Cluster bombs

[BeElBeeBub]

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is still being found in Britain, on a regular basis.

Yup. 

The issue with CMs is they do scatter alot of munitions and crucially earlier iterations had very high dud rates.  So every shell ended up distributing dozens of UXBs over a wide area. 

Hell, some anti runway versions deliberately interspersed AP mines with standard munitions to make repairing the runway more difficult. 

The more modern CMs being sent to Ukraine have a. lower dud rate *and* timed backup fuses.  The number of UXB left afterwards is much lower than previous generations.

[papasmurf]

Farmers in France and Belgium are still falling victim to WW1 munitions. It will be the same for Ukraine.

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is still being found in Britain, on a regular basis.

[BeElBeeBub]

I had a holiday in Cambodia last year and went to a land mine clearance centre where they used Giant Tanzanian Rats to clear land mines, these Rats could smell explosive to some ridiculous depth and had a 100% record for clearing an area. There where countless farmers with missing limbs due to UXB's, even children. The point being, during the Vietnam war the US knew the VC were escaping into Cambodia and hiding there, so they tracked them and dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia, a country that was not at war and knew nothing of why they were being bombed. The US do have form for not giving a flying fig also.

I think I saw a news piece on those rats. Great idea.  

Your right, the US has a history of this sort of thing. Unexploded weapons can linger for decades and kill long after the conflict.

In this respect cluster munitions are no different from unitary war heads.  There will be countless small caliber (30mm to 80mm) warheads, grenades and mines scattered about the place.

The key thing is the clearup. The west has done a poor job in it's international "adventures". From Vietnam to Afghanistan it's dropped thousands of tons of explosives then pissed off and left the locals to deal with it, maybe with some NGO help later.

The key difference here is that Ukraine has asked for these weapons to use *on it's own soil*. It's likely that Ukraine will be considerably more diligent in it's clearing than Russia or even other NATO countries.  It's harder for politicians to ignore the problem when their own voters are the ones losing limbs.

Ukraine is *already* saturated with UXBs. The fields of eastern Ukraine are going to be deadly for decades even if the fighting stopped today. The additional numbers created by these cluster munitions will be a small % of the total.  The future danger level of a given area will be determined by whether or not it has been cleared not whether or not CMs were used there.

[Nick]

I doubt any farmers are ploughing the fields around of Bakhmut right now.

It's a question of the ratio of legitimate targets (soldiers, tanks, supplies etc) to "bystanders" - people, civilian infrastructure etc.

A column of tanks with a single farmer in a field next door is a proportional (albeit cold.blooded) risk..

Taking out an active apartment building, killing 60 civilians to get the sniper on the roof - disproportionate.

With regards to the post conflict risks,.eg a farmer driving over an unexploded sub munition years later..... Yes, that is a risk. But the fields of eastern Ukraine are already saturated with UXBs, both conventional and Cluster. Plus mines, AP, grenades, shells and god knows what else.

Farmers in France and Belgium are still falling victim to WW1 munitions. It will be the same for Ukraine.

The *additional* risk from these CMs is negligible and the overall long term risk will  be dominated by the effectiveness of any clearance operation afterwards.

I had a holiday in Cambodia last year and went to a land mine clearance centre where they used Giant Tanzanian Rats to clear land mines, these Rats could smell explosive to some ridiculous depth and had a 100% record for clearing an area. There where countless farmers with missing limbs due to UXB's, even children. The point being, during the Vietnam war the US knew the VC were escaping into Cambodia and hiding there, so they tracked them and dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia, a country that was not at war and knew nothing of why they were being bombed. The US do have form for not giving a flying fig also.

[BeElBeeBub]

Doesn't that come under incompetence? As for the Ukrainians, they know where the Russian forces are, they will target the ones at their base not the secret ones in the cities.

I think Scott is showing his Putin famboi colours.

His talking points are near indistinguishable from the kremlins.

Ukraine is critically dependent on western support. They know this. They also know that will vanish of they start using CMs irresponsibly.
There is no reason to believe Ukraine will not stick to it's word.
They have had the capability to strike targets inside Russia with western weapons for over year.

Yet they haven't.  

It would be easier for Ukraine to attack eastern Ukraine by going through the lightly defended border with Russia and attacking the rear, than grinding through the occupied territories. Yet they haven't.

[BeElBeeBub]

There is if you are a farmer ploughing those fields.

I doubt any farmers are ploughing the fields around of Bakhmut right now.

It's a question of the ratio of legitimate targets (soldiers, tanks, supplies etc) to "bystanders" - people, civilian infrastructure etc.

A column of tanks with a single farmer in a field next door is a proportional (albeit cold.blooded) risk..

Taking out an active apartment building, killing 60 civilians to get the sniper on the roof - disproportionate.

With regards to the post conflict risks,.eg a farmer driving over an unexploded sub munition years later..... Yes, that is a risk. But the fields of eastern Ukraine are already saturated with UXBs, both conventional and Cluster. Plus mines, AP, grenades, shells and god knows what else.

Farmers in France and Belgium are still falling victim to WW1 munitions. It will be the same for Ukraine.

The *additional* risk from these CMs is negligible and the overall long term risk will  be dominated by the effectiveness of any clearance operation afterwards.

[Nick]

they could also be used with disregard for civilians.  And if Ukraine uses them, that is inevitable.

Doesn't that come under incompetence? As for the Ukrainians, they know where the Russian forces are, they will target the ones at their base not the secret ones in the cities.

[papasmurf]

But if they are used in open fields, away from civilians there is no problem.

There is if you are a farmer ploughing those fields.

[BeElBeeBub]

I don't disagree.  The point is, it doesn't matter whether it's Russia or Ukraine using them, they are not acceptable.

I would agree it would be far better if CMs hadn't been used by either side.  But then it would be far better id Russia hadn't decided to invade Ukraine.

But their unacceptability stems from the wide area of effect and the post conflict hazards.

The wide area means their use anywhere near civilians is questionable.

But if they are used in open fields, away from civilians there is no problem.

The post conflict hazard is a combination of the dud rate and the post conflict clearance operation.  The NATO CMs have an order of magnitude lower dud rate than soviet designs.  In addition Ukraine has pledged to record the areas of use to assist the clear up and, if victorious, to clear up.  This minimises the risks to civilians. 

Again, which future has the lowest risk to civilians? Russian victory or Ukrainian victory?  Are you going to argue that Russia has been carefully recording it's use of CMs (and airdropped AP mines) and will be more diligent clearing the areas afterwards than the Ukrainians will be? 

[BeElBeeBub]

Where in the report does it say civilians were targeted?  You know, Ukrainian military have been know to occupy buildings in civilian areas, so where is your evidence the Russian were targeting civilians instead of soldiers?

I can see I have to repeat myself.  The response from the White House was not to a question about civilians being targeted.  If that had been the question, it would look something like this: "There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians to target civilians." 

Then the next question is about violence against civilians.  If a civilian happens upon a CM, and it blows up, that is still violence against a civilian, irespective of whether they were targeted.  So if Ukraine uses CMs, it would be the same.  It is nothing to do with Russia's high ground, it's the White House, and most NATO countries, who say it is wrong.  It is their consistency which is in question.

The report says cluster bombs were used in civilian areas - That's the crime.

The illegality is using weapons in a way that causes disproportionate civilian casualties.

The question asked had several parts

the preamble, setting the context for the following question: "There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. If that's true..."

The question  ".....what is the next step of this administration?"
The follow on question: "....And is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that's illegal and potentially a war crime?"

"It is — it would be. I don't have any confirmation of that. We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime"

The contention is was she referring to just the use of CMs or was she referring to their use against civilians?

The first part of the question "what is the next step for this administration?" remains unanswered. At no point did she outline the next steps.
So her answer must refer to the second part of the question "is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that's illegal and potentially a war crime?".  Note that "in this manner" implies the manner previously mentioned i.e. CMs.

So her answer that they don't have any confirmation but if it were true (that CMs have been used against civilians) it would potentially be a war crime.

Again note "potentially" - even if she were referring purely to Russia's use of CMs in complete isolation from the civilian issue she only said "potentially", not "it IS a war crime".

Most NATO countries have agreed not to use CMs, are not supplying CMs.

Notably neither Russia, Ukraine or the US have agreed not to use CMs and Russia and Ukraine have already used CMs.

So you gripe is basically that a country who has not agreed to ban CMs is supplying CMs to country who has not agreed to ban CMs for use against an invading army who has already used CMs (in ways that are potentially a war crime)

[BeElBeeBub]

When in 2014?  Which month?  I'm asking you to explain what you believe, not what I know the facts to be,

Russian forces entered Crimea in violation of the agreement in late Feb 2017.  By late March Crimea was declared a federal republic of the Russian federation.

Likewise Russian forces were operating in eastern Ukraine during the late spring of 2014.  Russian tanks crossed the border in June and columns of armoured vehicles were operating in Eastern Ukraine in August.

These are facts.

What I believe happened is Russia, angry that Ukraine was choosing to face Europe and move out of it's sphere of influence, instigated unrest in Crimea and the Eat of Ukraine culminating in armed separatist movements.  It then used these events as a pretext for it's armed forces entering Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.

I'm sure you will tell me this is all wrong and a grass roots group of patriots who happened to be identically equipped to Russian special forces spontaneously arose and held totally legitimate, free and fair referendums, before asking Russia to intervene to protect them from the Nazi EU who was threatening god fearing Ukrainians with gay marriage.  

[Scott777]

You asked:My answer is: Yes. I deny the US (and Biden in particular) said using cluster bombs would be a crime for Russia.

I have not seen any evidence that was the US position. The closest I found was the question which specifically mentioned civilians, to which the reply was "that could potentially be a war crime"

Have you any evidence?

There is plenty of evidence that Russians used CMs against civilians.  https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/EUR5056822022ENGLISH.pdf

But either way, it's irrelevant.  Russia and her fan boys has zero moral high ground when it comes to consistency of position or whining about their enemy having the affront to deploy the same weapons that Russia has been using. 

There is almost nothing Russia can do about this apart from withdraw.

Ukraine's western backers wouldn't support Ukrainian forces using western weapons on Russian soil.  If Russian forces want to avoid western CMs (or HiMARS or Storm Shadow) all they have to do is travel back to Russia.

Where in the report does it say civilians were targeted?  You know, Ukrainian military have been know to occupy buildings in civilian areas, so where is your evidence the Russian were targeting civilians instead of soldiers?

I can see I have to repeat myself.  The response from the White House was not to a question about civilians being targeted.  If that had been the question, it would look something like this: "There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians to target civilians."  

Then the next question is about violence against civilians.  If a civilian happens upon a CM, and it blows up, that is still violence against a civilian, irespective of whether they were targeted.  So if Ukraine uses CMs, it would be the same.  It is nothing to do with Russia's high ground, it's the White House, and most NATO countries, who say it is wrong.  It is their consistency which is in question.

[Scott777]

Russia violated the agreement in 2014 by annexing large parts of Ukraine.

That would violate article 1, specifically the clause about "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"

It was fairly widely reported at the time.  Not sure how you missed it. I'm not sure how you feel qualified to discuss this topic seeing as you don't seem to know any of the history.

When in 2014?  Which month?  I'm asking you to explain what you believe, not what I know the facts to be,

[Scott777]

come on Nick, the heroic Russians have developed advanced Nazi Targeting Munitions.  They only target Nazi's.  If a person is killed by one of these weapons they must have been a Nazi, or maybe a NATO mercenary.  Even if they were a 65 year old lady, a hospital or a supermarket.

Same for Ukraine using them.  That's the point you seem to miss.  It's a crime BECAUSE you don't need to target civilians for them to affect civilians.

[Scott777]

Come off it Scott, either the Russians are targeting civilians or they are incompetent. Which is it?

Many other possibilities exist, although I'm not sure what your point is.  They could also be used with disregard for civilians.  And if Ukraine uses them, that is inevitable.  The point is, the White House said they are a crime, and that was not referring to who the target is.