The immediate effect will be to knock away much of the moral ground Washington sits on in this war.
Seems like a bad take. Making Ukraine whole is the greater moral priority.
Per the article, Russia and Ukraine have already been using cluster munitions with a 40% dud rate (unexploded ordinance being picked up by children being the major concern here) while the US cluster munitions under discussion have a 3% dud rate. These are not the same.
Yes it sucks that these will all have to be cleaned up afterwards, and there is a risk that some will be missed. But this isn't making the problem substantially worse than it already was, and Ukraine needs these for the success of its defense.
I thought the whole point of not using things like cluster munitions or land mines was that even with clearing attempts, some will inevitably stick around after the war and civilians will find them. So introducing either weapon to an area they weren’t previously deployed in is indeed a terrible thing to have to consider. But it also sounds like both Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster munitions and land mines all over the place since the start of the war, so this seems like an argument about closing the barn door after the horse got out last year. Sure, maybe that one more bomblet will be the one that claims yet another life in this tragedy, but the bomb that dropped it may also save the lives of Ukrainian soldiers. This really doesn’t seem like a clear cut moral problem at this point.
Russian cluster munitions reportedly have a “dud rate” of 40%, meaning large numbers remain a hazard on the ground, whereas the average dud rate is believed to be close to 20%. The Pentagon estimates its own cluster bomblets have a dud rate of less than 3%.
The article also mentions that Ukraine and Russia are both already using cluster ammunition. I don’t know much about it, and even with all of that considered it does sound like a risky decision, however it is war and Ukraine is fighting for their sovereignty. Hopefully it can help end this war expeditiously.
I see that argument and I want Ukraine to win quickly too. But if you follow that logic then there are lots of other weapons we could be sending them. I find it hard to make a case for sending them cluster bombs that wouldn't apply just as well to sending mustard gas, nerve agent or tactical nuclear weapons - the use (or even possession) of any of which could improve the effectiveness of Ukraine's defenders too. But the point about all of these weapons - including cluster bombs - is that civilised societies have decided that certain weapons that cause mass death and destruction are not appropriate to use in conflict no matter the scenario.
Globally, the victims of cluster bombs are disproportionately civilians, with a huge proportion being children. All the fighting currently is happening in Ukraine so it's Ukrainian children who are going to be getting blown up by these for decades to come after the war has ended.
I don't think that follows at all actually. Every weapon has a balance of harm against benefit, if you outlaw cluster bombs why not mines? Why not grenades, or regular artillery? The reason is because the defensive value outweighs the potential harm. I think it's fairly clear that this is the case for cluster bombs too, while it is not for mustard gas.
The US keeps them because the alternative would cost significant capability. That would need to be made up for with other weapons. Politics and appearance costs impact things too, and for nations that could never stand a chance against russia/China without US help there is a much stronger argument for earning points by outlawing them.
The greatest risk to Ukrainian children is the Russian invasion, and the odds of Ukraine protecting them from that are far greater given these new munitions.
It's all on the same spectrum. Countries who don't need mines/cluster bombs, etc. as badly tend to outlaw them. It's not just a simple good/bad morality question, it's a balance of practicalities and minimising harm. Some countries don't even have a military, and they are either among the few that don't need them (because they lean on bigger friendly nations), or they are extinct.
Nuclear weapon MAD has probably saved more people from war than any other invention, and no one would argue that the destruction they cause
Add comment