Well this article’s a pro-Putin load of shit. The reason cluster munitions are banned under so many treaties is that they tend to fail to detonate and then kill civilians after the war, requiring a long and horrible cleanup process. But Russia has already been using cluster munitions in huge quantities, so that cleanup process already needs to happen, and this article is handwringing over Ukraine being able to use them on Ukrainian territory in response. And if Ukraine loses this war, Russia has already made it perfectly clear through their actions in occupied territory that the result will be genocide - something the article curiously decides to omit, while quite happily pushing a false equivalence between Russia’s use (pre-emptive, offensive, and murdering civilians of the country they’re invading) and Ukraine’s use (in response, defensive, and accepting some deaths to stop Russia from killing more).
The reason cluster munitions are banned under so many treaties is that they tend to fail to detonate and then kill civilians after the war, requiring a long and horrible cleanup process. But Russia has already been using cluster munitions in huge quantities, so that cleanup process already needs to happen, and this article is handwringing over Ukraine being able to use them on Ukrainian territory in response.
i noted this downthread but: just because you’re the good guy doesn’t mean everything you do is a good thing. there is a reason so many countries consider cluster munitions criminal, and that’s because there’s no circumstance in which the use of cluster munitions is a good thing—“they’ve already been used so there’s no downside to using them more” is torturous logic in more ways than one. cumulative usage will obviously make it cumulatively more likely bombs will harm people long after the war ends.
separately: i think it’d behoove us all to not fall into this trap of pretending that Ukraine is completely morally unimpeachable in what it chooses to do militarily just because it’s fighting on its own soil. you don’t want to go down that route. if you do that you will—inevitably, because wars aren’t pretty—find yourself justifying Ukrainian war crimes one of these days, and you will look like a monster for doing that.
I don’t think anything I said implied that Ukraine was morally unimpeachable on the military side. If we were talking about whether or not Ukraine should be able to torture Russian POWs or impersonate medics or firebomb Russian apartment complexes then this would be a very different conversation and I would be saying very different things. I also don’t think anyone is saying that use of cluster munitions is a good thing, only that it’s the lesser of all available evils.
I do think that under all circumstances it’s very unhelpful and even paternalistic for us to tell Ukraine what they can and can’t do for their own good. Ukraine is not fighting the Iraq war or Vietnam here. They’re not lunatics, they’re not children, and they’re not fighting because they’ve been lied or manipulated or bullied into it by their leadership. They’re fighting a defensive war of annihiliation in which they either win or die, much of the civilian population included. Given that, they are the only ones who should be allowed a say on what risks they are prepared to take and what costs they consider acceptable, and our role in this should be to shut up and help them unless they are genuinely violating international law. There might one day come a time where the Ukrainian people start disagreeing with the Ukrainian leadership on how far to go, and if that ever happens then I’m happy to weigh in on the side of the people, but we’re not there yet - last I heard Zelenskiy was still incredibly popular.
I also didn’t say there was “no downside” to using cluster munitions more. I would instead say that most of the downside is already there thanks to Russia’s extensive use of them. Obviously the more bombs are present the more likely it is that someone is killed, but AFAICT the deaths are not the worst part of unexploded munitions because they are typically rare. The problem is that the reason deaths are rare is that the instant the immediate threat is over, the government has to designate huge swathes of the country as de facto minefields, unsafe for everyone including the people who used to live there until they can be painstakingly cleared. Even afterwards, the risk is never entirely gone and the population has to live with that - people don’t feel safe walking in the countryside they grew up in for decades after the fact. That, to me, would be the worst part, and past a certain point increasing the number of munitions used in a given engagement makes very little difference to it.
They’re fighting a defensive war of annihiliation in which they either win or die, much of the civilian population included. Given that, they are the only ones who should be allowed a say on what risks they are prepared to take and what costs they consider acceptable, and our role in this should be to shut up and help them unless they are genuinely violating international law.
if this is our line then: even people in this very thread are freely admitting that most uses of cluster munitions are war crimes or disproportionately harm civilians (which can be said to violate international law). there is an entire international treaty revolving around the prohibition of cluster munitions and their manufacture which more than half of the world is a signatory to. most countries don’t have cluster munitions and even fewer manufacture them. the case that these aren’t a violation of international law would rest pretty heavily on the obstinance of a handful of countries who disproportionately use them—Russia being one of them, and the U.S. being another.
As the US escalates the already bloody Ukraine conflict
This reads as pro-Russian. Grosses me out.
No one is a fan of using cluster bombs inside their borders, just like no one is a fan of war in inside their borders.
Ukraine is going to have to clean up the metric shit ton of cluster bombs Russia already used, at least they’ll know where these are used when they clean them up.
Cluster bombs are highly effective at what they’re using them for. And the alternative is mines. Neither is exactly civilian friendly, but at least this way the failure rates are lower and the bombs you’re leaving behind are actually being targeted at something instead of buried and forgotten.
Neither is exactly civilian friendly, but at least this way the failure rates are lower and the bombs you’re leaving behind are actually being targeted at something instead of buried and forgotten.
i just question the accuracy of either of these assertions (failure rates of up to 30% are well publicized, and Russian cluster munitions in Ukraine have had an even higher rate than that)—and even if you accept they’re being targeted at something, how useful is that actually as a justification when the whole point of cluster munitions is sheer number and not accuracy?
Easy. A single artillery shell will likely miss, meaning you need to use more of them. Cluster munitions hit a wide area, and therefore you need to use less of them. It’s like using a shotgun vs a rifle. I’d highly recommend this video for more information.
Cluster munitions hit a wide area, and therefore you need to use less of them.
i don’t see what this really has to do with my point—and i’d also question that the history of cluster munitions shows restraint in their usage on the specific bases that they have a better theoretical spread of fire and efficiency than normal shelling. in general, when they’re used they’re used to excess and without much regard for what you’re talking about here because that’s just kind of what happens when you give people a new weapon. that’s part of why they’re so devastating to civilian populations even well after wars have ended
this is demonstrably false: as i noted in another comment and even in ideal circumstances, the Pentagon’s data—rather than its words and idle wishes—suggest a failure rate of at least 14%.
Fortunately, the article states that the munitions have a dud rate of 2.35%, rather than 30%.
that is a claim by the Pentagon, which is so categorically untrustworthy on matters such as these that it really is not worth taking seriously. their actually-backed-by-data estimate on the same munitions is a 14% dud rate (and there are reasons to believe the rate is higher than that) and that quite literally follows the section you are excerpting from.
The editorial board cites the fact that the cluster munitions being sent by the US have a “very low dud rate,” and will therefore pose less of a risk to civilians. The Pentagon claims that the munitions it is sending have a dud rate of 2.35%; even if that’s accurate, it exceeds the 1% limit the Pentagon itself considers acceptable.
According to the New York Times’ John Ismay (7/7/23), a failure rate of 2.35% “would mean that for every two shells fired, about three unexploded grenades would be left scattered on the target area.” There is reason to believe that the true dud rate may be much higher—possibly exceeding 14%, by the Pentagon’s own reckoning.