There is no legal reason the US can’t supply cluster bombs to Ukraine – but that doesn’t justify Biden's decision to do so
There is no legal reason the US can’t supply cluster bombs to Ukraine – but that doesn’t justify Biden's decision to do so
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
How about you let Ukrainians decide how best to defend their homes?
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.
Wouldn't be an issue if RUSSIA didn't start the war.
This is less about who started what, and more about who will keep dying from it for the next 20 years.
Imagine Ukraine retakes control over some territories using cluster bombs... now they end up with an unknown number of unexploded bomblets lying around Ukrainian territory.
Shut the fuck up you Russian sympathizer.
It’s also very likely that Ukraine will be using the cluster munitions to clear out minefields more than using them as an attacking/defensive weapon
It’s also very likely that Ukraine will be using the cluster munitions to clear out minefields more than using them as an attacking/defensive weapon
pretty much everyone says they're going to use these for good reasons that will not harm civilians and have purely military consequences―it never works out that way, and seldom is restricted to those uses once rubber hits the road. i'm not sure why we're assuming that this will be any different other than that the actor is sympathetic and we'd like to (incorrectly) assume their judgement is unimpeachable and infallible.
The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.
Minefields pose the same sort of risk to civilians, but I think it would be inappropriate to insist the Ukrainians can't use mines to defend themselves.
The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.
mmm, no, i don't think you can say this absolutely. if Pakistan is invaded by India tomorrow and they say they're going to nuke Delhi in response i'm still going to be against that even though i'm not directly affected and they'd be in the right to do that, legally, politically, and militarily speaking. wars are not fought in a vacuum. additionally, what can be justified on the aforementioned three grounds does not inherently map to what is morally justified, and in this case i think there are obvious alternatives which can be taken that are much less morally dubious.
That's not really the same thing.
If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves. Particularly because Russian troops also pose significant risks to Ukrainian civilians.
I would oppose Ukrainian use of cluster munitions in Russia, for the same reason I would oppose use of Pakistani nuclear weapons in India.
If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves.
if you change the hypothetical to "Delhi rebels tomorrow against BJP rule and Narendra Modi says he's going to nuke Delhi in response" i don't think the arithmetic changes just because now the people are from the same country and that country is "free to accept that risk for itself" of what such an action will do. the usage is bad full stop; the consequences are avoidable through not using them; there are less morally dubious alternatives available which will have the same net outcome. these are valid arguments with or without borders being considered.
And if you change it to "Delhi rebels threaten to detonate nuke in Delhi, Modi responds by dropping cluster munitions on rebels" then it's not so clear any more.
Ukrainian civilians are at risk no matter what happens. The ones who are ultimately responsible for deciding the fate of Ukrainians are Ukrainians themselves.
You may think you see a better option, but they don't have to agree with you.
You may think you see a better option, but they don’t have to agree with you.
nobody is saying they do; they will do as they will. but what they do isn't correct; it isn't correct because they do it and are the good guys; and people can be correct to oppose them for doing bad things―which i think this is―because doing a bad thing isn't mutually exclusive of being on the good side.
In this situation don't think it makes sense to oppose cluster munitions simply on principle.
I think it would be correct to oppose them only if using cluster bombs would cause more harm to Ukrainian civilians than the alternatives. I assume Ukrainian leaders would use similar criteria.
And since Ukrainians are actually at the front lines, they are the best informed and will suffer the most from an error of judgment. Under those circumstances, I am comfortable with trusting them to make the best decision either way.
It’s like everyone forgot about post vietnam stories where kids were getting blown to bits just running around being kids.
The other talking point seems to be the failure rates of the cluster munitions, but left by the wayside is the fact that they can dismantle them and use the charge within to detonate mines.
"given how they're practically used..."
You're assuming they will be used in the conventional way instead of, say, breaking out the submunitions to drop individually with drones.
You’re assuming they will be used in the conventional way instead of, say, breaking out the submunitions to drop individually with drones.
yes, because it's basically a guarantee they will be used in the conventional way even if they're also used for other purposes―the level of trust being assumed here of Ukraine is, respectfully, kind of silly given the extremely well established issues with any usage of these things and the nature of wars. things which "shouldn't" be used get used all the time.
and also: even in the best case scenario here, individually using them is basically a lateral move. the problem with cluster munitions is a very high rate of failure which given their size and number adds up massively over time relative to other munitions―individual usage doesn't really help that, it just slows the problem.