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

World News

32355 readers
272 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tilted@programming.dev 28 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Two things:

  1. Russia is using cluster munitions
  2. Russia started the war
[–] Dazza@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (11 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] 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.

[–] 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.

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

Imagine nuking yourself to own the Russians lol

[–] 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 (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (5 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 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 (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 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."

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ape_arms@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Is there any legitimacy to the claims that the Ukrainians want to disassemble these munitions to use as drone bombs? I suppose time will tell and no assurances have been made that this is the case.

[–] maporita@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

The big advantage of these weapons for Ukraine is that they can be fired directly from the western -suupplied Howitzers and HIMARS they already have without needing modification. Ukraine's problem is that they are running out of shells. Cluster munitions go further since they are area weapons.

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

There is none. It's liberal propaganda.

load more comments
view more: next ›