Britain will probably succeed in getting the ugly compromise on the use of cluster bombs that it wants from this week's international conference in Dublin.

From a reluctance to throw away what is in the store cupboard, even if out of date, it is insisting on holding on to the right to use one type, maybe two, of the weapon.

Like use of the bombs themselves, this manoeuvre may bring it short-term tactical relief at a great long-term cost.

More than 100 countries are turning up in Dublin with the aim of signing a pact by May 30 to ban at least some of these weapons, which fire clusters of little bombs.

They are controversial because of their propensity to kill people — often civilians — outside the target, and to stay lethal across a wide zone, laying an instant minefield. Campaigners say that at least a tenth fail to explode on impact.

But the line-up of countries in Dublin does not include the US, Russia, China, India or Pakistan — all of whom have significant arsenals — which have made clear they have no interest at all in such a pact.

“The big players are never going to turn up for this,” said Major Charles Heyman, editor of Armed Forces of the UK. So whatever agreement emerges in the next ten days will be a voluntary pact by the small players. That does not mean it has to be worthless, although the most important points still have to be negotiated.

On one point — allowing operations with forces that do have such weapons — Britain has a fair point. On another — keeping stockpiles of them itself — it does not.

The generals and former defence chiefs who wrote a joint letter to The Times on Monday arguing against Britain's retention of such weapons put it best: “Cluster munitions were developed to combat a level of Cold War confrontation that never happened.

“If we are to be accepted as legitimate users of force then we must demonstrate our determination to employ that force only in the most responsible and accountable way.”

Britain wants to hold on to two weapons: the M73, fired from rockets on helicopters or jets, each containing nine smaller bombs; and the M85, delivered by shells containing 49.

Its position is that these are “smart” weapons, more accurate than older models, and that they can be designed to self-destruct if they do not explode.

Officials have indicated that the M73 is not negotiable, partly because it is crucial to the effective use of Apache helicopters, but that the M85 might be (although they are not keen on that line of negotiations).

Michael Codner, director of military science at the Royal United Services Institute, said that there was an argument that these [more sophisticated] cluster munitions could be more ethical than unguided bombs if their accuracy was higher.

But Heyman said: “Personally, I don't think that they are of that much use. Other military forces say they need that short-term fix, but they cause a massive long-term problem.”

Britain is on stronger ground arguing that the draft text is wrong to make it a crime for one country's forces to co-operate with another that uses such weapons — an insistance which would undermine all military cooperation, including the Nato alliance.

But in its own determination to hang on to these weapons, it makes an ugly case for expediency. This is one deal where it would be better to take the moral high ground.

Times Recommends

• Police beg us for food. What hope is there?
• Moral darkness that engulfed Baby P
• More to Advent than cheap chocolate