U.S. to include controversial cluster munitions in new Ukraine weapons package
www.politico.com
Officials say sending the weapons could give Kyiv an edge.
  • niktemadur@kbin.social
    301·
    1 year ago

    You know what’s controversial? Bombing hospitals, schools and residential buildings.

    You know what’s controversial? Blowing up a dam that destroys an entire region of the country.

    You know what’s controversial? Keeping a nuclear power plant as hostage.

    You know what’s controversial? Abducting children and taking them against their will to another country.

    You know what’s controversial? Torture and mutilation of soldiers defending their home land.

    Whoever says or implies at this late stage of russian atrocities that cluster bombs for Ukraine are “controversial” - fuck yourself gently with a rusted chainsaw.

    EDIT: typo (half the time I try and type “of”, it comes out as “if”)

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        81·
        1 year ago

        Those things being evil does not make cluster bombs less evil.

        Russia approves using cluster bombs, so it’s fine to use them against Russia.

        • Muntjac@lemmy.ml
          3·
          1 year ago

          I disagree. The trouble with cluster bombs (as with landmines) is that they are indiscriminate killers. Sure, they may kill some Russian soldiers now, but the ones that don’t explode (a huge minority of them) will remain in the ground until an innocent Ukrainian child gets blown up years from now.

          It’s fine to cheer on the ‘killing Russian soldiers’ part, but when it comes to cluster bombs that comes hand in hand with ‘killing innocent civilians, years after the conflict ends’, which is less okay.

          • realitista@lemm.ee
            7·
            1 year ago

            Unlike the lifetime’s worth of land mines that are already there? It’s a drop in the water at this point, and I think Ukraine has the right to decide whether or not they use them on their own territory, especially considering the other option may very well be allowing Russians to come kill the civilian population with cluster munitions, something they are already actively doing.

          • bloopernova
            3·
            1 year ago

            I think that these newer cluster munitions deactivate after a set period.

  • wizzor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    18·
    1 year ago

    I would ve against using this weapon, if the Russians had not already used them extensively. Clearing out all of the unexploded ones is going to take decades…

    Still, glad to see the political will to support Ukraine is still there!

  • EvilCartyen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    While it may have its military use, this type of munition will main and kill Ukrainian children for decades after the war.

    • Uniquitous@lemmy.oneEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      Found this in another forum, seems relevant.

      The weapon involved is the CBU-97 Sensor-Fused Weapon, which was designed to stop invading Soviet tank columns and was used a handful of times in the invasion of Iraq. It is a winged, unpowered canister that is designed to attack enemy vehicles by flying low over them and ejecting ten sub-munitions.

      The sub-munitions each have small parachutes and infrared sensors that detect enemy vehicles and launch four small hockey puck shaped charges that explode immediately above the top of their targets. In effect, with a single CBU-97, a large area can be attacked so as to destroy most or all of enemy vehicle targets in an area of about fifteen acres.

      So, what is so bad about the CBU-97? Cluster bombs are controversial because the Soviets used to drop them on Afghan civilians, often with the small bomblets made to look like toys so as to attack children. Otherwise, made to be hard to detect, the Soviet bomblets acted like small mines and could linger for years so as to make Afghan trails and agricultural fields too dangerous to use.

      The CBU-97 is not such a weapon, but in reputation it suffers from the controversy over cluster bombs. And yes, I see little reason not to supply it to Ukraine. In effect, the Ukrainians could use them to clear large swaths of the battle space of Russian tanks and other fighting vehicles.

    • SpaceCadet2000@kbin.social
      4·
      1 year ago

      That goes for any unexploded ordnance, we are still cleaning up regular unexploded shells from World War 1 more than 100 years after the fact and every now and then it still claims a victim.

      It sucks, but you have to offset that against the benefit. The longer the Russians occupy parts of Ukraine, the more atrocities they are able to commit against civilians (cf. Bucha, Irpin, Izium, Kherson,…). Also when people talk about the civilian casualties, they always forget that the bulk of the Ukrainian soldiers were civilians just over a year ago, and they would love nothing more than to return to a peaceful civilian life. Their lives are valuable as well and should be protected too.

      If cluster munitions helps them to get rid of the Russians faster and with a lot less casualties, it is a trade off we should make.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Hey, thanks for writing this.

        unitary airburst shells offer similar capability, but these are rather uncommon for some reason

        Really? I thought that was the standard type of shell. Do the typical unitary shells detonate on impact with the ground, then?

        Ukrainian drone operators are also using single submunitions, presumably from cluster bombs, as drone dropped ammunition (i’ve seen at least three separate videos of this). these things are well suited for this role and are used in vastly smaller numbers minimizing UXO issues in the future

        Oh yeah, I hadn’t considered that. And seeing as some of these were at end of life anyway it actually makes sense as an alternative to an ordinary infantry grenade.