this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
38 points (97.5% liked)

World News

32079 readers
870 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Their country, their choice, their responsibility to clean up afterwards.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia has clusterbomed and mined it anyway so the cleanup needed either way. May as well level the playing field.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

2 wrongs don't make a right. This will only end up with more duds scattered across the land.

They're free to use them but they'll have to clean up quickly and efficiently, and even then I think there will still be the odd dud. I'm sure civilians will be thankful that there's an eye for an eye.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually it's technically a part of Russia now. Hope they still help clean up in the case they lose the war. Though it is also the choice of the USA/NATO who provided those munitions in the first place. They'll definitely also help clean up, right guys?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah after they sell all their land to foreign interests

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought we were against cluster bombs? maybe only in southeast asia?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For europe, yes, for America, Ukraine, Russia and more. Not at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

But what was banned was the use of incendiary devices. Which russia used against a city with civilians.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've searched through a few of the countries that didn't sign the convention and they either manufacture or have bought large stocks of cluster bombs (India, Argentina, US, and Brazil). The trend seems self evident.

I still don't get why we are trying to justify unloading our backlog of dangerous cluster bombs onto Ukraine soil. Blood is on the hands of the lobbyists that wanted to clear out the warehouses full of cluster bombs. We can make more munitions that we have been sending, which will be less of a hazard to Ukrainian farmers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of the many reasons, one is that they are highly effective at killing entreched infantry, which is the majority of the entire frontline. Artillary rounds that explode on impact or fragment in the air are safer for whoever inherits the land, but it take many more times the amount of those rounds to accomplish the same saturation as cluster munitions. This is a sad fact.
You're right though, if Russian farmers get the land they will be bothered by both sides cluster bomblets, probably killed. Ukrainian farmers might be happy to have the land at all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ukrainian farmers will be happy to have land that will kill them? This self gas lighting is insane. How about taking off a billion off the lend lease debt everytime a Ukranian dies from unexploded cluster bombs then?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Big Bada-boom.

load more comments
view more: next ›