• rbhfd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m from neither country. I am however from one of the 100+ countries that has banned the use of cluster bombs for over a decade.

    In my country, there’s still people dying from unexploded bombs leftovet from world war 1.

    From an article on why cluster bombs are so controversial

    Sixty percent of cluster bomb casualties are people injured while undertaking everyday activities, according to Reuters. One third of all recorded cluster munitions casualties are children.

    So yes, while I keep being staunchly on the side of Ukraine and NATO helping them, this is not something I like to see.

    They are looking at short term benefits, understandably. I may be naive, but still believe they can drive the Russians out with more conventional weapons. The fact that they seemingly don’t think so is actually worrying.

    • zephyreks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m actually really confused. This is the United States we’re talking about. They have a military budget greater than, what, the next 10 largest combined? They couldn’t figure out how to use a type of weapon that wouldn’t cause an international incident and draw condemnation from their closest allies?

      • arcturus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah, it really is a mystery

        like if we really had to send weapons, there are so many more that exist that won’t cause unfathomably horrific damage that is so horrific that like nearly half of the fucking world considers them warcrimes

        like it’s fucking horrid that Russia’s using them, but like what the hell is wrong with the US to think “hey, we’ll use it too”

        (but then again, the US and Russia did refuse to sign the CCM)