Know what else will be dangerous for potentially 100 years, maybe longer? Letting Russia win/hold territory. Like, folks, it's war. The front is already riddled with mines, many in strange places because of the dam wash out.

Is this crappy and dangerous for civilians? Yes. But come on, Russian occupiers are literally committing genocide and mining the shit out of stuff right now. At least if cluster munitions help end this war then the cleanup can begin and things can start to get less dangerous.

[–] rbhfd@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"At least if nuclear bombs help end this war..."

Just no.

Especially because these things will be used on Ukrainian soil. So it will be Ukranian people who will have to deal with the fallout for years/decades to come.

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear bombs are very different than cluster munitions.

The Russians are already mining-remining Ukranian soil, creating an unexploded ordinance issued for generations. In fact, Russian is also using cluster munitions, so the problem with them specifically already exists.

Similar cautions/implications/unfortunate consequences for mines will be needed for unexploded cluster munitions, so this will need to be dealt with regardless of if Ukraine uses them.

The elected leaders of Ukraine have made the tactical choice to do this, have weighed the trade-offs, and convinced an inittialy-hesitant America to ship weapons. Who are you/the world to interfere with their sovereign decisions on their own land, with consequences largely confined to their own land?

If you are an American/Ukranian and oppose your country providing/receiving these munitions, contact your representatives.

[–] rbhfd@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm from neither country. I am however from one of the 100+ countries that has banned the use of cluster bombs for over a decade.

In my country, there's still people dying from unexploded bombs leftovet from world war 1.

From an article on why cluster bombs are so controversial

Sixty percent of cluster bomb casualties are people injured while undertaking everyday activities, according to Reuters. One third of all recorded cluster munitions casualties are children.

So yes, while I keep being staunchly on the side of Ukraine and NATO helping them, this is not something I like to see.

They are looking at short term benefits, understandably. I may be naive, but still believe they can drive the Russians out with more conventional weapons. The fact that they seemingly don't think so is actually worrying.

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

I'm actually really confused. This is the United States we're talking about. They have a military budget greater than, what, the next 10 largest combined? They couldn't figure out how to use a type of weapon that wouldn't cause an international incident and draw condemnation from their closest allies?

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

yeah, it really is a mystery

like if we really had to send weapons, there are so many more that exist that won't cause unfathomably horrific damage that is so horrific that like nearly half of the fucking world considers them warcrimes

like it's fucking horrid that Russia's using them, but like what the hell is wrong with the US to think "hey, we'll use it too"

(but then again, the US and Russia did refuse to sign the CCM)

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By this logic literally anything is justified if it stops Russia.

Shortsighted.

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

Chemicals! Biologics! Nukes! Suicide Bombers! Targeting children!

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did the US commit a genocide when they invaded Afghanistan?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well yeah but we don't talk about that.

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

We just talk about the genocides committed by the baddies.