When reading posts, there are yellow stars against the names of the most respected Shrewds. The number of points in the star, starting at 3, represents the Shrewd'm-Star rating. This number is the average recommendation that the author received over the last 12 months.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 0
As this is the forum discussing current "hot" politics, I am wondering: Why is there no discussion about what I see as the - literally - "hottest" current politics at all?
Admittedly I did not read posts, but as I was curious what the opinions of Americans might be, I just looked for a telling thread title in the last days. Finding none mentioning the word "cluster" I might have come to a wrong conclusion?
No. of Recommendations: 6
Said: ...I was curious what the opinions of Americans might be...
As Biden said, it was a "difficult" decision, based on the fact that Ukraine is burning through stockpiles of conventional artillery that cannot quickly be replaced, and he concluded that he had little choice but to provide the weapons.
Certainly, there are those who will argue that cluster munitions -- widely banned by many U.S. allies -- will lead to civilian deaths after the war is over while others will point out that Russia has been using cluster munitions -- with a dud rate of 40 percent or more -- since the invasion began, so moot point. Also, Ukraine, has deployed cluster munitions of its own in the war (just not any supplied by us). Officials here claim we will only send cluster munitions with a dud rate less than 2 percent, preferable under 1 percent (although there is disagreement on the accuracy of those numbers).
Certainly, there are those who will argue that the United States will lose the moral high ground by using cluster munitions while others will say that's impossible given Russia has committed thousands of war crimes and targeted civilians since the invasion began, so also a moot point. In addition, Ukraine will be using the cluster munitions in their own country which they're defending, not be using them in some foreign land. And Ukrainians have promised to use the weapons in a way that would avoid civilians. But, hey, it's war and battle lines shift.
Certainly, there are those who will argue that this will save the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers while others will ask, "But will that be at the expense of innocent civilians, including children?"
We could discuss the domestic politics of the decision -- many republicans approve of the decision but since they cannot praise a Biden decision, they say he made the right decision but took too long... while some democrats have said it's the wrong decision -- but maybe the moral aspect is better on the Atheist board.
But, yeah, tough call.
No. of Recommendations: 3
As the other poster said, they are already being used. In this case, they will be used by Ukraine in Ukrainian territory. Sorta up to them, given that they are in a fight for their very existence as a democratic nation. Both nations appear to be on a "total war" footing, i.e. neither is going to give up until it becomes too expensive to continue. With continued support from the west, coupled with the existential threat to Ukraine, Russia will likely have to throw in the towel. It's just a question of when.
I think we should be providing them with longer-range weapons that can strike into Russian territory, and release the prohibition on them doing so. It's a lot easier to be in a war when your cities aren't being hit, and you can put your air assets, and command and control, out of reach because of such prohibitions. It's ugly, but Putin started it, and now Ukraine is fighting for its right to exist. Russia needs to feel the pain, not only of their soldiers dying, but of being a target themselves (i.e. their infrastructure and military assets).
No. of Recommendations: 2
They're giving them cluster munitions because we're running out of regular artillery.
Think about that. We're very low on shells ourselves.
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is true. The US has deprioritized artillery for a long time. If you want to blow something up, call in an airstrike. We have some of the most kickass airpower on the planet. Or deploy some himars (missiles). There have been a few programs to make some longer range artillery, but after a few billion dollars, they were all cancelled. Our current artillery is behind the times.
I believe there is a new one on the drawing board, largely because of what the Army is seeing in Ukraine. I forget the designation of the system.
There also is adapting to NATO standard in Ukraine while most of their stuff is old Soviet standard. That's changing as they get more hardware from NATO nations.
