• Dazza@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes but the people who suffer the most with these weapons is the civilians.

    Just because they are already being used, doesn’t mean more should be used.

    • Tilted@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agree. Russia is guilty of using cluster munitions, and they started the war. They need to stop on both counts.

    • USNewsJunkie@newsie.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      @Dazza So, leave the war in Ukraine lop-sided so we can absolutely ensure that the majority of those killed are Ukrainian civilians instead of Ukrainian civilians AND Russian soldiers? What kind of sense does that make?

      • Dazza@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see your point but There’s no clear answer here.

        The article raises a valid point that Cambodia has extensive history from these weapons spilling over from the Vietnam war and causing civilian fatalities way after the war ended.

        My point here is that just because a war crime(s) is committed one the Russian side, that doesn’t give free reign to the Ukraine side to do the same.

        • USNewsJunkie@newsie.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          @Dazza There are legitimate concerns about using cluster munitions but Ukraine is well aware of the problems they create. And unlike a 3rd world country like Vietnam, they will be better suited to mitigate those threats post-war. In the meantime, none of this matters if they lose because Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.

          • 133arc585
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Russia will kill half of them anyway after the war.

            Why? What sense does that make? When has there ever been any reason to believe that the goal is to kill Ukranians? This isn’t even the first time I’ve seen it said that if Russia wins (or even loses!) they’ll just wipe out all Ukranians afterwards. And neither time has there been any reasoning for why such an absurd claim should be believed.

            If you truly believe this drivel, you’re doing everyone a disservice by not attempting to justify your claims. If you truly believe it and provide justification, you might just convince others to believe what you do.

            • fruitywelsh
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean they have been bombing refugee coridors, so they clearly support killing noncombatants.

          • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So they took a vote and the people decided that they’re okay with this? Or did the administration unilaterally decide this like when they decided to cancel elections and restrict labor rights?

          • lemmyman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And in the meantime Russia will have more time to drop even more cluster bombs

            What’s worse, 8000 Russian and 2000 Ukrainian (US)? Or 12000 Russian? (Made up numbers to illustrate a point I haven’t seen made yet)

            • 133arc585
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What are these numbers? Lives lost? Bombs dropped?