Projection at its finest; please proceed.
Well said. And for those bloviators:
Then he’s a fool. Sorry, but if he felt cluster munitions were more horrible than tacnukes, he was nuts. And the munitions we’re talking about today aren’t those munitions, either. UXO rates are much, much lower, precision guidance is much better. It’s still not a weapon you want to need… but like most weapons, when you decide you do need it, it’s a hell of a lot better to have it.
The humanitarian consideration isn’t about the Russians, it’s about the Ukrainians who have to live there afterwards. UXO’s a long-term problem that even the US (maybe especially the US) deals with:
When my dad was in the Navy, we’d spend days on the beach at Dam Neck, and there were signs up, nice and large, reading ‘DANGER: UNEXPLODED MINES’. By the early '80s, they were pretty sure they’d gotten them all, or the beach wouldn’t have been open to families, but as you can see from the article… there’s still… well… truckloads of this shit out there at just that one beach.
That said, as @Paracelsus has rightfully pointed out, our UXO rate has gotten pretty good. These are not the cluster bombs that were being considered for use against the Warsaw Pact in the 1970s-80s. And the first requirement to securing the peace for Ukrainian civilians is to ensure there will be Ukrainian civilians… which means Russia has to lose, and it has to lose on Ukraine’s terms.
This. Absolutely this.
Well, the issue is that UXO from cluster bombs basically creates its own minefield, at the same time. But again: low UXO rate these days, esp. compared to Russian ordnance.
Sure, but the problem is: they vote, too.
It also leaves out the fact that Ukraine has already demonstrated a propensity for taking existing cluster munitions they have, and repurposing the bomblets for drone use. 1 cluster bomb could be a dozen drone strikes or more.
2 Likes
He was no fool. I was reciting important history 1981-82. But I note you don’t respect what you don’t know.
As someone who lived the military life at Naval Station Norfolk in 1981-82, I absolutely respect it.
And he was a fool. Cluster munitions in the 80s were, yes, terrible, nasty weapons. They were basically a crap-shoot between ‘fire a shotgun’ and ‘lay down a minefield’, depending on whether the bomblets went off. They were still not even close to the monstrosity of tactical nuclear weapons. And this is something a fighter pilot, who would have been briefed on the over-the-horizon air-launch capability of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles fired from Tu-16 and Tu-22 bombers would have been aware of.
Oh gee thank you for your enlightenment. If only he knew.
You tell me what’s worse: a single munition that, when fired, can blow up an area, killing a significant percentage of the civilians present, and leave you needing to comb through it after to search for hidden dangers that can then be detonated and/or removed…
or a single munition that, when fired, blows up an area, kills pretty much all of the civilians present in the immediate area, delivers toxic levels of radiation to those further away, scars yet more for life with burns from the heat flash, poisons the air that’s moving through so it kills people downwind, poisons any water flowing through the area to kill people downstream, and will render that area toxic to a degree where anyone moving through the area will die an agonizing death after weeks or months of suffering.
Which one of those is worse as a single munition?
Cluster bombs were never the preferred tool for surgical-strike capabilities. They were (and are) area-denial munitions, doctrinally-used to destroy fortifications and sites like airfields. Tactical nuclear weapons, doctrinally, were intended to be ‘sure, let’s use this to hit this focused target, like a command center in a hostile city’. And if you don’t think they’d have been used in cities, you’re not paying attention. Russia’s current use of cruise missile strikes on civilian medical and electrical infrastructure, and basically ‘let’s see what we hit in these major cities’ is not a functional change from the USSR’s doctrinal use of power against civilians that saw tanks roll into city streets in eastern Europe in the 60s.
But you keep on telling me how I’m the one who doesn’t know things on this topic.
3 Likes
Yes, as a matter of fact. With all due respect, as intelligent, well-read, educated and experienced as you are, you don’t respect what you don’t know. This is useful information going forward, as it was earlier. I will dignify no more. Good day.
No, I don’t respect someone using ‘a buddy of mine told me this 40 years ago therefore it is gospel truth and I will make assumptions about your lived experience and knowledge to insult you while I have no actual knowledge of these things, myself’.
You have not the slightest idea who I am, who my lifelong roommate / best friend of decades, or who you are, although you sure have revealed yourself here. Bless your heart.
No, I don’t. And I don’t presume to. I do know what you’ve told me, though:
a) your knowledge of this topic comes from a friend who was a fighter pilot 40 years ago, not personal experience
b) your friend apparently had no issue with the fact that we had air-launched tactical nuclear weapons like the AGM-86 and AIM-54 (which yes, was nuclear-tipped when needed, even if there was no public acknowledgment), but felt cluster munitions were a bridge too far.
This tells me the two things I have stated: That you don’t have your own knowledge of this topic, and that your friend, who left the service because of the less dangerous munitions being developed for defending West German lives, was a fool.
So, you go ahead and be butt-hurt about me making clear the meaning of your own statements, and the next time you want to tell me to fuck off, do it honestly instead of in the southern bullshit ‘we all know what this means but I care more about appearances than truth’ way, k?
Thank you again for proving you don’t respect what you don’t know. But feel free to further proceed.
That the United States of America didn’t sign on to the cluster ban makes all of this moot.
We reserved the right to use these weapons and are exercising that right.
This has nothing to do with NBC weapons. It is not escalation.
Morality has no play when you’re blowing people up.
1 Like
The Geneva Conventions would like a word. We have seen that exact rationale for the work of the most evil regimes to exist.
Oh wait - sorry. What could the Geneva Conventions possibly know compared to you?
The United States of America did not sign that deal in 2010, I forget who was precedent then.
That is what I know.
Aren’t we still finding unexploded ordinance
from bomb test sites, that date back to
WWII?
1 Like
Europe keeps finding UXO from WWII and even WWI. I would call them more “bomb sites” than “test sites.”
Russian assholes should be used for mine clearing and finding unexploded cluster bomb(lets).
And there are lots of Russian assholes, many of them already in Ukraine.
Cluster bombs will help kill and frighten Russian assholes. This is a good thing.
There will also always be collateral damage. C’est la guerre.
As soon as enough Russians start dying, they will start leaving.
So the sooner they start dying in much larger quantities, the better.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t actually answer my question.