The White House has confirmed that Ukraine is using US cluster bombs against Russian forces in the country.

National Security Spokesman John Kirby said initial feedback suggested they were being used “effectively” on Russian defensive positions and operations.

Cluster bombs scatter multiple bomblets and are banned by more than 100 states due to their threat to civilians.

The US agreed to supply them to boost Ukrainian ammunition supplies.

Ukraine has promised the bombs will only be used to dislodge concentrations of Russian enemy soldiers.

“They are using them appropriately,” Mr Kirby said. “They’re using them effectively and they are actually having an impact on Russia’s defensive formations and Russia’s defensive manoeuvring. I think I can leave it at that.”

The US decided to send cluster bombs after Ukraine warned that it was running out of ammunition during its summer counter-offensive, which has been slower and more costly than many had hoped.

President Joe Biden called the decision “very difficult”, while its allies the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Spain opposed their use.

The vast majority sent are artillery shells with a lower than 2.35% “dud rate”, a reference to the percentage of bomblets which do not explode immediately and can remain a threat for years.

The weapons are effective when used against troops in trenches and fortified positions, as they render large areas too dangerous to move around in until cleared.

Russia has used similar cluster bombs in Ukraine since it launched its full-scale invasion last year, including in civilian areas.

Reacting to the US decision to send the bombs, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country had similar weapons and they would be used “if they are used against us”.

Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Ukrainian general in charge of operations in the country’s east, told the BBC last week that his forces needed the weapons to “inflict maximum damage on enemy infantry”.

“We’d like to get very fast results, but in reality it’s practically impossible. The more infantry who die here, the more their relatives back in Russia will ask their government ‘why?’”

He added however that cluster bombs would not “solve all our problems”.

He also acknowledged that their use was controversial, but added: “If the Russians didn’t use them, perhaps conscience would not allow us to do it too.”

  • tram1
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Many countries (not the US, Russia, or Ukraine) consider cluster bombs illegal. I worry seeing people applauding the use of such weapons…

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d prefer they don’t get used, but my preference for Russia to get the fuck out of Ukraine is much greater. They’re mapping their usage and south and eastern Ukraine will need extensive UXO clearing with or without the use of cluster munitions.

      • tram1
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s basically the excuse for every war crime…

          • tram1
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Would you mind torture being used for “Russia to get the fuck out of Ukraine”?

            • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No because that’s obvious harm, whereas cluster munitions are a potential future harm that needs to be fixed by clearing the battlefield of UXO with or without there being Ukrainian cluster munitions on the battlefield. Not to mention they’re already being used by Russia

              • tram1
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                So that’s where you draw the line in war crimes. It’s OK if a kid loses its legs in 10 years but not OK if it happens now…

                Also, if the other guy is doing it, you can do it as well…

                • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Neither side is a signatory of the now 13 year old ban, it’s not a war crime. I’m looking at the reality of the battlefield, which is already littered with more artillery rounds than likely any battlefield since the Second World War and realizing that this battlefield will be a disaster to clean up with or without the Ukrainians using rounds that will hopefully help them win. I am obviously against kids getting blown up

                • okamiueru@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You do know cluster munitions are not considere a war crime, right? It’s a different agreement than the Geneva convention. Now, of course using it against civilians is covered (RU has done this, UA has not yet). What is mentioned in the Geneva convention is the responsibility to remove unexploded ordenances.

    • kokiriflute@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Russia was using cluster munitions long before Ukraine. Ukranians are using the cluster munitions on their homeland to defend it. If people didn’t want cluster munitions to be used, then Russia should not have started using them.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      American here. Cluster bombs, like any munition are weapon of war and are designed to kill. In a war, the goal is to end it as quickly as possible and if a cluster bomb can accomplish that goal faster more efficiently then I say use them.

      Should you be dropping cluster bombs on cities full of civilians? Obviously not. But an open battlefield situation filled with trenches and tanks, they are effective tool.

      In any case, it’s not like Ukraine and Russia are not firing other high explosive weaponry, bombs and mines are littering the landscape and will for hundreds of years to come. The only difference at this point is the delivery method of these weapons. There will be no shortage of unexploded ordinance left on the landscape after the war is over.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but the big difference is these are small bombs, and a ton of them, that are really difficult to detect and clear. These things can be a buried for decades, and unlike a mine field someone could have walked or driven over it a thousand times before the one time it finally goes off or gets unearthed and someone picks it up not knowing it’s about to kill or maim them. And the place they’re dropping them might not be an urban area now, but what about in 40 years? The ones the US dropped on Laos, for example, are still killing people. There are millions and millions of them still to this day.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I disagree. Russia has already deployed millions of minds inside of Ukraine, which is a foreign country. Those mines will stay active and deployed for decades, if not hundreds of years just waiting for something to drive or step on them before they explode.

          Don’t forget the so-called butterfly cluster bombs which have been used by Russia which changes color to a bright orange that makes it look like a toy to kids.

          UXOs are in a state because the fusing failed. However, many of the clustered munitions that the United States still has in its inventory have a dual fuse to mitigate and reduce the number of UXOs to a very small percentage of the submunitions.

          Germany years ago even developed cluster munitions with an electronic fuse that would completely fail within 24 hours of being deployed. Those had a 0% UXO rate. It’s too bad that the United States military hadn’t adopted that fusing system instead but it probably had other drawbacks.

          In addition to the mines so, there are thousands of unexploded artillery shells that have been fired from both sides that are also a hazard.

          My point is that it is way too late in the game to be complaining about certain types of munitions being used when any sane line in the sand has long been crossed by the egregious war crimes being committed on a daily basis by Russia. Well the human rights watch can complain about Ukrainian war crimes, this whole shit storm was kicked off by Russia and they still defend their genocidal campaign against Ukrainians.

    • Faydar@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Many of countries that have banned the use of their military forces using cluster munitions have their arsenals stocked with similar technology to deploy a large quantity of landmines over a large area via mortars or artillery. I find it extremely hypocritical. Eastern Ukraine is already now one of the most heavily mined areas of the world and will already take decades to demine.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT2_mine As an example

      Another: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/cluster0405/3.htm

    • propaganja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sadly, the humanitarian concern of Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs is not the most important.

      The real issue is why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs in the first place.

      We’re not doing it as part of some strategy or for some kind of tactical advantage. We’re doing it because we don’t have anything else left to send them. We’ve run out of modern munitions and won’t be getting much more anytime soon. That’s why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs.

      And the reason this article exists is because Ukraine is almost certainly not using them effectively, but they want to convince us otherwise. Cluster bombs don’t do shit to tanks or buildings. They were designed for targeting people hiding in the jungle. Why would anyone feel the need to write an article saying, “Hey, btw, these weapons you paid for are definitely working out really well. They’re super good at destroying Russians, for sure!”? I suspect it’s because they’re doing jack shit.

      • at_an_angle@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cluster munitions certainly can take out tanks, but not all cluster munitions are made equally. There are several types. Just a quick Google search brings up the CBU-100 Rockeye II which is an anti-tank cluster munition.

        We’re also sending them these because cluster munitions are no longer used by the US military. So it’s decomission or send them to be used. It’s cheaper to ship them then dispose of them.

        And we haven’t ran out of modern munitions. We’re running low on AVAILABLE SURPLUS munitions to send them. But we are ramping up production to replace current stocks.