War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

(Thread IKs: fatherboxx)

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

VitalSigns posted:

I don't see a moral difference between dropping cluster bombs to kill civilians on purpose versus dropping them and not caring that you're killing civilians. Call it whatever euphemism you want though.

Does intent matter or not? Please clarify for the 2nd time.

VitalSigns posted:

As for your other question, certain weapons like poison gas, landmines, or cluster bombs are so heinous they've been banned by international treaty so comparing them to other weapons is a weak argument. Just because a bullet can kill doesn't mean we may as well drop phosgene on people or release hundreds of UXOs with every bomb that are going to keep crippling and killing innocent men, women, and children for decades.

I am not arguing. I am seeking clarification on your position.

VitalSigns posted:

I draw the line at war crimes personally.

Then it would appear you are not against the supply and use of cluster munitions by the AFU since it is unlikely the Ukrainian military will primarily be directing it at their own civilians and that it is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated

VitalSigns posted:

We don't want to kill civilians we just want to end the war faster is what every side says.

That seems to be neither here nor there.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 11:21

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

MikeC posted:

Does intent matter or not? Please clarify for the 2nd time.

Yes I'm not sure why this is a question.

MikeC posted:

Then it would appear you are not against the supply and use of cluster munitions by the AFU since it is unlikely the Ukrainian military will primarily be directing it at their own civilians and that it is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated

Then you would appear to be incorrect, the convention on cluster munitions bans all use and I agree with the reasons behind that.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:25

mllaneza: Apr 28, 2007; Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1993-1952

VitalSigns posted:

I think intent does matter, I just think the intent of killing someone on purpose or the intent of knowing what you do will kill someone and not caring is about equally depraved.

Do you see a difference in intent in dropping cluster bombs on a city with civilians living in it versus dropping cluster bombs on a line of fortifications in open country?

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:25

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

mllaneza posted:

Do you see a difference in intent in dropping cluster bombs on a city with civilians living in it versus dropping cluster bombs on a line of fortifications in open country?

Of course, one is likely to murder more civilians than the other.

E: oops I misread I didn't see "in intent"
I see a difference in body count. The intent is the same of course. Knowing the bomblets are going to kill civilians after the battle and not caring.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:27

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

VitalSigns posted:

Yes I'm not sure why this is a question.

This is a question because you use the term murder rather than something like 'excessive collateral damage' or 'the advantage gained is not commensurate with the civilian costs'. As I said before murder implies that the primary goal of the use of these weapons is to kill civilians. I am afraid there is no evidence that the Ukrainians are doing that.

VitalSigns posted:

Then you would appear to be incorrect, the convention on cluster munitions bans all use and I agree with the reasons behind that.

Since the Ukrainians are fighting against a nonsignatory in Russia the convention doesn't apply here. For it to be a 'war crime' (your standard not mine) you would have to find another clause to justify your stance. In all cases, intent matters. Your position it would seem, is nonsensical.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:36

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

MikeC posted:

This is a question because you use the term murder rather than something like 'excessive collateral damage' or 'the advantage gained is not commensurate with the civilian costs'. As I said before murder implies that the primary goal of the use of these weapons is to kill civilians. I am afraid there is no evidence that the Ukrainians are doing that.

No that's not what murder means, legally speaking.

If someone blows up a school because their primary goal is killing kids that's murder. If someone blows up a school because they think it would look cool and doesn't care if there are kids in there that is also murder.

Use whatever euphemism suits you, however.

MikeC posted:

Since the Ukrainians are fighting against a nonsignatory in Russia the convention doesn't apply here. For it to be a 'war crime' (your standard not mine) you would have to find another clause to justify your stance. In all cases, intent matters. Your position it would seem, is nonsensical.

No it isn't because I am not making a legalistic argument that cluster bombs are bad only if they are illegal, I said the international agreement was created because they are especially heinous weapons that continue to kill indiscriminately for decades after they're used and I agree with that reasoning so it makes no difference to me if a particular country signed it or not.

You asked what the difference is between some weapons than others, my short answer is that being banned by treaty should be a clue that a given weapon is pretty bad

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:43

Grip it and rip it: Apr 28, 2020

Maybe we should poll the Ukrainian citizens to see if they are OK with using cluster munitions in their defensive war of attrition?

Also is this war legal? We doing everything by the book here? What about those alleged massacres?

The notion that there is some kind of moral failing in utilizing any means necessary and within reason to defend your country from a neighbors war of choice seems suspect to me. None of these decisions are being made in a vacuum, and I suspect that the moral harm that would result from Ukraine deciding not to use Cluster munitions in these circumstances is greater than the moral harm that could result from their use. To date they've seen like reasonable and competent military actors. I would suspect that they're only using tools that have a risk of harming future Ukrainian citizens because they feel their use is necessary.

Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:44

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

UXOs kill people who aren't yet born to be polled. I guess you could poll the kids in Lebanon who have been crippled by UXOs decades after they were dropped although I think people did that and the victims weren't big fans.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:48

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

VitalSigns posted:

No that's not what murder means, legally speaking.

If someone blows up a school because their primary goal is killing kids that's murder. If someone blows up a school because they think it would look cool and doesn't care if there are kids in there that is also murder.

Use whatever euphemism suits you, however.

Blowing up the school is unlawful though, hence it is murder. Using weapons to fight a war isn't unlawful though. The standard you set for yourself was war crimes. The UN does allow even direct strikes against civilians as long it is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

VitalSigns posted:

No it isn't because I am not making a legalistic argument that cluster bombs are bad only if they are illegal, I said the international agreement was created because they are especially heinous weapons that continue to kill indiscriminately for decades after they're used and I agree with that reasoning so it makes no difference to me if a particular country signed it or not.

You asked what the difference is between some weapons than others, my short answer is that being banned by treaty should be a clue that a given weapon is pretty bad

So your previous post was inaccurate? You do not personally draw the line at "war crimes" then? Unitary munitions also have duds that will go on to "kill indiscriminately for decades after they're used" so are those also unacceptable to you?

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:55

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

VitalSigns posted:

This legalistic argument reflects badly on those countries it doesn't make cluster bombs morally okay wtf.

You are demonstrating that don�t know how international treaties or international law works even at a basic level.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:59

Paracausal: Sep 5, 2011; Oh yeah, baby. Frame your suffering as a masterpiece. Only one problem - no one's watching. It's boring, buddy, boring as death.

Another bad faith poster wanders in and everyone obliges their bad faith arguments. Claiming Ukraine "doesn't care" that their civilians might die from the results of weapons used trying to expel a hostile genocidal invader after dozens of mass graves, child abductions and whatever other horrors Russia has visited on Ukraine is one of the laziest pieces of 'analysis' I've seen. gently caress off.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 11, 2023 05:59

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

MikeC posted:

Blowing up the school is unlawful though, hence it is murder. Using weapons to fight a war isn't unlawful though. The standard you set for yourself was war crimes. The UN does allow even direct strikes against civilians as long it is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Do you think that "unlawful" is the only reason something can be bad?

Anyway looks like you're backing away from "primary purpose" being in the definition of murder.

MikeC posted:

So your previous post was inaccurate? You do not personally draw the line at "war crimes" then? Unitary munitions also have duds that will go on to "kill indiscriminately for decades after they're used" so are those also unacceptable to you?

No you are reading it selectively. I said some weapons are especially heinous, the fact that there are movements and treaties to ban them is supporting evidence.

Something that crosses the line of war crimes is definitely wrong to do, not because it's the law, but because those laws have good moral reasoning behind them. The reasoning doesn't change just because some countries really want to do war crimes anyway.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:04

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Paracausal posted:

Another bad faith poster wanders in and everyone obliges their bad faith arguments. Claiming Ukraine "doesn't care" that their civilians might die from the results of weapons used trying to expel a hostile genocidal invader after dozens of mass graves, child abductions and whatever other horrors Russia has visited on Ukraine is one of the laziest pieces of 'analysis' I've seen. gently caress off.

Well I'm sure like anyone who drops a cluster bomb and then years later it blows up some kids playing hide and seek would "care" in the sense that they'd feel bad that it happened, I'm obviously using "don't care" in the sense of "don't care enough not to drop the bomb anyway"

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:09

notwithoutmyanus: Mar 17, 2009

Does anyone have updates outside of cluster munition discussion? This is getting a bit old.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:09

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 7 days!)

I don't have a problem with taking a position of "I think that cluster weapons are bad and should never be used, and support making their use a war crime". We prohibit other weapons or attacks because of the effects they have on civilians like war gases, biological agents, etc. (or blowing up dams and nuclear power plants)

That being said, I can also appreciate the calculus by Ukraine of fighting an existential war for survival on its own territory against an enemy, whose stated maximalist goals are genocide, being willing to use legal if morally grey weapons that will stop that genocide from continuing. The use of DPICM on proper military targets simply isn't a war crime, today. Deliberate or reckless use that disproportionately affects civilians or has no military merit would be just like any other attack.

Legalist versus emotivist debates rarely achieve much, however. And Russia can stop the whole thing at any time by going home.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:13

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

MikeC posted:

Blowing up the school is unlawful though, hence it is murder. Using weapons to fight a war isn't unlawful though. The standard you set for yourself was war crimes. The UN does allow even direct strikes against civilians as long it is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

So your previous post was inaccurate? You do not personally draw the line at "war crimes" then? Unitary munitions also have duds that will go on to "kill indiscriminately for decades after they're used" so are those also unacceptable to you?

Pretending you only understand the most robotic and legalistic definition of a word is not a good look.

VitalSigns clearly means murder in the very common sense of "to cause the death of a person in an amoral manner". If I told you my mom got stabbed to death on a cruise ship you wouldn't reference naval maps to see whether or not she was in international waters at the time. And if it was instead an accident it'd still be perfectly normal to say the captain "murdered" her through negligence.

I don't particularly agree with VitalSigns*, but that whole schtick is absolutely bullshit rhetoric and brings everything down.

*although I don't disagree over-much either

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:14

Eletriarnation: Apr 6, 2005; People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.; Oven Wrangler

VitalSigns posted:

I am not making a legalistic argument that cluster bombs are bad only if they are illegal, I said the international agreement was created because they are especially heinous weapons that continue to kill indiscriminately for decades after they're used and I agree with that reasoning so it makes no difference to me if a particular country signed it or not.

Continuing to kill indiscriminately for decades is not exclusive to cluster munitions in any way, but a potential hazard with any kind of dangerous shell. The thread has already recently discussed the "zone rouge" in France which was broadly designated as uninhabitable after WWI, some of which still contains control zones around UXO. Cluster munitions may result in more instances of UXO than a similar mass of conventional single-warhead munitions but that's just an obvious side effect of their raison d'etre of delivering more discrete explosive packages to a target area than conventional munitions and therefore being more effective weapons.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:18

WarpedLichen: Aug 14, 2008

Really interesting article from the Kyiv Independent complaining about ammo woes, we all knew it was bad. But there are some tidbits I didn't expect in there. Be warned it is a long read and goes through some history that might be old news for some.

https://kyivindependent.com/investigation-eu-inability-to-ramp-up-production-behind-acute-ammunition-shortages-in-ukraine/

quote:

When long-anticipated military aid arrived at one brigade stationed in Ukraine's eastern Donbas front, the soldiers were over the moon. But disappointment soon followed when they realized that the supplied ammunition was useless: The Finnish 120mm mortar bombs wouldn't fit into the Italian Mod. 63 mortar, despite them being of the same caliber.

Taras, the commander of the brigade's mortar battery, was tasked to find a way out of the situation. Ten people used grinders to manually trim all eight tail fins on each mortar bomb to fit the Italian mortar. There were 400 bombs to trim.

"My infantry was relying on me. At the time when we received these bombs, we had nothing else from the brigade artillery left," said Taras, who doesn't reveal his full name due to fear of retaliation for publicly complaining about the supplies.

quote:

Ukraine tried to launch the production of artillery ammunition in 2018, four years into the war in the Donbas. That attempt failed, due to suspected corruption.

Back then, Bezpeka, a state enterprise then operating under the Economy Ministry, was tasked with buying ammunition production equipment for state factories. It sought to buy equipment for Ukroboronprom, Ukraine's state-owned arms manufacturer, recently rebranded as Ukrainian Defense Industry as part of corporate reform. The equipment would allow Ukroboronprom to start producing 152mm shells.

Bezpeka ordered the equipment from an American contractor, Gray Fox Logistics, that never delivered the order. Ukraine won arbitration against the company in 2020 and is yet to receive the $8.3 million it prepaid for the order � but it lost valuable time. Law enforcement opened a probe into the head of Bezpeka, alleging he and a deputy economy minister plotted to give the contract to the U.S. company while knowing it couldn't deliver the equipment. Bezpeka's head is suspected of treason, abuse of office, and theft.

While waiting for the American equipment, in 2018, Ukraine ordered 152mm shells from a Ukrainian private company Rubin. It delivered low-quality products, which weren't approved by the Defense Ministry. These were Ukraine's only attempts to launch mass production of ammunition before the 2022 invasion.

quote:

Soldiers on the ground say they can't spend less ammunition. One reason is that Western arms often arrive in Ukraine without automatic fire control systems, sights, or navigation, which could save up to around 20% of ammunition, according to the Kyiv Independent's soldier, volunteer, and expert sources.

"We receive weapons without access to technology," said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder of Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), which, since Russia's full-scale invasion, has also been advocating for arms supplies. "They are very much afraid that these technologies will be received by the enemy, that we won't protect them."

Western ammunition also often comes with temporary shooting tables or none at all, which means soldiers have to do the math themselves. Moreover, the weight indicated on ammunition is often incorrect, which is why soldiers are forced to weigh munitions themselves.

Taras, a mortar battery commander, bought industrial scales and started a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to calculate the ammunition's trajectory.

"I will be frank, here on the front line, we don't have much time for these kinds of things," he said.

Yet they have to make time for calculations. Otherwise, soldiers risk hitting their own infantry when supporting their advances.

I'm kinda amazed that standardization is that bad on the ammo side. Like come on guys, you could at least make sure they weigh the same.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:18

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Xiahou Dun posted:

If I told you my mom got stabbed to death on a cruise ship you wouldn't reference naval maps to see whether or not she was in international waters at the time.

No need, the laws that murder occurred under are clearly defined by international law under a treaty (SOLAS) that has actually been signed by nearly all countries. The flag country is in big letters on the stern of the boat, along with an actual flag. It happened in the flag county.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:22

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

VitalSigns posted:

No you are reading it selectively. I said some weapons are especially heinous, the fact that there are movements and treaties to ban them is supporting evidence.

A conveniently nebulous definition.

Xiahou Dun posted:

I don't particularly agree with VitalSigns*, but that whole schtick is absolutely bullshit rhetoric and brings everything down.

The entire handwringing over cluster munitions is bullshit rhetoric and brings everything down. The Ukrainians are going to be spraying that stuff over areas that are already mined so heavily that it won't make a material difference. You know this, I know this, Vital know this. He deliberately picked the word murder to have some fun. Forgive me if I have some too.

edit: This one is new from a Forbes writer

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...sh=767d71bcfcc0

quote:

Ukraine Is Winning The Artillery War�By Destroying Four Russian Howitzers for Every Howitzer It Loses

The methodology seems questionable though.

MikeC fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

MikeC posted:

A conveniently nebulous definition.

I mean so is this

MikeC posted:

it is unlikely the Ukrainian military will primarily be directing it at their own civilians and that it is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated

You asked my opinion, I gave it to you. Demanding some non-nebulous objective morality is an unserious argument

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:35

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

The discussion about cluster munitions has circled into same arguments again so it would be great if anyone who wanted to continue the discussion would only do so if they had anything new to say or report.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:36

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

VitalSigns posted:

Demanding some non-nebulous objective morality is an unserious argument

Pretty obvious you weren't interested in a serious argument to begin with.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:37

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; by Fluffdaddy
(and can't post for 7 days!)

Xiahou Dun posted:

VitalSigns clearly means murder in the very common sense of "to cause the death of a person in an amoral manner".

Except that's not the common definition of murder anywhere. Murder is (generally) deliberate unlawful killing, at least in English. The morality of the act of killing is irrelevant to the crime, but it might be a defense or mitigation. Considering the forum it's probably more productive to stick to the actual definition of the words you use, otherwise you just confuse the terms of debate by misusing key words.

I support making the manufacture, sale and use of cluster weapons illegal, but they're currently not. Obviously deliberate use against civilians is illegal anyhow - and deaths caused thereby would quite probably qualify as murder.

Ed: saw fatherboxx's note above, will stop further discussion but had already written this, sorry

# ? Jul 11, 2023 06:52

Staluigi: Jun 22, 2021

I always feel a certain type of way about it when once again there's a space and time dominating argument which is poo poo that exists purely because of pages and pages and pages of energy people had ready to go over some poo poo Ukraine might do back to russia but there's never even like five percent of that energy for when russia's already doing it at cartoon villain levels so I'm pretty down with the anti-going-in-circles moratorium

# ? Jul 11, 2023 07:26

Saladman: Jan 12, 2010

Small White Dragon posted:

I'm not from the EU but I have a hard time imagining this happening. Per wikipedia, sounds like Turkey would be the EU's most populous country and have the most parliament members.

EDIT: Plus, don't all EU members have to approve? Pretty sure the Greeks would not be up for this.

Yeah, there is a 0.0% chance of Turkey getting into the EU in the next 10 years. Less theoretically, they could get visa free access to Schengen-Europe. Or rather, ETIAS access since the Schengen zone is eliminating visa free completely for all nationalities later this year, but ETIAS is like a two minute process online and a huge improvement over going to a visa office.

Europe already promised visa free access to Turkey several years ago, around 2017, as a carrot for Turkey to keep Syrian + various other refugees from going to Greece and Bulgaria, but then never moved it forward for various reasons. https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/visa-free-travel-rights-why-are-turks-turned-away-at-eu-borders/amp Turkish paper so it will have a pro-Turkish-position bias but Daily Sabah is generally okay.

Saladman fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 07:47

spankmeister: Jun 15, 2008

This discussion isn't even really about cluster munitions.

To me it's really telling that while Russia was using them on day one of the war, against civilian targets in the middle of Kharkiv city center no less for example (there's video evidence of this). But it's only now suddenly become an issue for some people.

I think Ukraine should take the moral high ground in everything they do, (and they've been successful so far in the vast majority of cases) but in this case they were also already using cluster munitions so it's not even a new thing.

Hell, even these specific shells were already provided to Ukraine by Turkey.

No, its just about that America did it this time. That is, once again, the only thing that some people seem to care about.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 07:57

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Xiahou Dun posted:

VitalSigns clearly means murder in the very common sense of "to cause the death of a person in an amoral manner".

This is a incredibly limited view of such a word. Even in military combat, civilian deaths are largely unavoidable but no one would claim that they were murdered by their own military unless specifically targeted.

There no evidence that is the case.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 08:03

Phosphine: May 30, 2011; WHY, JUDY?! WHY?!
🤰🐰🆚🥪🦊

Ynglaur posted:

Seems like a reasonable compromise. Erdogan gets to look big and tough, but (still) doesn't get F-35s. I'm happy for Sweden, and hope that Swedish goons itt (are there any?) are happy too.

It remains to be seen what we've given up or promised for this. From the very start Erdogan has been demanding a number of extraditions. I know one was approved, and several denied. Are those being looked at again? I hope not.

I've always been opposed to Sweden joining Nato, but that was somewhat premised on us actually being neutral. Our prior secret agreements with Nato and the secret defense pact with the US kind of ruin that idea, and then I guess we might as well be part officially.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 08:58

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

MikeC posted:

edit: This one is new from a Forbes writer

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...sh=767d71bcfcc0

The methodology seems questionable though.

I think this is the piece Perun referenced as only including 152mm artillery, not smaller calibres like 122mm, and assuming no new tubes have been manufactured or old ones brought out of stockpiles

# ? Jul 11, 2023 09:04

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Reuters did an interesting write-up of the Metal Gear inspired nuclear sub-plot of the Wagner mutiny.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wagner-fighters-neared-russian-nuclear-base-during-revolt-2023-07-10/

Looks like it's confirmed that part of the main force split off and went into the direction of the storage facility. They fought their way through at least one village and got within 100km of the facility. Everything else is based on anonymous sources or Ukrainian intelligence guesses, but it's still pretty scary and I'm not aware of any other possible explanation for what they were doing out there.

If they were really going for portable nuclear weapons, it's hard to interpret this as anything but a real coup attempt. It would also explain why Putin decided to end it at any cost and make concessions. A nuclear armed Wagner running around Russia would have caused totally unpredictable reactions from the West.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 09:28

Rugz: Apr 15, 2014; PLS SEE AVATAR. P.S. IM A BELL END LOL

Edit: scrubbed

Rugz fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 09:33

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

GABA ghoul posted:

Reuters did an interesting write-up of the Metal Gear inspired nuclear sub-plot of the Wagner mutiny.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wagner-fighters-neared-russian-nuclear-base-during-revolt-2023-07-10/

Looks like it's confirmed that part of the main force split off and went into the direction of the storage facility. They fought their way through at least one village and got within 100km of the facility. Everything else is based on anonymous sources or Ukrainian intelligence guesses, but it's still pretty scary and I'm not aware of any other possible explanation for what they were doing out there.

If they were really going for portable nuclear weapons, it's hard to interpret this as anything but a real coup attempt. It would also explain why Putin decided to end it at any cost and make concessions. A nuclear armed Wagner running around Russia would have caused totally unpredictable reactions from the West.

According to Perun, this was probably not a real thing, because the warheads are stored disassembled, and Wagner would not have had launch codes or a platform to launch the weapon from

# ? Jul 11, 2023 09:35

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

UXOs kill people who aren't yet born to be polled. I guess you could poll the kids in Lebanon who have been crippled by UXOs decades after they were dropped although I think people did that and the victims weren't big fans.

I don't like this argument because it has no limitation whatsoever. Any potentially risky decision whatsoever automatically becomes the wrong decision. And that's just not reality.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 09:54

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Enjoy posted:

According to Perun, this was probably not a real thing, because the warheads are stored disassembled, and Wagner would not have had launch codes or a platform to launch the weapon from

The article is talking about man portable nuclear weapons from the cold war, similar to the Davy Crockett or the backpack bombs. Dunno if these ever had any kind of sophisticated PAL devices.

In any case, holding nuclear weapons during a coup is probably always a good thing, even if they are not operational. You can easily rig them up as a dirty bomb and make everyone very scared of firing at you. The whole world would take notice of a radiation disaster caused by a mercenary mutiny. Even China would lose its poo poo.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 09:59

fatherboxx: Mar 25, 2013

GABA ghoul posted:

Everything else is based on anonymous sources or Ukrainian intelligence guesses,

So useless bullshit then

# ? Jul 11, 2023 10:30

oxford_town: Aug 6, 2009

I know the cluster bomb debate is winding down.

But. The claim was made a page or so ago that less than 1% of the US�s cluster munitions fail to detonate on initial use.

In fact the Pentagon�s stated position is that the munitions supplied have a failure rate of 2.35% or less. But the dud rate in combat is more like 14% for some of them.

Justifiable, perhaps, if they are needed to win against Russia, if there is a plan for cleanup, and indeed if the areas they�ll be used in are already full of UXO.

But they will create problems in future - the magnitude of which can be disputed.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 10:36

with a rebel yell she QQd: Jan 18, 2007; Villain

https://telex.hu/english/2023/07/11/szijjarto-ratification-of-swedens-accession-to-nato-now-only-a-technical-issue

quote:

Hungary's position is clear: "We need peace in Ukraine as soon as possible, because this is the only way to save lives. Our position on Sweden is also clear: the government supports its accession to NATO, which is why we submitted a proposal to this effect to Parliament many months ago. Completing the ratification is now only a technical matter,"

Even more funny, if you know that the government has 2/3 supermajority in the Parliament and somehow found no time to vote on it yet. (And they are now on summer vacations, so earliest they can do is autumn.)

# ? Jul 11, 2023 10:38

Shogeton: Apr 26, 2007; "Little by little the old world crumbled, and not once did the king imagine that some of the pieces might fall on him"

I do feel that some folks are minimizing the consequences of cluster munitions, because it's uncomfortable that a side that is clearly the moral superior (Ukraine) that we all support is doing something that's morally difficult.

And I feel there is room to say. 'Cluster munitions ARE bad, and we should still strive to eliminate them, but the exceptional circumstances of an ongoing genocide in occupied territories, the shortage of other artillery ammunition for the US to deliver without affecting their own readiness and their effectiveness makes it a case where it is a necessary evil'

VS

'Cluster munitions aren't so bad really. The agreements trying to ban them are stupid. They should be totally acceptable to be used in a war' Or even 'It should be fine as long as a nation uses it in a defensive war on its own ground'

One of the reasons the US is supplying this ammunition so easily is because the US stopped using them. The US is better than Russia by leagues in it, but hardly the gold standard when it comes to 'avoid civilian casualties' But cluster munitions are stil la case of 'we're not gonna bind our hands on it, but we're just not gonna use 'em any more' And as far as I know, they don't produce them any more either? And I'm kind of hoping this whole thing doesn't change that, and after their reserves of Cluster Munitions run out they go 'Alright, that was it, we're not making more of it because the civilian casualties it causes aren't acceptable'

Like, people that are minimizing Cluster Munitions. Do you feel that we should remove the tabboo completely. Should it be just another weapon to be used, no more worthy of reproach than artillery shells, mortars or bullets?

Shogeton fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Jul 11, 2023

# ? Jul 11, 2023 10:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 11:21

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

fatherboxx posted:

So useless bullshit then

Are there some decent theories on Russian social media about what they were doing out there? I haven't seen anything floated in western media yet, aside from the nuclear angle.

# ? Jul 11, 2023 10:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > War in Ukraine CE: The Golf War

«‹›483 »