300 STANAGs and I don't remember which ones are the ones for ammunition markings (STANAG 2953 probably and/or others too) and all NATO nations keep to these STANAG rules. To make the interoperability even easier they usually label the ammunition in the exact same way and in keep the text in English. here you see a BBC report about the MAT-120 in Misrata  (and note that the BBC report does not know that the bomblets become inert after 15min); if you look at the remnants of the shells you can see on the top of the shells a row of yellow squares: yellow = High Explosive burster and the squares symbolize that the item is filled with smaller items of explosive submunitions to be expelled from the projectile during flight. Typical NATO standard markings. noclador (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labelling of cluster bombs 

message: The link to Wellington Declaration under the image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Declaration_Wellington_conference.svg) leads to an act by King Charles in England in the 1600s. Doesn't seem relevant, but on the off chance I'm wrong I'll leave it for someone else to edit. Maybe someone else has a link to the appropraite conference? 132.234.47.91 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Wellington Declaration 

message: Australia developed, manufactured and tested a cluster bomb called the Karinga in the 1970s and 80s. It also acquired a small number of CBU-58s for comparative testing. Australia should be listed under "Countries that have produced cluster munitions". However it would require a change to the statement that "All of these nations still have stocks of these munitions" as the remaining Karingas and CBU-58s were destroyed in the 1990s, apart from a handful of inert Karinga casings given to museums. Thoughts? ShipFan (Talk) 06:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted as the source confirms that, but it will also get re-worded correctly too.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cluster munition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061004114519/http://www.paxchristi.nl/catalogus/uploaded_file.aspx?id=98 to http://www.paxchristi.nl/catalogus/uploaded_file.aspx?id=98
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716182323/http://www.mcc.org/clusterbombs/news/lebanon/thenandnow.html to http://mcc.org/clusterbombs/news/lebanon/thenandnow.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218051655/http://www.atfl.org:80/cbombreport/ to http://www.atfl.org/cbombreport/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100609054810/http://www.minbuza.nl:80/dsresource?objectid=buzabeheer:32226&type=pdf to http://www.minbuza.nl/dsresource?objectid=buzabeheer:32226&type=pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130521172823/http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/laos-photos-080508 to http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/laos-photos-080508
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120219003045/http://www.norway.org/policy/cluster/initiative/initiative.htm to http://www.norway.org/policy/cluster/initiative/initiative.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150604163002/http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news.asp?id=70 to http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news.asp?id=70
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100819162338/http://www.clusterconvention.org:80/pages/pages_ii/iia_textenglish.html to http://www.clusterconvention.org/pages/pages_ii/iia_textenglish.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cluster munition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061121035747/http://www.mcc.org/clusterbombs/news/lebanon/thenandnow.html to http://mcc.org/clusterbombs/news/lebanon/thenandnow.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071215084458/http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2007/pr1162e-summary.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2007/pr1162e-summary.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151224001753/http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h4qlpqMDGYYpTAOTms0e7MiNOrTQ to http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h4qlpqMDGYYpTAOTms0e7MiNOrTQ
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cluster munition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061121035747/http://www.mcc.org/clusterbombs/news/lebanon/thenandnow.html to http://mcc.org/clusterbombs/news/lebanon/thenandnow.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cassette bomb. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Cassette missile also redirects here, and I don't see that as a problem (other than it would be nice if the article explains why/when/where the term "cassette" is used, and whether it is a strict synonym). 68.100.121.207 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cassette bomb" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The same source used for "countries that have used cluster munitions" list, "Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor " says, under the listing for Lebanon, "In 2006, Hezbollah fired more than 100 Chinese-produced Type-81 122mm cluster munition rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel.". Clearly , that source consider's Hezbollah's use as part of the info for Lebanon. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Cluster Munition Monitor 2019, p. 10-14 for current data. Hezbollah's use is part of the info for Lebanon, sure, but it does not state that Hezbollah is behind the Lebanese government, as you imply.--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed- ad as that source says 'This accounting of states using cluster munitions is incomplete as cluster munitions have been used in
other countries, but the party responsible for the use is not clear' JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: When the party responsible for the use is not clear, we cannot add it here (per WP:SOURCES and WP:NPOV). I've created a new section for non-state actors and added Hezbollah there.--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Use by Lebanon

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The statement cited by reference 7 is false, and the reference does not corroborate it, nor even mention this weapon. The Convention on Cluster Munitions does in fact allow cluster munitions which are discriminate (i.e. 'smart'), but with the caveat that these must contain no more than nine submunitions. The CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon contains 40 submunitions (or ten, depending on how you look at it), thus is banned under this treaty. It's not entirely immaterial, the US is not a signatory, but should they drop a bunch of cluster bombs on a signatory country it could be considered a war crime by the international community... although Americans generally get away with that... Suggest getting rid of false reference and sentence making the false claim.  86.83.56.115 (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the existing language was saying that the CBU-97 would be allowed, but I tried to clarify anyway. I also felt uncomfortable with just the primary source, so added a fact sheet from Human Rights Watch. Did that change address your concerns? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, yes, your edit does assuage my concerns. I see what you're saying; I read "may not be" differently -I thought who says we may not? the US?, but I get it now: 'may'=perhaps. You worded it much better. Thanks, cheers.  86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested correction 

message: What does "The first significantly operationally used[3] cluster bomb" mean? 2A01:CB08:256:3D00:25B6:B981:990B:D9E (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  rrab-3/ molotov bread basket 

message: When clicking on the first picture, the first text says "U.S. Honest John missile warhead cutaway around 1960," however if you read further down in the picture description, it says it's from "U.S. Army, ca. 1943." I believe this second date is inaccurate because the only country that had anything even remotely considered a "missile" in ~1943 was Germany, and it was the V2 "rocket." 
Further, the picture description states it is a "Photo is of a M190 Honest John chemical warhead section," and according to Wikipedia, the M190 was built in the 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGR-1_Honest_John Gaoheshuai (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Closing, as this appears to be handled, and is an issue with the image rather than the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022 

message: Please, is anyone has data on the weight of M77 and M85 submunitions? Rasenn (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of M77 and M85 submunitions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* InfoboxHez.PNG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Alexis 2C0F:FE38:2189:B500:1:0:BB5E:962E (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexis LIKUNDA ASUSTA  

message: The original has a grammar mistake and should remove the first usage of the word with:
Change X
According to the Pentagon, Ukraine will receive with an "improved" version of cluster munitions with a failure rate of about 2 percent, while the Russian cluster bombs fail at 40 percent or more.
To Y:
According to the Pentagon, Ukraine will receive an "improved" version of cluster munitions with a failure rate of about 2 percent, while the Russian cluster bombs fail at 40 percent or more. 75.132.150.92 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023 

message: ; Current Text:
: "According to the Pentagon, Ukraine will receive an 'improved' version of cluster munitions with a failure rate of about 2 percent, while the Russian cluster bombs fail at 40 percent or more.[91] However, according to a report prepared for Congress, experts in cleanup operations 'have frequently reported failure rates of 10% to 30%.'[92][93] The failure rate of cluster munitions used by Ukraine is reportedly as high as 20 percent.[94]"
; Proposed Change:
: Change "have frequently reported failure rates of 10% to 30%." to "have frequently reported failure rates of 10% to 30% for various munitions, but tests on DPICM submunitions, similar to those supplied to Ukraine, have reported failure rates as low as 2.3%."
; Justification:
: The reference [92] from the Business Insider article, citing a 2022 congressional report ((https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS22907.pdf)), references a 2006 UN report ((https://unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/cluster-munitions-en-337.pdf)) on page 22 (26th page of the PDF). While the 10-30% failure rates reported by mine clearance personnel are accurate, the same paragraph of the UN document also details tests of DPICM submunitions – similar to those being supplied to Ukraine – that exhibited substantially lower failure rates, around 2.3%. The current text may mislead readers into thinking the 10-30% figure from 2022 applies to the munitions sent to Ukraine, even though the UN report from 2006 provides more relevant data on the specific type of munition. Including this additional detail will present a more balanced and accurate depiction of the potential failure rates. Xanderglass (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Without a source explaining that the information that you're pointing to in the 2006 UN report is relevant to munitions being provided to Ukraine, I don't see how this change wouldn't be a form of original research. I think this would be suggesting a conclusion about failure rates that sources have not specifically linked to the munitions going to Ukraine. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023