FunkMiller
Member
NGL, I'm pretty disgusted that the Americans will give the Ukrainians this nasty fucking weapon that kills far more civilians than it does soldiers, but won't commit to ATACMS which could end the fucking war.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter AfricanKing
- Start date
- News NSFW
- Status
NGL, I'm pretty disgusted that the Americans will give the Ukrainians this nasty fucking weapon that kills far more civilians than it does soldiers, but won't commit to ATACMS which could end the fucking war.
Chiggs
Gold Member
I'm not going to argue about the cluster stuff because I agree with you, but whatever concerns I had about those weapons being delivered are greatly outweighed by the extensive landmining that Russia has carried out in East Ukraine.
BlackTron
Member
Hard to argue with this. I'm glad they have any weapons, but it's kicking the can down the road, with a less responsible weapon. It would be less upsetting, if they had both...or EVERYTHING.
Daneel Elijah
Member
Outside of religion wich is probably the first reason why I am against this, this man survived(I hope) a war. In WW1 a lot of soldiers got the same kind of wounds and with the chemical weapons of their time it could be argued that some got a lot worse, with pain that lasted for their whole lives. We still got in France a rule that make soldiers wounded in war first in line for a place in autobus ,trains... for a reason. Would I want to stop if I was in his place? Maybe. But if he have the strength I hope that he will be able to continue living. And the help that he can have now is a lot better than what people got in the past, with hopes of a better future of course.
FunkMiller
Member
I hold the US to a higher standard than the Russian scum. Giving them cluster bombs is just plain wrong, when there are far, far more effective weapons that could be handed over, if not for the intransigence of the administration.
BlackTron
Member
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
-US cluster munitions have a much lower failure rate than Russian cluster munitions
-Their use will be better tracked for post-war cleanup/mitigation efforts
-There’s no fool-proof method of waging war without unintended civilian consequences
-War fucking sucks. Don’t start wars.
-Their use will be better tracked for post-war cleanup/mitigation efforts
-There’s no fool-proof method of waging war without unintended civilian consequences
-War fucking sucks. Don’t start wars.
Forsete
Member
Yes I think the failure rate is around 2.5% (going from memory of the press briefing when the cluster ammo was announced ). Probably a lot better compared to the Soviet shit Russia and Ukraine have used.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, and that's not nothing. It's reasonable to assume civilians will be killed/have their limbs blown off/be maimed by these, even with all the mitigation efforts. The question is: is this doing less harm than the alternative, which is ceding territory to genocidal maniacs intent on torturing, raping, mutilating, and executing the same civilian population?
It's not an easy call for the people making it, but I think the answer is "yes." And the ultimate responsibility for the deployment of such weapons still lies with Vladimir Putin, may he rot in hell.
BlackTron
Member
Are you sure the alternative is ceding territory though? And not just providing a different and more precise, but poignant weapon? Which they might not want to do, because we can't move past foreplay?
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
No, I’m not. There’s a level of trust that, currently, there are adults making decisions with much more information than I’m privy to making these calls. They could be right or wrong, I don’t know. But so far, Kyiv stands, Ukraine is regaining territory, and nobody has been nuked, so I’m not going to play armchair general over here.
Ironbunny
Member
The whole point of cluster ammunation is to defend against the human wave tactic of ruZZia and their overpowering amount of men. Its a cheap and good way to do that with the different weapon systems that Ukraine has. More precise weapon might work if you have loads of them but with those the price of a single ammunation goes up and they are much more restricted when it comes to supply and use case. From my view no weapon system we can give to Ukraine should be under a ban of use. Not counting nuclear, but if ruZZia is defeated I think Ukraine should either get even those or just join Nato.
Last edited:
Patrick S.
Banned
We need cluster ammunition for restoring order at our public swimming pools here in Germany.
BlackTron
Member
I can accept that point, and I wont deny its effectiveness at the job it is intended to do. To be straight, I'm not on an anti-cluster crusade here -but I find FunkMiller's point in good reasoning and some of the points being used to debunk it aren't that great.
6502
Member
They are so casual at the end. I expected them to jump in and gtfo before artillery zeroes in...
Liljagare
Member
Russia's economy has gone from bad to worse in a matter of months. Here's where the country is feeling pain the most.
From plunging car sales to a collapse in Moscow's current-account balance, there's no denying that Russia is suffering severe economic damage.
markets.businessinsider.com
Lunarorbit
Member
Me too. Stop fucking around with your gun at the door. Then he gets outta the way and no one is bothered
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
I find it very odd that in 2023 there isn't dozens of videos a day from this war. It almost seems like information is being suppressed.
Between drones, gopros and cell phones, you would expect more. Not that I think it's really appropriate for anyone to benefit from.videos like that in terms of views or money, just from a pure reporting standpoint. Right from when the war first started.
Between drones, gopros and cell phones, you would expect more. Not that I think it's really appropriate for anyone to benefit from.videos like that in terms of views or money, just from a pure reporting standpoint. Right from when the war first started.
Liljagare
Member
There are usually a couple of dozen videos posted everyday?! Maybe you just aren't looking very hard? Several /combatfootage subs posts videos daily. Alot of it is NSFW so naturarly doesn't get spread that much.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.
Just seemed even in mainstream media, especially at the start of the war, didn't have much.
Liljagare
Member
OPSEC + NSFW, just not alot of reasons to post most videos?
Chiggs
Gold Member
We need to explore this more, because FunkMiller's proposed alternative are ATACMs, which I think most military brass are concerned about shipping off to the Ukraine because of the likelihood of them being used to hit Moscow or other cities inside Russia. That kind of thing could blow the war wide open both literally and figuratively...and not just in the positive way that Funkmiller believes.
The higher standard comment is an interesting one, too. Not sure I buy that given the reality of the war and the tactics already being used, including dam-busting, human waves, kidnap-recruiting, and landmining.
Ukraine has been illegally invaded; they don't have to worry about "good guy" points, nor do they have the luxury of worrying about someone stepping on an unexploded cluster or treacherously-placed landmine sometime in the future. That's an admittedly terrible problem to worry about once Russia has been chased out.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
Cluster munitions are banned by the vast majority of countries for very good reason. They aren't particularly effective or economic, and the long term effects can be horrific.
And the UK has already provided Ukraine with Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which have an operating range far enough to be able to hit Russian cities. This hasn't happened. The French are also supplying SCALPs.
There really is no excuse for America not to hand over the ATACMS, other than pearl clutching from the administration. They're not refusing due to worries about the Ukrainians attacking Russian soil, they're refusing because they don't want risk their readiness in other hot spots around the world, because there aren't that many ATACMS. It's pathetic. The Ukraine war is happening now.
Last edited:
MisterFalcon
Member
All the countries that matter have not signed the cluster munitions ban. That goes both for this conflict and as a matter of global military power.
Maybe there is a moral ground where Uruguay and Benin joining the ban carry the same weight as Russia and China not joining but in the real world cluster munitions are a big part of national defense. Including all NATO members and other countries that rely on the US for defense as the ban treaty conveniently allows for any country to have a non-signatory use them on their behalf.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
The only major military nations who haven't singed the ban are the USA, Russia and China.
Not the best company to be in.
Neither has Ukraine, somewhat ironically.
Basically, they are fucking awful weapon, and the US does not make itself look good sending them over, and not long range weaponry that could actually change the course of the war.
Last edited:
Liljagare
Member
NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 (@noelreports@mstdn.social)
Attached: 1 image National security advisor Jake Sullivan said that F-16 training for Ukrainian pilots can start in a couple of weeks. Earlier, EU countries were waiting approval as the White House was still reviewing the formal request.
mstdn.social
Chiggs
Gold Member
But the U.S. even modified their HIMARs to prevent long-range launches, which tells you that there is some sort of concern about Zelensky doing something provocative which inadvertently rallies the other side in one of those awful twists of military fate.
If the UK and France are sending them pseudo-equivalents, then that's their choice. I do eventually think you're going to see the ATACMs make their way over there...but there's more gravity to America sending something like that versus the UK or France and it needs to be weighed carefully. South Africa recently got a bunch of flak because they were caught selling weapons to Russia; now imagine if China did the same thing...the optics are just different when a heavyweight gets involved.
Last edited:
This is silly. ATACMS are expensive and not even that widely available. Ukraine has also already been using Storm Shadow missiles for several weeks now, so by this logic the war should already be on the verge of ending.
Cluster munitions are necessary or there's little chance of Ukraine breaking through Russian lines.
MisterFalcon
Member
ATACMS should have been handed over ages ago but there are still hundreds and hundreds of targets that need blowing up on the frontlines. And with non-cluster ammo being in short supply you need something for that.
The areas where these munitions will be used are also already full of mines and other unexploded ordnance, the effort to demine them is now bigger but not that much.
This is a key point. All these folks clutching pearls at the fact that Ukraine will use Cluster bombs and maybe some poor civvy will walk through a field and step on an unexploded one, needs to think that those same fields are full of Russian mines.
Chiggs
Gold Member
I brought that up earlier and was accused of "whataboutism.'
NoLootBoxDev
Member
NoLootBoxDev
Member
Slicker than your average
Banned
The Ukrainians aren't fighting humans. It's okay to use them on russians. Besides as others have pointed out. Russians hide behind minefields and long range. Artillery .
The unexploded bomlets are nothing compared to all the Russians mines.
Tams
Member
Very few that clear trenches well, unfortunately.
Tams
Member
The cold hard truth is that all those countries are not naïve to the realities of war. You take any advantage you can get. Nuclear weapons are only different because of MAD. And a fair few countries still have them anyway.
Not that I think the likes of the UK and France are naïve about this in this case. They know this too.
Banning weapons is all part of the 'peace dividend' which is now in tatters. It's something countries that ride on the coattails of others do. Ireland are probably one of the worst and best example.
NoLootBoxDev
Member
if true:
NoLootBoxDev
Member
Seems confirmed, but part of it
And so it begins ! This is the way ! God speed Ukraine!
Wildebeest
Member
A sad day for totally innocent bridges and people using bridges for peaceful reasons that don't involve mass rape and torture of women and children in an illegal war of occupation.
winjer
Gold Member
Madserb2023
Member
I just want to know what's happening. I keep getting flak on here for it but I don't believe the information coming out on this counter offensive. If Russia said they had killed 30,000 Ukrainians and tons of equipment but only progressed a couple of miles nobody would believe them, but why does everyone just believe it when Ukraine says it. The facts on the ground doesn't match what is being claimed. Just watched a debate on Euronews and they were arguing over why it's going much slower than expected etc. They even claimed that perhaps at least 20% of all equipment given by the West has already been destroyed and that's why. Look, I don't believe the Russians either. All that matters is the end result. I just don't know why up till this war everyone accepted that propaganda was just a fact of war and to take information with a pinch of salt but since this invasion everyone just believes everything they are told. During World War 1, in the UK, there were posters claiming that the Germans eat children and that the Somme was a success even though 50,000 died in the first day and was the single worst day ever for the British military. They lied at the time and hid all the deaths from the public. Why do people think it's so different now.
GymWolf
Member
What are the long term effects? Aren't those just missiles fired on an big zone basically?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked