I wish that countries that are condemning cluster munitions actually send non-cluster munitions to Ukraine.
US isn’t doing this because they want to, but because there are no other ammo left and ammo production is still ramping up.
I think Ryan McBeth on his YT channel said the real reason for it.
The cluster munition aren’t that useful for trenches and not useful for offensive when there’s even a small dud rate (it’s not 40% like with Russian cluster bombs, but 2% adds up if you would fire it many times) and you don’t want your own soldiers to be blown up by own munition when they advance.
But, if you take the missile, open it up, you get 88 bombs, that can penetrate 4cm of steel. Strap them to a drone and they can be quite scary. Also since they are fired individually, they don’t hit each other when falling down which is the primary reason for duds.
or maybe they should all stop adding fuel to fucking fire they started
No, the answer is that the US needs to stay the fuck out of it. It’s not our war. It’s not our fight. It has nothing to do with us. As much as the US likes to act like it, we’re not World Police. We shouldn’t be sending anything, much less munitions that are rightly banned my most of the rest of the world
Actually it does, Ukraine literally asked United States for assistance, as well as applying for NATO membership. Additionally, the US offered verbal security agreements during the dissolution of the Soviet Union which Russia is currently egregiously breaking.
And there’s the fact that we have a fascist country engaged in a year long land war in Europe, which threatens to stabilize all of Europe and drag us into a world war. That is Putin‘s decision solely his decision.
United States countries to ask for help and they did.
It has nothing to do with us.
I think you will find that the liberal-capitalist world order with some semblance of norms like national self determination and resistance to overt nationalistic annexation does benefit the US.
Note that I’m not saying I like this world order, or the US politic. But your assertion looks false to my eyes. Even if there was no moral issue of enabling Ukrainian self defense because Ukrainian self defense is a moral good, the USA benefits from preventing authoritarian regimes from using military force to swallow up their neighbors. And so do the European countries.
This is just imperial apologia
Take some time to think about whether these are positive contributions you’re making, or if you’re just being argumentative. You’re also not approaching my argument with good faith.
It’s not our war. It’s not our fight. It has nothing to do with us.
That’s where you’re wrong. America has a global empire, and Russia is one of the other powers trying to undermine and dismantle it. If America wants to keep its empire and the many benefits it brings, it has no choice but to defend it. Be thankful you’re only having to spend money while someone else is spending lives.
So because the US is an empire, we’re just supposed to go along with it and accept anything it decides to do?
The US didn’t decide to start this war, but it still has to fight it or it’s going to lose it.
This is an absolute boon for the US, lol. We’re not playing world police we’re getting billions of dollars worth of military-industrial complex R&D.
RIDF begone
Canada has NOT done what the headline claims. Canada is actually being an incredible pussy about this. “the Canadian government has not specifically condemned the move by the U.S., or Ukraine and Russia’s use of cluster munitions”
if we really want to stand for our principles we shouldn’t be afraid to say hey, the US is wrong, they should find alternatives. We can’t claim to be condemning it without even mentioning the perpetrators directly.
According to Michael Koffman, these weapons won’t be that useful on attack because cluster rounds are an area-denial weapon. You don’t launch them into areas you intend to attack. The real issue here is that the west is running out of conventional artillery ammunition and they are not making more in enough numbers to sustain Ukraine’s efforts. Europe promised to produce a million rounds per year, but to date they are nowhere near meeting that target.
The US supply of cluster ammunition is the only large stash of stockpiled rounds left that hasn’t already been depleted. Since Ukraine has to contemplate the possibility that they will run out of ammunition they have to husband what they have left, and can’t go all-in supporting their offensives. But knowing that this stockpile is on its way and will be available to defend after the offensive, they can fully commit their remaining conventional ammunition.
This is why the European response has been so muted. They know it’s necessary to use this stuff because it’s the only stuff that’s still available in large quantities. And they know it’s partially their fault for being so slow in ramping up production.
Also I’d like to add it’s a massive shit sandwich for Biden to eat, it’s gone over about as well as you’d expect with his party. I doubt there was anything approaching a viable alternative.
Also I will note that while these are still bad in no uncertain terms, the dud rate is under 2.5% versus the old school cluster munitions which had dud rates exceeding 40% (like the kind Russia is using now) if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO, not to mention any shortening of the conflict reducing the number of mines deployed by the Russian military who are a particular fan of the extremely problematic PFM-1 butterfly mines which are basically a way of dropping highly volatile UXO all over an area.
War is hell.
if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO
Hmm. However justified one feels Ukraine’s struggle is, it’s hard to understand how sending more weapons into a brutal war will result in less violence. NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons is not having the effect of shortening the conflict, it’s having the exact opposite effect. You can make an argument that the U.S and its allies should continue to support Ukraine so that Ukraine can hopefully win this conflict, but that’s a different argument than the humanitarian angle of shortening the conflict.
This is a very, very dangerous game that is being played. Russia has nuclear weapons. It’s a real tragedy what’s happening one way or another.
If the objective was shortening the conflict, then we would have told them they were on their own. The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.
The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.
The US has spent the last eight years helping Saudi Arabia starve and decimate Yemen, so it doesn’t make sense to me to use this kind of moralistic language like we’re good guys here.
Oh we suck for sure, but not doing the “right” thing because we also do the wrong thing seems like a shitty way to live.
Not having health care because your government funds other countries’ wars is a shitty way to live, without question.
I thought it was a given that Russia also can’t win but I suppose you can look at it this way, Russia could end the war right now if they wanted. It’s a whole can of worms but I think it’s vital for global security and stability that Russia does not take over Ukraine. Long term a win for Russia will cause more pain and suffering for everyone including Russian civilians.
Because Ukraine is advancing too slowly. It prolongs the fights in certain areas, allows Russians to shell cities.
If Ukraine were to reach Crimea in the South, the frontline would shrink appreciably.
The alternative to fighting back is to do nothing against the country that’s committing genocide and want to end another country’s existence.
I don’t believe the only options are to do nothing or to use horrific weapons which primary kill civilians and which have been banned by over 100 countries, including major U.S allies who, unlike almost everyone in this thread, are quite critical of the United States for sending these munitions to the battlefield.
If the logic of supporting Ukraine and ending the conflict as quickly as possible supports the use of cluster bombs, why not chemical weapons? Why not nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line with this logic of escalation?
I was replying to the idea that sending more weapons was wrong, not these specific weapons, but I’m sure Ukraine would accept more of something else in their place. Ideally something with more range.
Because if you do not stop the violence, it will continue. Ukraine is defending itself from an invasion. Providing the tools to resist the invasion saves lives. If Ukraine were to stop resisting, Russia would murder millions of people like they have already tried to do.
Following that, Putin and his cronies have declared that they would invade Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, and every former member state of the Soviet union. Many of these nations are currently NATO member states which would directly kick off of a Third World war and which lead to nuclear war in Asia and Europe.
Russia can peacefully and the war that anytime by withdrawing. Why haven’t they? They are the instigators and they can end it.
Hasn’t Russia been using these munitions and worse all along? Screw them, let them reap what they sow.
Yep, and from my understanding Ukraine has been too - the main difference is that these modern American ones have a lower chance of killing civilians than the ancient Soviet ones that have been in use for the past year and a half (and the American arms industry will make a profit but still seems like the lesser of two evils etc.)
98% of 13,306 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians, while 27% are children
bombing your own population and its kids to own the russians
If that’s what it takes to kick the Russians out of the country, then it has to be done; failing to kick them out would result in far more harm. The fault is still with the Russians, since if they weren’t there, there would be no fighting and no casualties at all.
the options are not in fact committing borderline war crimes or accepting russian rule
and no, dropping cluster bombs are actually the fault of the person dropping cluster bombs
if turning several kids into chunky red paste per russian is just the price youre willing to pay thats one thing, but at least grow a spine and say it with your whole chest instead of shoving off the responsibility on said russians
Russia has already dropped thousands of cluster munitions, thermite incendiary bombs, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, drones, artillery, tank rounds, and small arms fire directed at civilians. Not to mention deploying millions of land mines.
Thousands have already died. When will Russia stop? Ukraine has repeatedly asked and demanded the war to stop.
the options are not in fact committing borderline war crimes or accepting russian rule
I can’t help noticing that your claim of other options existing was not followed by even a single example.
at least grow a spine and say it with your whole chest instead of shoving off the responsibility on said russians
It is their responsibility. The fighting happens because Russia invaded, and it would cease immediately if it withdrew its troops back within its own borders. Every single casualty is 100% the fault of Russia. Calling me spineless is not very nice and more importantly not a very good way of arguing against my logic.
Completely agree with you. Every argument I have seen to pin this on Ukraine is grasping for straws.
If this were on Reddit, I’d have no doubt that those comments are from Russian trolls. I doubt there are many of those here yet, so I guess they’re just useful idiots who have had their brains washed.
There are so many issues with “think about children”. If in the name of safety of children someone suggests Ukraine should maybe consider surrendering you give these children away to a country that believes outcome of Beslan school siege was a success. Also if Ukraine won’t be using cluster munnitions Russia will still use them so if there are going to be de-mining efforts anyway…
The option is clear. Russia must get out of Ukraine and stop killing civilians.
deleted by creator
I find it absolutely sickening and disgusting.
So do I, but you know what? The damage the Russians are doing every day is worse; in case you haven’t heard, they’ve been busy these last few months turning eastern Ukraine into one giant minefield. So the lesser of two evils it is.
These weapons are not banned by civilized countries because they hurt the enemy too much, but because they hurt civilians too much. But it’s great that you are aligning with countries that care a lot about human lifes like the USA and Russia.
The US, Russia and Ukraine are not signatories to the cluster munitions treaty, so it does not apply to them. This is a voluntary treaty.
Again, and for the last time, not kicking the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible will hurt the civilians more. There are no good options, the US and Ukraine are choosing the lesser evil. If you disagree with that and think that there is a good way of kicking the Russians out quickly without hurting civilians, please, share.
There is a very real possibility that Ukraine is going to lose this war, and I’ve not heard realistically say this war will be over soon. In which case a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options. But seems not to be what the United States or Ukraine wants, so. It’s really quite fucked up.
Like I don’t know how I would feel if I were Ukrainian. I absolutely think they are on the right side of this. What the Russian soldiers have been doing to Ukraine is despicable. But with cities being destroyed, nuclear power plants at risk, massive oil pipelines being bombed in the ocean, millions of people displaced…
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying here, but it sounds like you’re saying for the sake of human life Ukraine should just negotiate being taken over and give up?
In my opinion, you’re better off losing, all the way down to the last man, rather than living as a slave. If Russia wins those people are not getting their lives back in any way that leads to happiness.
That’s exactly what these tankies/far tight types think but they dress it up in faux humanitarian and class consciousness rhetoric.
The don’t seem to notice that it’s Russia that’s feeding the working classes into the grinder where as all Ukrainian men and some of the women regardless of class are fighting for their country
Negotiated settlement? GTFO of Ukraine now - that’s the negotiated settlement. Russia doesn’t want it. Instead, they are murdeering Ukrainian civilians every day.
a plausible argument could be made on humanitarian grounds that a negotiated settlement as quickly as possible is the best of the bad options
Absolutely not, that idea is based on a total lack of historical memory and amounts to nothing more than kicking the can down the road. Russia will not accept anything less than keeping the territories it currently occupies, and that’s not an option. This invasion happened because Russia had been getting away with this kind of stuff for two decades. It’s not Putin’s first land grab. It was Chechnya in 2000, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, the rest of Ukraine in 2022. They took a small bite at first, and when they got away with it, they took a bigger bite next. And again, and again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Allowing Russia to get away with this and keep the territories it took guarantees another repetition of the same pattern less than a decade later with yet more devastating results. If we had nipped this in the bud, the war could’ve been avoided entirely. The second best time is now.
I’ve heard the war would end by May. May of 2022, that is, where Russian sources said they almost surrounded Azov
Don’t believe everything you read. This war is going into 2024, unless the US brings more weapons for Ukraine to finish it earlier
So the lesser of two evils it is.
So…which of those evils does your government fund and arm, by chance?
I don’t find many reasons to be proud of my country, but the fact that we were the first to give tanks to Ukraine absolutely is one.
I love escalating war and feeding more working-class people to the meat grinder for the sake of capitalists and nationalism.
Uh huh. Your country, too, fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, I see.
The Ukrainians seemed pretty grateful for the help. One would have to be pretty thoroughly brainwashed by propaganda to sincerely believe that we’re somehow doing more harm than good by providing aid to a nation fighting against an invader intending to commit genocide.
Straw man much there buddy?
Hey, I know this is probably a topic you are very passionate about. However the mod team is starting to see a pattern of behavior from you n terms of failing to assume good faith and turning arguments toward personal attacks. This is not okay going forward. While Beehaw is much larger than it was a few weeks ago, it is still very small; you will have to interact with everyone you speak with again, and there are no points for the biggest slam dunk on someone else in a comment thread. Consider if you would say the things you are writing to your next door neighbor, knowing that you’ll have to see them again every day for potentially years to come.
Just wanted to say that this kind of moderation is one of the main reasons I wanted to join beehaw. I appreciate the approach you all are taking.
Actually yes. If my neighbor openly, to my face, celebrated the state murdering hundreds of thousands of people in war, I would absolutely challenge them on it just like above. And I have, in fact. I see you’re more interested in civility politics than any kind of justice, so yeah: maybe it is time to fuck off and find some instance with people who have empathy and principles. Thanks for the “warning”.
Do you know that some of us actually have friends who have been killed by Russians in this war and we are not particularly fond of allowing pro fascists to twist words and create straw man arguments to give the illusion that they are just and right and have the moral high ground, when they in fact do not.
This is Ben and Jerrys all over again.
Issue isn’t Russia reaping them. It never is with cluster munitions. In fact given the battle field is Ukraine, it will be Ukrainian civilians repair the harvest on this. Problem isn’t “ohhhh cluster munitions are nasty to enemy soldiers”. No those are free target, we rip them, tear them. Huge 155 mm shrapnel HE shell will tear flesh just as nastily as a cluster sub munitions, if not worse even.
The issue is submunitions in effect ending up being anti-personnel mines, since not all of the submunitions detonate properly and then end up teetering on their fuse and then some civilian stumbles upon them later, knocks it and boom, there goes civilians hand/leg/life.
All munitions have a fault percent of not detonating (fuses fail, the safety self-destructs fail). Issue is cluster sub munitions are small and there is lot of them.
It is pretty obvious should there be 155 mm dud HE shell sticking from the field soil. sub munitions, not so much. It’s a small hand grenade sized thing.
Ukraine and the U.S. know exactly what they’re getting into here. In fact, both Russia and Ukraine not only use cluster munitions, but the same cluster munitions (mostly Soviet PFM-1 petal mines — particularly nasty). So arguing that we ought to save Ukraine from itself, as a country which is intimately familiar with mass civilian casualties (and the risks of UXO for the better part of a decade), as a country locked in an existential struggle against a democidal (at best) regime, and as if the resulting cost-benefit analysis by the Ukrainian government hasn’t already been considered, smacks of condescending paternalism to me.
Nonetheless, “cost-benefit analysis” is a flimsy euphemism for “how many civilians are we willing to accidentally kill so that we can save our country.” In any other context, alarm bells should be ringing at the thought. But this is a real shooting war, where cluster munitions used against static, dense fortifications in overwhelmingly rural settings (like the Russian defensive lines in the south) is perfectly reasonable. If the West was actually concerned about civilian casualties caused by Ukraine’s hamfisted arsenal, it’d be sending fighter jets and CAS!
The above also doesn’t consider that neither the U.S. nor Ukraine are party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and that Russia’s been using cluster munitions the whole time!
I would rather give them a higher amount of higher-cost and more accurate weapons. I know why the US wouldn’t, and why Ukraine accepts this. It’s their choice in the end.
I don’t think we particularly need to celebrate this though.
Because they don’t exist, the 155mm artillery is being made, the stockpiles are too low
I’m not falling over myself to clap, but it is still Ukraine’s choice whether to use this or not.
I’m not convinced of that, the fact is that a cluster shell will be more efficient at wiping out dispersed and entrenched troops. Each shell as a waiter area affect using DPICM than a single HE shell.
Thats not the issue here. I mean fuck russia, yes.
But cluster ammunitions indiscriminately cover an area, military and otherwise. Impossible to track what ends up where, when it comes to UXOs.
Decades from now, innocent civilians, often kids, may dig up random ordnance and die due to the nature of the weapon.
Ukraine will record where they used them to help the demining effort later
Yeah, but you have to weigh that against the harm that kicking the Russian out quickly will prevent. It’s like chemotherapy. It fucks you up too, but less than it fucks up the thing that’s killing you.
Generations of having a chance to blow up children. vs maybe a short term push of the front, maybe.
Idk if I’d take the trade. With conventional weapons UA is already kicking ass.
I live in a city where 500-1000kg WWII bomb finds are a common occurrence. Every few weeks at least a whole block gets evacuated for a day. And those are easier to find, less randomly spread, more reliable.
Generations of having a chance to blow up children. vs maybe a short term push of the front, maybe.
The thing you’re forgetting is that the Russians are busy laying as many landmines as they can get their hands on all over eastern Ukraine. Using cluster munitions to drive the Russians out will result in less UXO than letting them continue doing that.
With conventional weapons UA is already kicking ass.
I guess we must be following different news outlets, then. All I’m hearing is that the Ukrainian counter-offensive is going a lot slower than planned. And if you can be sure of one thing in a war, it’s that things are always worse than the belligerents are willing to admit.
How does that relate to it?
“there are already mines so spreading more is good”?
“there are already mines so spreading more is good”?
More like “tons of mines are being placed every day, so stopping that from happening is good”.
Yeah sry i jumped the gun on hitting post.
I meant to add: it’s tragic enough that mines are deployed so much in this conflict.
I personally think saying cluster munitions will end it quicker ergo result in less uxos is a bit simplified a->b thinking that rarely works out in reality.
I think UA should absolutely aim to limit uxos from their side as much as realisticly possible, and i dont know if CMs are as big of a power swing as you make em out to be.
Fortunately (in my eyes), they pledged not to use these measures already
People will always use this logic to justify whatever horrendous crime their “side” is committing.
Dan Carlin did an episode of his fantastic Hardcore History podcast on this, it’s called Logical Insanity. I highly recommend it.
Yes.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russian armed forces have used cluster munitions in attacks that have caused hundreds of civilian casualties and damaged civilian objects, including homes, hospitals, and schools.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/29/cluster-munition-use-russia-ukraine-war
