this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
120 points (93.5% liked)

World News

32355 readers
253 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tilted@programming.dev 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Two things:

  1. Russia is using cluster munitions
  2. Russia started the war
[–] Dazza@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes but the people who suffer the most with these weapons is the civilians.

Just because they are already being used, doesn’t mean more should be used.

[–] Tilted@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago

Agree. Russia is guilty of using cluster munitions, and they started the war. They need to stop on both counts.

[–] Pili@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  1. Not a reason to fuck up Ukraine for the next 100 years
  2. Not a reason to fuck up Ukraine for the next 100 years
[–] Tilted@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Russia should be held accountable in both cases.

For me the difference is using cluster munitions in defense of your country. It's not by choice, it's by necessity. Like most nuclear powers will use nuclear weapons in existential defense. Rightfully in my opinion.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Imagine nuking yourself to own the Russians lol

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm sure the people who are going to be blown up in decades to come will appreciate that at least we held Russia accountable.

[–] sangle_of_flame@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Russia should be held accountable in both cases.

why is this even meaningful in this case

like now we blame Russia, now what

Ukraine's still fucked to shit

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you wouldn't nuke your own country, right?

[–] Tilted@programming.dev -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You would nuke your enemy, right?

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Tilted@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you would give up your nukes?

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't have any nukes. I'm not a state, nuclear or otherwise.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Yo mama so big shes a state, nuclear or otherwise.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd like to think that Ukraine could do better than Russia...

But then I guess they're getting the cluster munitions from the US, so maybe not?

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Not to mention all the depleted uranium.

It might be time to start considering that the Ukrainian military doesn't expect to get all its land back. In that case, they might not give much of a fuck about the destruction caused to the future inhabitants.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

do i understand correctly that you are implying ukraine, a country attempting to frame itself as a modern developed democracy, should base its policies on those of russia

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You think most modern developed democracys wouldn't busy these kind of weapons out if they were being attacked by them? It just helps that most modern developed democracys haven't faced being invaded since WW2.

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

im unaware of the specific part of thr CCM that says 'unless we get attacked', and marking something as a warcrime usually doesnt come with the caveat 'unless there is a war'

i also like to think that bombing several voters for every enemy combatant wouldnt sell all that well to said voters

im kidding of course, what with a third of the casualties of cluster bombs being children

kids cant vote whether theyre alive or a red chunky smear

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We wouldn't even be providing these weapons if they hadn't been attacked first?

[–] Lols@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

im glad that your second favourite option, after modeling foreign policy and military tactics on those of russia, is modeling it after third graders

if a third of the folks youre killing being children is just the price youre willing to pay at least grow a spine and say so instead of pretending that russia is making you resort to shamelessly partaking in borderline warcrimes instead of using any other weapon

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
  1. Ukraine has already been using cluster munitions, they're just running out
  2. The US cluster munitions would have a much lower dud rate than either the Ukrainian or Russian cluster bombs

Source

Whether or not you agree with the US sending them more cluster weapons, they're already on use. The Cambodian PM seems completely uninformed if he thinks this is an escalation.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

"Warcrimes are okay when the other side does them too."

[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Your interpretation of what the Pentagon said does not match the quote. They are very careful: they cannot definitively conclude that the video includes the uses of cluster munitions. That's not to say that the video doesn't show cluster munitions or that Russia isn't using them elsewhere.

The second link does conclude that Russia has used cluster munitions. That is with the benefit of over a year to gather evidence.

[–] raoul@rammy.site 3 points 1 year ago

From your link:

Ukrainian forces have used cluster munitions that caused deaths and serious injuries to civilians. Russian forces have extensively used cluster munitions, causing many civilian deaths and serious injuries.