243
US Killed Children in Iran Using New Missile That Scatters Pellets Explosively (truthout.org)
submitted 6 months ago by [M] to c/news@lemmings.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 6 months ago (17 children)

The article implies that tungsten pellets are particularly bad, but they're actually a replacement for cluster bombs that could leave behind unexploded ordnance. Technology can't save civilians from a missile targeted at where they are, but at least these missiles don't also endanger people entering the area in the future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    Cluster bombs are already a war crime because they by default will hit civilians, aren’t they? So of course we developed better ones, so we can be environmentally friendly while we kill civilians!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (8 children)

    Targeting civilians is a war crime no matter the weapons platform used.

    The use of cluster munitions is not illegal, as none of the parties here are signatories to the international treaties prohibiting their use.

    They are designed as anti-material weapons, whereas a regular cruise or ballistic missile might blow up a building, these are meant to destroy equipment and kill personnel over a wider area.

    Their negative connotations come from the weapons mechanism which is releasing miniature bomblets over the targeted area. Some of which have been known to fail to detonate immediately, and subsequently kill or maime civilians who come across them later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    They are designed as anti-material weapons

    That is only one of their purposes.

    These weapons are designed for use against massed formations of troops and armor or broad targets

    You are a whitewasher of war crimes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    Any reason why you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of that sentence, where I talked about their other use as anti-personnel weapons...?

    Or what about my opening sentence where I said that targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter the weapon used?

    You're not a serious person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    You start with: "They are designed as anti-material weapons"
    You did mention personnel, as a side-note at best while they are primarily used and designed against personnel.

    If not whitewashing, it certainly is minimizing.
    As if it's some unfortunate side-effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    They were designed during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.

    The Soviets were primarily a land power and their way of war was mass formation of tanks followed closely by mass formations of troops.

    I understand perfectly well why much the world has signed on to the treaties banning them, but I also know what they were designed to do, and it wasn't to commit war crimes.

    It just so happens, they're awfully good at it, similar to landmines.

    But putting aside that miniature history lesson, my comment was matter of fact. It was not endorsing their use, much less minimizing their impact on civilian populations, which I also called attention to.

    You skimmed a comment, saw what you wanted to see, and then tried to attack me based on your erroneous interpretation of said comment.

    Like I said, you're not a serious person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
    I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
    Not now, not during the cold war.
    The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
    who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn't have?

    Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
    It's like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren't designed to kill people because that wasn't Nobel's intent.
    You made clear you don't endorse their use, not denying that.
    While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
    That is all.
    Bye serious person

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    This is just an upgraded HIMARS

    ATACMS on the M142 HIMARS launcher, offering superior range (>500 km vs. 300 km), higher accuracy, and double the loadout (two missiles per pod)

    The higher accuracy would mean that the school was targeted directly.
    And yes, the article calls it "untested" to make it sound worse but they definitely test those things before attacking people with them. It's not tested in battle...

    I'm with you, tungsten cubes are definitely less evil than cluster bombs... But any weapon used to target a school is evil. (even if negligently).

    When Ukraine uses HIMARS to defend themselves from Russia, that's not evil.

    What also really sucks, for me personally, is I did want the UN to intervene in Iran, back when they were machine gunning protestors and Obama was president... Now we have kleptomaniac Donny invading them to steal their oil and willy nilly blowing up schools instead... It's like when you make a wish to a trickster genie and they give you some cursed version of what you asked for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent