this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
338 points (94.9% liked)

News

22987 readers
3697 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 67 points 7 months ago (10 children)

The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.

Oh, Christ. While I appreciate looking for unorthodox solutions, that's a court case tugging at its chain.

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Yeah; reading the article it would seem "arguably legal" is probably a lot more accurate than "perfectly legal"

Now, there is a caveat in the EDA law. All weapons must be given away “as is, where is.” In other words, the U.S. government legally can’t pay for shipping.

But another caveat is that any weapons in Germany are excluded from this rule. Biden could ship those DPICMs to Germany aboard a few sealift ships and then declare them as excess to need before having the U.S. Army drop them off somewhere the Ukrainian armed forces would have no trouble retrieving them.

I mean, you can call this legal but when you're paying to ship equipment you've clearly decided is excess before declaring it "excess" in an attempt to get around the clear intent of the law...

Basically this comes down to: [The Executive Branch could use an arguably legal method to send to Ukraine 4 million 25 to 50 year old cluster shells that have been determined to be unreliable and unsafe]

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Chemical@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why worry? Trump has made it perfectly clear that the president can apparently do whatever the hell they want to and good luck at stopping them. I believe Biden should take the same liberties. Perhaps I’ve just lost faith in the system.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Probably should wait and see if SCOTUS agrees with Trump on that before jumping the gun.

Afterward? Yeah, Biden should do whatever the fuck he wants. And he had better.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 7 points 7 months ago (4 children)

People doing good things shouldn't wait to find out if shitty people doing malicious things are told no. Just do the right thing already, face the consequences later. That's what the shitty people do, and they usually get away with it.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

You will bleed integrity with every one of those shortcuts you take. You say "let's skip it and just do the right thing". What can you not justify with that? You can excuse genocides, coups, war crimes. I don't just have a problem with Trump's motivations, but also his means. That approach, always correlated with populism, is foolish and always, always tends to oppression.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You all are aware that the subversion of the constitutional state for what you deem to.be good reasons will end in the same weakening of said state no matter who did it, right?

Don't lose track of what's at stake by getting blinded by bipartisan feuds. You can't fight the enemies of law, oder and democracy by undermining law, order and democracy. That is literally the only thing one can learn from the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm not from the USA so I don't have a dog in this fight but this seems like a mad approach to me. Think beyond the immediate short term.

In your place I'd be standing up for and strengthening your institutions and conventions; they aren't perfect but the checks and balances are the only thing holding back people like Trump. If you don't abide by the rules either that becomes the new normal and Trump-like figures will become commonplace and no longer be seen as an aberration.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

I'm not from the US either, but I have heard of Project 2025. If Republicans actually implement what's in it, whatever checks and balances were left will go right out the window.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Could you imagine Republicans letting that happen if there was any way they could stop it? I'm guessing they would try every possible avenue to stop it.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Presumably they'd get the manufacturers to sue for the damage to their ability to set prices when the president is literally saying that their shit is worth nothing.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

From the article:

The U.S. Army years ago determined that these DPICMs—produced in large quantities between the 1970s and 1990s—are unreliable and unsafe, as any particular submunition has up to a 14-percent chance of being a dud.

The Army around 2017 declared a requirement for a new cluster shell with a one-percent dud rate. “Rounds now in the U.S. stockpile do not meet the Office of the Secretary of Defense's goal,” wrote Peter Burke, then the service’s top ammunition manager.

Their shit is worth nothing. It's not even being manufactured any more.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, if Biden sends them a bunch of "free" shells and this ridiculous loophole is closed I'd call that getting two birds stoned at once.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Especially since it's now known. Close that shit before Herr Cheeto has the chance to do that with arms to Russia.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I hope ukraine can send them to russia soon. For free and completely legal.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (33 children)

So the author proposes using not one but two legally questionable tactics to send Ukraine artillery shells that are actually worse than useless!?!

As the article correctly notes the US quit using those M483A1 and M864 DPICM rounds because of their high failure rate. If Ukraine were to fire even 2,000 of these per day that means there would be 280 (or more) unexploded bomblets lying on the ground just waiting for a unsuspecting soldier or child to wander by and set it off.

It gets mind bogglingly worse the longer they are used too, as after just a year there would be over 100,000 of the damn things laying around!

So no, they shouldn't be used anywhere...unless you want to spend the next hundred years dealing with the unexploded ordinance littering your terrain!

Republicans need to STFU and get back to funding the real stuff. THAT is the answer, not legal chicanery to send shit ordinance.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago (3 children)

What a nonsense take.

For a start: The orcs are using cluster munitions since the start of the war, and their dud-rate is much higher.

Second: Ukraine has requested the DPICM munitions already and has used the ones they received to great effect. Especially against the meat wave attacks they work very well.

Third: If the choice is between no munitions or (in the opinion of non-warfighters) shitty munitions, ask the Ukrainians what they prefer, but I'll assure you they will be loading DPICM's.

The US quitting these munitions has much to do with the type of warfare they engaged in over the past decades, the amount of civilian casualties when using the cluster munitions in civilian centers is just unacceptable. But at a trench front in a positional war, these limitations do not apply.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NIB@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ukraine atm has millions if not tens of millions of mines all over the place. Adding a few hundred or thousand bomblets wouldnt make things measurably worse.

Many of these wont even be used as artillery shells, they will just strip them and ducktape the bomblets on fov drones.

Both sides have been extensively using mines and cluster munitions, because they are extremely effective. Sending Ukraine extra ammunition will save countless ukranian lives.

After the war, both sides will have a strong incentive to remove mines. Mines are often an issue for poorer countries, who dont have the funds to clear them out. Of course even in Ukraine there will be incidents decades later, but they should be comparatively low(to the amount of mines used).

Ultimately, the issue with cluster munitions is mostly about conflicts that dont already have millions of mines, because failed bomblets can act like mines. Thats less of an issue in Ukraine, because it already has millions of mines, acting like mines.

PS Russian cluster munition are terribly unreliable, much more than even old nato ones

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] PeckerBrown@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Good. Fuck the GOP, and fuck Putin.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Heavybell@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

The shells have cute little yellow hats :)

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This article's title reads like clickbait

[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah, because it is. The actual munitions they theorise could be sent to Ukraine are highly unreliable cluster munitions that Ukraine is already condemning the use of because of their danger to civilians during rebuilding efforts thanks to their insanely high dud rate.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm against war and warfare in every case, but since this war is well underway, I have no issue with Joe Biden legally sending millions of artillery shells to Ukraine; I have to believe that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that Russia does not prevail in their horrific genocidal global takeover.

[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To be clear, then, you're not against war and warfare "in every case".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theodewere@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago

hell yeah Joe, do it let's gooooo

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Didn't Reagan try something like this back in the 80s, under his friend Oliver North?

[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah I get the point of the article but maybe it isn't a good thing that the president can send anyone a bunch of weapons without oversight

And there it is:

Forbes recommending Biden sends Ukraine a bunch of potentially faulty ammunition that are known to make rehabilitation of warzones insanely difficult because of the civilian risk posed by dud cluster munitions.

The same kind of munitions the west condemns being used by Russia against Ukraine for those above reasons.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (5 children)

The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.

And another president (guess who?) could in theory do the same thing to provide the same thing to Russia, which is probably why he hasn't done it.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If Biden does it now, the conservative SCOTUS would likely rule against him, as they are wont to do. That would actually be beneficial in stopping a future potential president from doing the same for Russia.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

Nah, a future president would give the weapons to Russia and the SCOTUS would rule "it's totally different this time somehow."

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

What would stop "another president" from doing it anyway, regardless of what Biden did or didn't do?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] snooggums@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The hypothetical person will do it whether Joe does it first or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›