Maybe a hot take here but if you're going to engage in a war, whether directly or by supporting an ally with money and supplies, you don't half-ass it. You don't give your ally just enough bullets and fuel to get into the thick of it but leave them hanging when they need to keep going. Whether or not you support the US aiding Ukraine, you have to understand that once that support is given the strategically correct thing to do is to see it through. From the position that we are already engaged in supporting Ukraine, the continuation of that support with the goal of winning is itself justification enough to match the ante in response to your opponent raising it.
A number of factors would make that different. For example if we reached a point where our support started to become detrimental to our readiness to defend ourselves (which, despite arguments from the far right to the contrary, we are not remotely close to doing). Or if Ukraine showed a reapted track record of attacking civilians with our munitions. Or if the war was a losing or lost prospect or this was an escalation on Ukraine's side. But none of those things are the case. Ukraine has not gone out of their way to attack civilians and has in fact fought essentially exclusively a defensive war, they are doing quite well at it and still control their own fates, and Russia escalated to cluster munitions first. This is only a response in kind. With all those factors taken into account, the decision to provide these munitions is justified simply by the fact that they make Ukraine's odds of winning, and winning sooner, better. If Ukraine starts bombing civilians with them then we can discuss whether or not it was the right thing to do. But their track record so far suggests they have no intention of flipping this to an offensive war. Whatever Russian sites they attack on Russian soil can be assumed to be military targets that pose a direct threat to Ukraine and nothing more until proven otherwise.
How about fuck Russia.
given how they're practically used it's not particularly likely that cluster munitions are going to disproportionately harm Russians―essentially by design (and not dissimilar to the mining Russia is doing in parts of Ukraine), cluster munitions can't and don't work like that―so i think if you lean on that to justify this that's a pretty weak justification.
How about you let Ukrainians decide how best to defend their homes?
i don't think Ukraine should carte blanche do things i would consider bad and harmful just because they're unambiguously the good guys. cluster munitions have clear drawbacks and are clearly harmful to people who aren't Russians and aren't combatants when used, and i don't think countries should kill civilians and people who haven't done anything wrong just because it maybe potentially will slightly expedite a war that's now been going on for almost ten years. that's a good way to end up concluding war crimes are justified because they're happening to the "wrong" people.
I think there is a similar moral calculus here to that in WWII with decisions to bomb urban areas. Once you have been attacked and find yourself in an existential struggle, use of weapons becomes a question of the scope of innocent life lost versus the likelihood that lives will be saved.
In this case I think it is understandable that people are uneasy about the use of cluster munitions. The risks are well known but the benefits here seem … less so. That take may be wrong, but the point is that people have a right to feel queasy about the situation.
Not sure WWII is the best model for moral calculus: invade Japan killing 500,000 to 1 million soldiers, or nuke 2 cities killing only 50,000... oops, over 200,000 innocent civilians.
I think it's been a long time since there's been a real winner in any war. All wars for several centuries already, seem to have been a lose-lose scenario except for some well positioned elites.
How about you let Ukrainians the Ukrainian bourgeoisie decide how best to defend their homes property and class interests?
LOL a tankie
Not a tankie. Hate tankies
Usually when an argument proceeds from crossing out what someone actually said and replacing it with what they did not say, it is going to be a staggeringly bad take.
Wouldn't be an issue if RUSSIA didn't start the war.
This is less about who started what, and more about who will keep dying from it for the next 20 years.
Imagine Ukraine retakes control over some territories using cluster bombs... now they end up with an unknown number of unexploded bomblets lying around Ukrainian territory.
Shut the fuck up you Russian sympathizer.
It’s also very likely that Ukraine will be using the cluster munitions to clear out minefields more than using them as an attacking/defensive weapon
It’s also very likely that Ukraine will be using the cluster munitions to clear out minefields more than using them as an attacking/defensive weapon
pretty much everyone says they're going to use these for good reasons that will not harm civilians and have purely military consequences―it never works out that way, and seldom is restricted to those uses once rubber hits the road. i'm not sure why we're assuming that this will be any different other than that the actor is sympathetic and we'd like to (incorrectly) assume their judgement is unimpeachable and infallible.
The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.
Minefields pose the same sort of risk to civilians, but I think it would be inappropriate to insist the Ukrainians can't use mines to defend themselves.
The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.
mmm, no, i don't think you can say this absolutely. if Pakistan is invaded by India tomorrow and they say they're going to nuke Delhi in response i'm still going to be against that even though i'm not directly affected and they'd be in the right to do that, legally, politically, and militarily speaking. wars are not fought in a vacuum. additionally, what can be justified on the aforementioned three grounds does not inherently map to what is morally justified, and in this case i think there are obvious alternatives which can be taken that are much less morally dubious.
That's not really the same thing.
If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves. Particularly because Russian troops also pose significant risks to Ukrainian civilians.
I would oppose Ukrainian use of cluster munitions in Russia, for the same reason I would oppose use of Pakistani nuclear weapons in India.
If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves.
if you change the hypothetical to "Delhi rebels tomorrow against BJP rule and Narendra Modi says he's going to nuke Delhi in response" i don't think the arithmetic changes just because now the people are from the same country and that country is "free to accept that risk for itself" of what such an action will do. the usage is bad full stop; the consequences are avoidable through not using them; there are less morally dubious alternatives available which will have the same net outcome. these are valid arguments with or without borders being considered.
And if you change it to "Delhi rebels threaten to detonate nuke in Delhi, Modi responds by dropping cluster munitions on rebels" then it's not so clear any more.
Ukrainian civilians are at risk no matter what happens. The ones who are ultimately responsible for deciding the fate of Ukrainians are Ukrainians themselves.
You may think you see a better option, but they don't have to agree with you.
You may think you see a better option, but they don’t have to agree with you.
nobody is saying they do; they will do as they will. but what they do isn't correct; it isn't correct because they do it and are the good guys; and people can be correct to oppose them for doing bad things―which i think this is―because doing a bad thing isn't mutually exclusive of being on the good side.
In this situation don't think it makes sense to oppose cluster munitions simply on principle.
I think it would be correct to oppose them only if using cluster bombs would cause more harm to Ukrainian civilians than the alternatives. I assume Ukrainian leaders would use similar criteria.
And since Ukrainians are actually at the front lines, they are the best informed and will suffer the most from an error of judgment. Under those circumstances, I am comfortable with trusting them to make the best decision either way.
It’s like everyone forgot about post vietnam stories where kids were getting blown to bits just running around being kids.
The other talking point seems to be the failure rates of the cluster munitions, but left by the wayside is the fact that they can dismantle them and use the charge within to detonate mines.
"given how they're practically used..."
You're assuming they will be used in the conventional way instead of, say, breaking out the submunitions to drop individually with drones.
You’re assuming they will be used in the conventional way instead of, say, breaking out the submunitions to drop individually with drones.
yes, because it's basically a guarantee they will be used in the conventional way even if they're also used for other purposes―the level of trust being assumed here of Ukraine is, respectfully, kind of silly given the extremely well established issues with any usage of these things and the nature of wars. things which "shouldn't" be used get used all the time.
and also: even in the best case scenario here, individually using them is basically a lateral move. the problem with cluster munitions is a very high rate of failure which given their size and number adds up massively over time relative to other munitions―individual usage doesn't really help that, it just slows the problem.
Point 1: Russia already used them in Ukrainian kindergartens and hospitals
Point 2: if Russia has an issue with this then they can try leaving. Honestly as far as I'm concerned they can have chemical weapons too, if Russia has an issue with that then they can try leaving.
They are using the cluster warheads to make small drone bombs
Nope. You are wrong!
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/21/us-congress-bans-cluster-bomb-exports
"new legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 11 permanently bans nearly all cluster bomb exports by the United States"
It seems that export of such wepons is illigal by US law.
The only exeption by that law will be un cluster bombs with less than 1% dud rate.
doesn't apply here, unfortunately. that law was waived by Biden as part of the process here, and has previously been waived by Trump in other circumstances:
A 2009 U.S. law bans exports of American cluster munitions with bomblet failure rates higher than 1%, which covers virtually all of the U.S. military stockpile. Biden waived prohibitions around the munitions, just as his predecessor Donald Trump did in 2021 to allow the export of cluster munitions technology to South Korea.
Is that even a legitimate thing to do? Shouldn't he seek congress aproval for that? It is a law after all.
It reminds me when Trump said he declassified all these documents he cought with just becaus he said so, but in reality he didn't go thought the official process to do so.
I might also be wrong but currently it seems to me Biden is breaking a US law.
If I recall the law itself allows the President to waive the restriction. So in effect exporting cluster munitions requires Presidential approval. Whereas the approval for export of weapons is generally delegated to others in the State Department.
Ok. If that is correct then my mistake. I guess I didn't get that detail from my initial source.
That makes me curious thought, who is being granted the approval from the president? Isn't the executive branch of the goverment who desides for the export in the first place?
I think this page here will help you out with all that kind of information:
Maybe a hot take here but if you're going to engage in a war, whether directly or by supporting an ally with money and supplies, you don't half-ass it. You don't give your ally just enough bullets and fuel to get into the thick of it but leave them hanging when they need to keep going. Whether or not you support the US aiding Ukraine, you have to understand that once that support is given the strategically correct thing to do is to see it through. From the position that we are already engaged in supporting Ukraine, the continuation of that support with the goal of winning is itself justification enough to match the ante in response to your opponent raising it.
A number of factors would make that different. For example if we reached a point where our support started to become detrimental to our readiness to defend ourselves (which, despite arguments from the far right to the contrary, we are not remotely close to doing). Or if Ukraine showed a reapted track record of attacking civilians with our munitions. Or if the war was a losing or lost prospect or this was an escalation on Ukraine's side. But none of those things are the case. Ukraine has not gone out of their way to attack civilians and has in fact fought essentially exclusively a defensive war, they are doing quite well at it and still control their own fates, and Russia escalated to cluster munitions first. This is only a response in kind. With all those factors taken into account, the decision to provide these munitions is justified simply by the fact that they make Ukraine's odds of winning, and winning sooner, better. If Ukraine starts bombing civilians with them then we can discuss whether or not it was the right thing to do. But their track record so far suggests they have no intention of flipping this to an offensive war. Whatever Russian sites they attack on Russian soil can be assumed to be military targets that pose a direct threat to Ukraine and nothing more until proven otherwise.
How about fuck Russia.
given how they're practically used it's not particularly likely that cluster munitions are going to disproportionately harm Russians―essentially by design (and not dissimilar to the mining Russia is doing in parts of Ukraine), cluster munitions can't and don't work like that―so i think if you lean on that to justify this that's a pretty weak justification.
How about you let Ukrainians decide how best to defend their homes?
i don't think Ukraine should carte blanche do things i would consider bad and harmful just because they're unambiguously the good guys. cluster munitions have clear drawbacks and are clearly harmful to people who aren't Russians and aren't combatants when used, and i don't think countries should kill civilians and people who haven't done anything wrong just because it maybe potentially will slightly expedite a war that's now been going on for almost ten years. that's a good way to end up concluding war crimes are justified because they're happening to the "wrong" people.
I think there is a similar moral calculus here to that in WWII with decisions to bomb urban areas. Once you have been attacked and find yourself in an existential struggle, use of weapons becomes a question of the scope of innocent life lost versus the likelihood that lives will be saved.
In this case I think it is understandable that people are uneasy about the use of cluster munitions. The risks are well known but the benefits here seem … less so. That take may be wrong, but the point is that people have a right to feel queasy about the situation.
Not sure WWII is the best model for moral calculus: invade Japan killing 500,000 to 1 million soldiers, or nuke 2 cities killing only
50,000... oops, over 200,000 innocent civilians.I think it's been a long time since there's been a real winner in any war. All wars for several centuries already, seem to have been a lose-lose scenario except for some well positioned elites.
How about you let
Ukrainiansthe Ukrainian bourgeoisie decide how best to defend theirhomesproperty and class interests?LOL a tankie
Not a tankie. Hate tankies
Usually when an argument proceeds from crossing out what someone actually said and replacing it with what they did not say, it is going to be a staggeringly bad take.
Wouldn't be an issue if RUSSIA didn't start the war.
This is less about who started what, and more about who will keep dying from it for the next 20 years.
Imagine Ukraine retakes control over some territories using cluster bombs... now they end up with an unknown number of unexploded bomblets lying around Ukrainian territory.
Shut the fuck up you Russian sympathizer.
It’s also very likely that Ukraine will be using the cluster munitions to clear out minefields more than using them as an attacking/defensive weapon
pretty much everyone says they're going to use these for good reasons that will not harm civilians and have purely military consequences―it never works out that way, and seldom is restricted to those uses once rubber hits the road. i'm not sure why we're assuming that this will be any different other than that the actor is sympathetic and we'd like to (incorrectly) assume their judgement is unimpeachable and infallible.
The people who should weigh the risks to Ukrainian civilians are Ukrainians themselves.
Minefields pose the same sort of risk to civilians, but I think it would be inappropriate to insist the Ukrainians can't use mines to defend themselves.
mmm, no, i don't think you can say this absolutely. if Pakistan is invaded by India tomorrow and they say they're going to nuke Delhi in response i'm still going to be against that even though i'm not directly affected and they'd be in the right to do that, legally, politically, and militarily speaking. wars are not fought in a vacuum. additionally, what can be justified on the aforementioned three grounds does not inherently map to what is morally justified, and in this case i think there are obvious alternatives which can be taken that are much less morally dubious.
That's not really the same thing.
If Ukrainians use cluster munitions, they are putting Ukrainian civilians at risk not Russian civilians. They are free to accept that risk for themselves. Particularly because Russian troops also pose significant risks to Ukrainian civilians.
I would oppose Ukrainian use of cluster munitions in Russia, for the same reason I would oppose use of Pakistani nuclear weapons in India.
if you change the hypothetical to "Delhi rebels tomorrow against BJP rule and Narendra Modi says he's going to nuke Delhi in response" i don't think the arithmetic changes just because now the people are from the same country and that country is "free to accept that risk for itself" of what such an action will do. the usage is bad full stop; the consequences are avoidable through not using them; there are less morally dubious alternatives available which will have the same net outcome. these are valid arguments with or without borders being considered.
And if you change it to "Delhi rebels threaten to detonate nuke in Delhi, Modi responds by dropping cluster munitions on rebels" then it's not so clear any more.
Ukrainian civilians are at risk no matter what happens. The ones who are ultimately responsible for deciding the fate of Ukrainians are Ukrainians themselves.
You may think you see a better option, but they don't have to agree with you.
nobody is saying they do; they will do as they will. but what they do isn't correct; it isn't correct because they do it and are the good guys; and people can be correct to oppose them for doing bad things―which i think this is―because doing a bad thing isn't mutually exclusive of being on the good side.
In this situation don't think it makes sense to oppose cluster munitions simply on principle.
I think it would be correct to oppose them only if using cluster bombs would cause more harm to Ukrainian civilians than the alternatives. I assume Ukrainian leaders would use similar criteria.
And since Ukrainians are actually at the front lines, they are the best informed and will suffer the most from an error of judgment. Under those circumstances, I am comfortable with trusting them to make the best decision either way.
It’s like everyone forgot about post vietnam stories where kids were getting blown to bits just running around being kids.
The other talking point seems to be the failure rates of the cluster munitions, but left by the wayside is the fact that they can dismantle them and use the charge within to detonate mines.
"given how they're practically used..."
You're assuming they will be used in the conventional way instead of, say, breaking out the submunitions to drop individually with drones.
yes, because it's basically a guarantee they will be used in the conventional way even if they're also used for other purposes―the level of trust being assumed here of Ukraine is, respectfully, kind of silly given the extremely well established issues with any usage of these things and the nature of wars. things which "shouldn't" be used get used all the time.
and also: even in the best case scenario here, individually using them is basically a lateral move. the problem with cluster munitions is a very high rate of failure which given their size and number adds up massively over time relative to other munitions―individual usage doesn't really help that, it just slows the problem.
Point 1: Russia already used them in Ukrainian kindergartens and hospitals
Point 2: if Russia has an issue with this then they can try leaving. Honestly as far as I'm concerned they can have chemical weapons too, if Russia has an issue with that then they can try leaving.
They are using the cluster warheads to make small drone bombs
Nope. You are wrong! https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/21/us-congress-bans-cluster-bomb-exports "new legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 11 permanently bans nearly all cluster bomb exports by the United States" It seems that export of such wepons is illigal by US law. The only exeption by that law will be un cluster bombs with less than 1% dud rate.
doesn't apply here, unfortunately. that law was waived by Biden as part of the process here, and has previously been waived by Trump in other circumstances:
Is that even a legitimate thing to do? Shouldn't he seek congress aproval for that? It is a law after all. It reminds me when Trump said he declassified all these documents he cought with just becaus he said so, but in reality he didn't go thought the official process to do so. I might also be wrong but currently it seems to me Biden is breaking a US law.
If I recall the law itself allows the President to waive the restriction. So in effect exporting cluster munitions requires Presidential approval. Whereas the approval for export of weapons is generally delegated to others in the State Department.
Ok. If that is correct then my mistake. I guess I didn't get that detail from my initial source. That makes me curious thought, who is being granted the approval from the president? Isn't the executive branch of the goverment who desides for the export in the first place?
I think this page here will help you out with all that kind of information:
https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade
It looks like the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs handle approvals in the State Department.