The US administration said that it had received ‘written assurances’ from Ukraine that it would use cluster bombs carefully. Nonetheless, the munition will provide an additional risk to civilians.
given how they’re practically used it’s not particularly likely that cluster munitions are going to disproportionately harm Russians―essentially by design (and not dissimilar to the mining Russia is doing in parts of Ukraine), cluster munitions can’t and don’t work like that―so i think if you lean on that to justify this that’s a pretty weak justification.
given how they’re practically used it’s not particularly likely that cluster munitions are going to disproportionately harm Russians
Yeah, russian soldiers. Ukraine has shown the utmost constraint when it comes to attacks on russian civilians. russia, on the other hand, has not. In fact, it has done the exact opposite - intentionally attacking civilian or Geneva convention protected targets instead of military ones.
And no, seeing how cluster ammunition is practically used, russian civilians are not going to disproportionately harmed. It’s going to be military targets which will be fucked up.
It’s going to be military targets which will be fucked up.
unless you have data i don’t, the article seems to pretty definitively refute this point. overwhelmingly the people impacted by cluster munition use are civilians (97% of casualties were civilians in 2021) both in and outside of Ukraine, and their usage has a very long tail of fatalities.[1] there is no reason to think that even if they’re tailored specifically to nebulous military use against Russian soldiers that won’t also be the outcome here, because it is literally everywhere else they get used.
Vietnam and Cambodia are the poster children for this: the countries still have have dozens of civilian fatalities a year from cluster bombing ordinance, and it’s been 48 years since the Vietnam War ended. ↩︎
• Preliminary data indicates at least 689 civilian casualties during cluster munition attacks in Ukraine during the first half of 2022.
So to summarize:
Nearly every cluster bomb being used worldwide is being used by Russians in Ukraine
Nearly every cluster bomb casualty is a civilian
Considering that Russia has an extremely well-documented history of specifically targeting civilians, regardless of munitions type, this seems like more of a Russia problem than a cluster bomb problem (at least to the point that it renders these specific statistics moot in a discussion about the general risks of cluster munitions, when used by militaries that are not as barbarous and murderous as the Russian military)
Usually when an argument proceeds from crossing out what someone actually said and replacing it with what they did not say, it is going to be a staggeringly bad take.
i don’t think Ukraine should carte blanche do things i would consider bad and harmful just because they’re unambiguously the good guys. cluster munitions have clear drawbacks and are clearly harmful to people who aren’t Russians and aren’t combatants when used, and i don’t think countries should kill civilians and people who haven’t done anything wrong just because it maybe potentially will slightly expedite a war that’s now been going on for almost ten years. that’s a good way to end up concluding war crimes are justified because they’re happening to the “wrong” people.
I think there is a similar moral calculus here to that in WWII with decisions to bomb urban areas. Once you have been attacked and find yourself in an existential struggle, use of weapons becomes a question of the scope of innocent life lost versus the likelihood that lives will be saved.
In this case I think it is understandable that people are uneasy about the use of cluster munitions. The risks are well known but the benefits here seem … less so. That take may be wrong, but the point is that people have a right to feel queasy about the situation.
Not sure WWII is the best model for moral calculus: invade Japan killing 500,000 to 1 million soldiers, or nuke 2 cities killing only 50,000… oops, over 200,000 innocent civilians.
I think it’s been a long time since there’s been a real winner in any war. All wars for several centuries already, seem to have been a lose-lose scenario except for some well positioned elites.
Point 1: Russia already used them in Ukrainian kindergartens and hospitals
Point 2: if Russia has an issue with this then they can try leaving. Honestly as far as I’m concerned they can have chemical weapons too, if Russia has an issue with that then they can try leaving.
Maybe a hot take here but if you’re going to engage in a war, whether directly or by supporting an ally with money and supplies, you don’t half-ass it. You don’t give your ally just enough bullets and fuel to get into the thick of it but leave them hanging when they need to keep going. Whether or not you support the US aiding Ukraine, you have to understand that once that support is given the strategically correct thing to do is to see it through. From the position that we are already engaged in supporting Ukraine, the continuation of that support with the goal of winning is itself justification enough to match the ante in response to your opponent raising it.
A number of factors would make that different. For example if we reached a point where our support started to become detrimental to our readiness to defend ourselves (which, despite arguments from the far right to the contrary, we are not remotely close to doing). Or if Ukraine showed a reapted track record of attacking civilians with our munitions. Or if the war was a losing or lost prospect or this was an escalation on Ukraine’s side. But none of those things are the case. Ukraine has not gone out of their way to attack civilians and has in fact fought essentially exclusively a defensive war, they are doing quite well at it and still control their own fates, and Russia escalated to cluster munitions first. This is only a response in kind. With all those factors taken into account, the decision to provide these munitions is justified simply by the fact that they make Ukraine’s odds of winning, and winning sooner, better. If Ukraine starts bombing civilians with them then we can discuss whether or not it was the right thing to do. But their track record so far suggests they have no intention of flipping this to an offensive war. Whatever Russian sites they attack on Russian soil can be assumed to be military targets that pose a direct threat to Ukraine and nothing more until proven otherwise.
Nope. You are wrong!
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/21/us-congress-bans-cluster-bomb-exports
“new legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 11 permanently bans nearly all cluster bomb exports by the United States”
It seems that export of such wepons is illigal by US law.
The only exeption by that law will be un cluster bombs with less than 1% dud rate.
doesn’t apply here, unfortunately. that law was waived by Biden as part of the process here, and has previously been waived by Trump in other circumstances:
A 2009 U.S. law bans exports of American cluster munitions with bomblet failure rates higher than 1%, which covers virtually all of the U.S. military stockpile. Biden waived prohibitions around the munitions, just as his predecessor Donald Trump did in 2021 to allow the export of cluster munitions technology to South Korea.
Is that even a legitimate thing to do? Shouldn’t he seek congress aproval for that? It is a law after all.
It reminds me when Trump said he declassified all these documents he cought with just becaus he said so, but in reality he didn’t go thought the official process to do so.
I might also be wrong but currently it seems to me Biden is breaking a US law.
If I recall the law itself allows the President to waive the restriction. So in effect exporting cluster munitions requires Presidential approval. Whereas the approval for export of weapons is generally delegated to others in the State Department.
Ok. If that is correct then my mistake. I guess I didn’t get that detail from my initial source.
That makes me curious thought, who is being granted the approval from the president? Isn’t the executive branch of the goverment who desides for the export in the first place?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
How about fuck Russia.
given how they’re practically used it’s not particularly likely that cluster munitions are going to disproportionately harm Russians―essentially by design (and not dissimilar to the mining Russia is doing in parts of Ukraine), cluster munitions can’t and don’t work like that―so i think if you lean on that to justify this that’s a pretty weak justification.
Yeah, russian soldiers. Ukraine has shown the utmost constraint when it comes to attacks on russian civilians. russia, on the other hand, has not. In fact, it has done the exact opposite - intentionally attacking civilian or Geneva convention protected targets instead of military ones.
And no, seeing how cluster ammunition is practically used, russian civilians are not going to disproportionately harmed. It’s going to be military targets which will be fucked up.
unless you have data i don’t, the article seems to pretty definitively refute this point. overwhelmingly the people impacted by cluster munition use are civilians (97% of casualties were civilians in 2021) both in and outside of Ukraine, and their usage has a very long tail of fatalities.[1] there is no reason to think that even if they’re tailored specifically to nebulous military use against Russian soldiers that won’t also be the outcome here, because it is literally everywhere else they get used.
Vietnam and Cambodia are the poster children for this: the countries still have have dozens of civilian fatalities a year from cluster bombing ordinance, and it’s been 48 years since the Vietnam War ended. ↩︎
From your linked pdf:
So to summarize:
Considering that Russia has an extremely well-documented history of specifically targeting civilians, regardless of munitions type, this seems like more of a Russia problem than a cluster bomb problem (at least to the point that it renders these specific statistics moot in a discussion about the general risks of cluster munitions, when used by militaries that are not as barbarous and murderous as the Russian military)
How about you let Ukrainians decide how best to defend their homes?
How about you let
Ukrainiansthe Ukrainian bourgeoisie decide how best to defend theirhomesproperty and class interests?Usually when an argument proceeds from crossing out what someone actually said and replacing it with what they did not say, it is going to be a staggeringly bad take.
LOL a tankie
i don’t think Ukraine should carte blanche do things i would consider bad and harmful just because they’re unambiguously the good guys. cluster munitions have clear drawbacks and are clearly harmful to people who aren’t Russians and aren’t combatants when used, and i don’t think countries should kill civilians and people who haven’t done anything wrong just because it maybe potentially will slightly expedite a war that’s now been going on for almost ten years. that’s a good way to end up concluding war crimes are justified because they’re happening to the “wrong” people.
I think there is a similar moral calculus here to that in WWII with decisions to bomb urban areas. Once you have been attacked and find yourself in an existential struggle, use of weapons becomes a question of the scope of innocent life lost versus the likelihood that lives will be saved.
In this case I think it is understandable that people are uneasy about the use of cluster munitions. The risks are well known but the benefits here seem … less so. That take may be wrong, but the point is that people have a right to feel queasy about the situation.
Not sure WWII is the best model for moral calculus: invade Japan killing 500,000 to 1 million soldiers, or nuke 2 cities killing only
50,000… oops, over 200,000 innocent civilians.I think it’s been a long time since there’s been a real winner in any war. All wars for several centuries already, seem to have been a lose-lose scenario except for some well positioned elites.
Point 1: Russia already used them in Ukrainian kindergartens and hospitals
Point 2: if Russia has an issue with this then they can try leaving. Honestly as far as I’m concerned they can have chemical weapons too, if Russia has an issue with that then they can try leaving.
Maybe a hot take here but if you’re going to engage in a war, whether directly or by supporting an ally with money and supplies, you don’t half-ass it. You don’t give your ally just enough bullets and fuel to get into the thick of it but leave them hanging when they need to keep going. Whether or not you support the US aiding Ukraine, you have to understand that once that support is given the strategically correct thing to do is to see it through. From the position that we are already engaged in supporting Ukraine, the continuation of that support with the goal of winning is itself justification enough to match the ante in response to your opponent raising it.
A number of factors would make that different. For example if we reached a point where our support started to become detrimental to our readiness to defend ourselves (which, despite arguments from the far right to the contrary, we are not remotely close to doing). Or if Ukraine showed a reapted track record of attacking civilians with our munitions. Or if the war was a losing or lost prospect or this was an escalation on Ukraine’s side. But none of those things are the case. Ukraine has not gone out of their way to attack civilians and has in fact fought essentially exclusively a defensive war, they are doing quite well at it and still control their own fates, and Russia escalated to cluster munitions first. This is only a response in kind. With all those factors taken into account, the decision to provide these munitions is justified simply by the fact that they make Ukraine’s odds of winning, and winning sooner, better. If Ukraine starts bombing civilians with them then we can discuss whether or not it was the right thing to do. But their track record so far suggests they have no intention of flipping this to an offensive war. Whatever Russian sites they attack on Russian soil can be assumed to be military targets that pose a direct threat to Ukraine and nothing more until proven otherwise.
Nope. You are wrong! https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/21/us-congress-bans-cluster-bomb-exports “new legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 11 permanently bans nearly all cluster bomb exports by the United States” It seems that export of such wepons is illigal by US law. The only exeption by that law will be un cluster bombs with less than 1% dud rate.
doesn’t apply here, unfortunately. that law was waived by Biden as part of the process here, and has previously been waived by Trump in other circumstances:
Is that even a legitimate thing to do? Shouldn’t he seek congress aproval for that? It is a law after all. It reminds me when Trump said he declassified all these documents he cought with just becaus he said so, but in reality he didn’t go thought the official process to do so. I might also be wrong but currently it seems to me Biden is breaking a US law.
If I recall the law itself allows the President to waive the restriction. So in effect exporting cluster munitions requires Presidential approval. Whereas the approval for export of weapons is generally delegated to others in the State Department.
Ok. If that is correct then my mistake. I guess I didn’t get that detail from my initial source. That makes me curious thought, who is being granted the approval from the president? Isn’t the executive branch of the goverment who desides for the export in the first place?
I think this page here will help you out with all that kind of information:
https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade
It looks like the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs handle approvals in the State Department.