U.S. decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine could put Canada, others on the spot (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canada is among many NATO allies of Ukraine who signed 2010 pact to ban cluster munition use

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Questy@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

There is no controversy. Canada is not providing the weapons. The US and Ukraine are not signatory to the ban. Story doesn't exist. Sigh

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

There is actually, and here's your story:

"We do not support the use of cluster munitions and we are committed to ending the effects of these weapons on civilians, especially children," a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly told CBC News in an email on Friday.

That said, the more important story is the sending of cluster munitions in the first place. And this article seems to agree, considering you have to scroll down a bit to get to the Canadian opinion. I'm not surprised the CBC is interested in the Canadian government's response to this.

[-] Questy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You are correct, and my comment was dismissive. My issue, or maybe frustration is a better term, is that we are worrying about the potential future impact that the use of effective cluster munitions may have after the end of hostilities. This is a reasonable concern, but the genocide is a very pressing concern. It is extremely unlikely that the number of affected children who may theoretically suffer injury or death due to these weapons, can possibly match the number who are dying or being forcibly deported weekly in this conflict.

Cluster munitions are an effective way to improve the kill and disable rate of Russian soldiers, and do so more efficiently with less barrels and rounds fired. Since destroying the Russian military as a combat ready force is the only way to end the war, it just makes sense in the cost benefit calculation to accept a theoretical future risk in addressing an immediate existential situation.

So yes, there's a story, I just don't agree with my government creating diplomatic heat around vital weapon supplies.

[-] yarn@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If I have this correct:

US, Ukraine, and Russia never signed on to the pact to ban cluster munitions
Cluster munitions would be highly effective at clearing out Russia's entrenched defensive lines
Ukraine is specifically requesting the munitions from the US
Western artillery ammo is starting to run short, so cluster munitions are needed to buy time until artillery shell production ramps up next spring
Russia is extensively using cluster munitions in Ukraine right now, and their munitions have a much worse dud rate than the western cluster munitions, so there's an argument that preventing Russia from being able to use their shittier cluster munitions is better in the long run

It sucks, but welcome to war

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

The dud rate refers to the percentage of unexploded rounds. In previous conflicts, cluster munitions have had a high dud rate, which meant that thousands of the unexploded bomblets remained behind and killed and maimed civilians. That's happened recently in conflicts in Syria and Yemen, but the grisly impact can be felt decades later, as seen in parts of Southeast Asia, where people are still killed by explosives from the Vietnam War.

It's like the depleted uranium story from earlier. Sure, you can request these things and use them, but it's a bad decision because you're just going to end up maiming and disabling generations to come.