Whoever says or implies at this late stage of russian atrocities that cluster bombs for Ukraine are "controversial" - fuck yourself gently with a rusted chainsaw.

EDIT: typo (half the time I try and type "of", it comes out as "if")

[–] Muntjac@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those things being evil does not make cluster bombs less evil.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those things being evil does not make cluster bombs less evil.

Russia approves using cluster bombs, so it's fine to use them against Russia.

[–] Muntjac@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I disagree. The trouble with cluster bombs (as with landmines) is that they are indiscriminate killers. Sure, they may kill some Russian soldiers now, but the ones that don't explode (a huge minority of them) will remain in the ground until an innocent Ukrainian child gets blown up years from now.

It's fine to cheer on the 'killing Russian soldiers' part, but when it comes to cluster bombs that comes hand in hand with 'killing innocent civilians, years after the conflict ends', which is less okay.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Unlike the lifetime's worth of land mines that are already there? It's a drop in the water at this point, and I think Ukraine has the right to decide whether or not they use them on their own territory, especially considering the other option may very well be allowing Russians to come kill the civilian population with cluster munitions, something they are already actively doing.

[–] bloopernova@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

I think that these newer cluster munitions deactivate after a set period.

[–] wizzor@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would ve against using this weapon, if the Russians had not already used them extensively. Clearing out all of the unexploded ones is going to take decades...

Still, glad to see the political will to support Ukraine is still there!

[–] forpeace@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

I hate war but the Ukrainians deserve support defending themselves.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So what's the exact advantage of a cluster munition in this circumstance?

[+] skillissuer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey, thanks for writing this.

unitary airburst shells offer similar capability, but these are rather uncommon for some reason

Really? I thought that was the standard type of shell. Do the typical unitary shells detonate on impact with the ground, then?

Ukrainian drone operators are also using single submunitions, presumably from cluster bombs, as drone dropped ammunition (i’ve seen at least three separate videos of this). these things are well suited for this role and are used in vastly smaller numbers minimizing UXO issues in the future

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered that. And seeing as some of these were at end of life anyway it actually makes sense as an alternative to an ordinary infantry grenade.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

one launch, wider area, more damage, more dead orcs

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's also more expensive (which I guess is our problem, not the Ukrainian's) and if covering area is the goal normal high explosive shells work pretty well.

I'm pretty sure there's more to say than that. Bigger isn't necessarily better.

[–] SaltMeadow@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s also more expensive (which I guess is our problem, not the Ukrainian’s)

The US is expected to provide Dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) which, according to the Wikipedia article

as of 2014 many were reaching the end of their useful life and required disposal

So like many weapon donations (see Storm Shaddow) they are already paid for, end of life weapons that were unlikely to be used in anger.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Okay, yeah, so definitely not an issue here.

[–] SaltMeadow@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

if covering area is the goal normal high explosive shells work pretty well.

For example, the typical howitzer-launched cluster munition, the most numerous and, arguably, most important of U.S. cluster munitions, can equal the lethal effectiveness of 15 high-explosive (HE) howitzer shells. The advantages of such a munition are obvious.

That website also has a set of images showing cluster vs. HE vs. airburst.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

That's helpful, thanks!

[–] anon_cloud@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

Jeez this war is so deadly.

[–] EvilCartyen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While it may have its military use, this type of munition will main and kill Ukrainian children for decades after the war.

[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Found this in another forum, seems relevant.

The weapon involved is the CBU-97 Sensor-Fused Weapon, which was designed to stop invading Soviet tank columns and was used a handful of times in the invasion of Iraq. It is a winged, unpowered canister that is designed to attack enemy vehicles by flying low over them and ejecting ten sub-munitions.

The sub-munitions each have small parachutes and infrared sensors that detect enemy vehicles and launch four small hockey puck shaped charges that explode immediately above the top of their targets. In effect, with a single CBU-97, a large area can be attacked so as to destroy most or all of enemy vehicle targets in an area of about fifteen acres.

So, what is so bad about the CBU-97? Cluster bombs are controversial because the Soviets used to drop them on Afghan civilians, often with the small bomblets made to look like toys so as to attack children. Otherwise, made to be hard to detect, the Soviet bomblets acted like small mines and could linger for years so as to make Afghan trails and agricultural fields too dangerous to use.

The CBU-97 is not such a weapon, but in reputation it suffers from the controversy over cluster bombs. And yes, I see little reason not to supply it to Ukraine. In effect, the Ukrainians could use them to clear large swaths of the battle space of Russian tanks and other fighting vehicles.

[–] EpicFailGuy@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Uniquitous

@Brunbrun6766 @EvilCartyen

Source? I was under the impression that our cluster munitions came with a timed fuse where they would self destruct if they didn't find a target after a certain amount of time.

[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I think if you check the wikipedia page or just google for CBU-97 you'll find a wealth of info. More than I can summarize here, but it's far from being a dumb bomb on a timer.

[–] SpaceCadet2000@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

That goes for any unexploded ordnance, we are still cleaning up regular unexploded shells from World War 1 more than 100 years after the fact and every now and then it still claims a victim.

It sucks, but you have to offset that against the benefit. The longer the Russians occupy parts of Ukraine, the more atrocities they are able to commit against civilians (cf. Bucha, Irpin, Izium, Kherson,...). Also when people talk about the civilian casualties, they always forget that the bulk of the Ukrainian soldiers were civilians just over a year ago, and they would love nothing more than to return to a peaceful civilian life. Their lives are valuable as well and should be protected too.

If cluster munitions helps them to get rid of the Russians faster and with a lot less casualties, it is a trade off we should make.

[–] Shit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Good

load more comments