(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1678508099085246468?s=20 https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1678514803956936706?s=20 Edit: https://twitter.com/mexic0la_/status/1678524860186648582?s=20 with a rebel yell she QQd fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Jul 11, 2023 |
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
spankmeister posted:This discussion isn't even really about cluster munitions. Ok this is going in circles but this is an insane strawman, nobody said that Russia using cluster munitions was a-ok. Indeed, there was a huge outcry about it at the start of the war, just as there was a lot of outcry about Russia using thermobaric missiles. It was definitely an issue, don't try to gaslight this as a "you only say it's bad because the US does it" topic. I'll happily leave the cluster bomb discussion, but this is such a bad strawman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 10:49
|
|
|
Shogeton posted:One of the reasons the US is supplying this ammunition so easily is because the US stopped using them. That’s because the US hasn’t fought a conventional war for a while, though. They were used in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and before that in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The problem is that they’re militarily-useful weapons (even if not used for terror bombing). I suspect the US wouldn’t hesitate to use them were they felt to be helpful in achieving strategic goals - which is kind of what is happening now by shipping them to Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 10:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1678699399570939904 "New" munitions, but SCALPs are basically Storm Shadows, so it's just more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 10:53
|
|
|
Shogeton posted: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? But those three things have different levels of reproach already. What actual value does 'taboo' have compared to the concept of proportional response. A taboo is effectively saying 'there is no situation we consider this proportional', an easy statement to make in peacetime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 10:58
|
|
|
Lol, that cheeky like is a baller move
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:04
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted: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. They were going to Moscow and there is no evidence that they even entertained approaching nuclear bases on the way there. Post-fact it is pretty evident that were not going to seriously do a coup, besiege Moscow and engage in serious combat. They just pulled up gang style to air grievances and demand favorable exit terms, thats it. with a rebel yell she QQd posted:Edit: Is this actually Budanov or someone making up an account that day for a joke tweet
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:04
|
|
|
Rugz posted:But those three things have different levels of reproach already. What actual value does 'taboo' have compared to the concept of proportional response. A taboo is effectively saying 'there is no situation we consider this proportional', an easy statement to make in peacetime. Valid. Principled stands can sometimes falter when put to the proof. But does that mean the stance against them is wrong? I feel that a lot of arguments seem to suggest that cluster ammunitions, if used on military targets, are just as fine as using artillery shells on them. I feel they are not. There is a high value in discouraging their use in preventing civilian death and suffering. But yeah, there's varying degrees of reproach of different weapons in a war. That is good. I think a world where people are binary: Peace = no weapons War = go nuts is a world that is worse for it than one where distinctions are made, even if they are not always applied reliably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:11
|
|
|
with a rebel yell she QQd posted:https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1678508099085246468?s=20 "Elevation gain: -6 feet" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:14
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:They were going to Moscow and there is no evidence that they even entertained approaching nuclear bases on the way there. I mean the forces that detached from the main convoy and headed east. Talovaya is clearly not in the direction of Moscow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:18
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:I mean the forces that detached from the main convoy and headed east. Talovaya is clearly not in the direction of Moscow. gonna need something stronger than budanov transparently taking a poo poo all over the russian information space and journalists and osint groups saying 'no we have zero evidence that they went closer than 110km from the facility.' until there's some evidence it's just what it looks like: budanov stirring up as much chaos as humanly possible, which he loves doing
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:21
|
|
|
Shogeton posted:Valid. Principled stands can sometimes falter when put to the proof. But does that mean the stance against them is wrong? I feel that a lot of arguments seem to suggest that cluster ammunitions, if used on military targets, are just as fine as using artillery shells on them. I feel they are not. There is a high value in discouraging their use in preventing civilian death and suffering. Is the stance against them, in principle, actually a stance against them? Or is it a stance against an outcome linked to the use of them? Is their use discouraged on the basis of what they are or what they do? If the principle is based on what they are then what actual principle is being upheld? And how can such a principle ever be consider right or wrong? If the principle is based on what they do then by making them taboo you are saying that there is nothing that could justify them. So yes that stance would be wrong, or more charitably that stance would be naïve and idealistic. The idea that their use causes civilian death and suffering may be true, however applying that criticism as a blanket when assessing use implies that the default position of a civilian is 'I am not suffering and dying'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:22
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:gonna need something stronger than budanov transparently taking a poo poo all over the russian information space and journalists and osint groups saying 'no we have zero evidence that they went closer than 110km from the facility.' until there's some evidence it's just what it looks like: budanov stirring up as much chaos as humanly possible, which he loves doing The source for the battle of Talovaya is not Budanov. The downed helicopter there had been geolocated shortly after the mutiny. Reuters spoke to locals from there, who confirmed the events.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:30
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:The source for the battle of Talovaya is not Budanov. The downed helicopter there had been geolocated shortly after the mutiny. Reuters spoke to locals from there, who confirmed the events. that they did anything past talovaya is 100% from budanov. reuters spoke to people who confirmed something happened in town but 'Reuters couldn't determine what the column did next. A resident of Talovaya said that as far as he was aware, it did not move any further and the following day – after the truce was announced – the column turned around and went back the way it came.' next sentence, 'Budanov said in his interview that an unspecified number of fighters did in fact press on to Voronezh-45 with the intention of seizing portable, Soviet-era nuclear weapons stored at the facility.' so yeah there's only a single source of anything past talovaya
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:35
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Is this actually Budanov or someone making up an account that day for a joke tweet  Regarding Wagner nukes: it is virtually 100% certain they would be unable to do anything serious even if they captured any nuclear weapons in the base. Like people have said, those things have layers and layers of security to them, and it's not like Wagner had any nuke specialists. If they were pushing for the base, which is a big if, they were looking for conventional materiel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:37
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:that they did anything past talovaya is 100% from budanov. reuters spoke to people who confirmed something happened in town but 'Reuters couldn't determine what the column did next. A resident of Talovaya said that as far as he was aware, it did not move any further and the following day – after the truce was announced – the column turned around and went back the way it came.' Seems like we had a misunderstanding. I was only asking if there are any decent theories in Russian social media on what these Wagner forces were doing out there, cause I haven't heard anything in western media. I'm not trying to defend Budanov's speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:42
|
|
|
ah gotcha, my bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:44
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:Regarding Wagner nukes: it is virtually 100% certain they would be unable to do anything serious even if they captured any nuclear weapons in the base. Like people have said, those things have layers and layers of security to them, and it's not like Wagner had any nuke specialists. If they were pushing for the base, which is a big if, they were looking for conventional materiel. And not in a "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS" sense, but in terms of agreeing to hand them back to Russia in exchange for certain concessions. But they didn't even get near them, so its all hypotheticals really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:45
|
|
|
Kikas posted:https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1678699399570939904 https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-france-sending-scalp-eg-cruise-missiles
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 11:54
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:This discussion isn't even really about cluster munitions. I said Russia was committing mass murder in my very first post on the topic, it passed unremarked on and didn't become A Thing because nobody felt compelled to defend and excuse war crimes committed by Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Is this actually Budanov or someone making up an account that day for a joke tweet There's only 2 kudos in the previous tweet, so it made the rounds publicly before the Budanov kudos showed up. Still a pro troll. In other news: https://twitter.com/MackjackMaier/status/1678444884523458575?s=20 tl;dr - The front company in Warsaw that hired the Andromeda yacht is 95% owned by a Crimean originally from Usbekistan, who's currently residing in Russia. So, a piece of evidence pointing towards a Russian false-flag rather than a Ukrainian commando op.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:"Elevation gain: -6 feet" As a submariner he should already be used to the lower depths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Is the stance against them, in principle, actually a stance against them? Or is it a stance against an outcome linked to the use of them? Is their use discouraged on the basis of what they are or what they do? It is I think the second. The act and the consequences. I'm not opposed, and am in fact very happy that Ukraine gets things like Stormshadows and those French missiles, because I have confidence that Ukraine will use them on military targets. An AU where Ukraine was more vengeful and decided to go tit for tat on bombing civilians, my feelings would be very different. The issue with Cluster munitions compared to a cruise missile is that even if you use them only on purely military targets, you are going to get more civilian causalties. Yes, Russia is also doing it. Yes, you'll try to clean up afterwards. But there are civilians that are gonna be killed and maimed that wouldn't have if you didn't use that weapon. But like I said, it's not a binary thing. You don't have one box with 'These are things that are weapons and actions with weapons that are just 'business as usual' in a war, part of the package' and 'These things are EVIL, EVIL and anyone who uses them is absolutely the bad guy' It's a sliding scale, and just because Ukraine is the good guy in the conflict, (and they ARE) doesn't mean we cannot take a moment to consider that this is to go a step deeper towards 'the bad stuff'. We might, after that consideration decide 'This was sadly a necessary evil, the least bad of choices' But if we say 'This isn't even something to consider, war is hell, civilians gonna die,' then we shouldn't be surprised if in other wars, wars where the stakes are lower, where the 'good and bad' side are murkier, people are going to shrug and say 'Well, we all agreed that cluster munitions weren't a big deal, right?' And yes, Russia doesn't get commented on for using Cluster Munitions. The Russian Army is a War Crime machine that deliberately targets civilians. This is known. Making the point that they're using weapons that are going to kill civilians later is rather pointless, isn't it? It's horrible what Russia is doing, and it is why we're all supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean Ukraine can do no wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
Shogeton posted:Valid. Principled stands can sometimes falter when put to the proof. But does that mean the stance against them is wrong? I feel that a lot of arguments seem to suggest that cluster ammunitions, if used on military targets, are just as fine as using artillery shells on them. I feel they are not. There is a high value in discouraging their use in preventing civilian death and suffering. I don't think very many people are arguing that this is a binary decision besides those saying they should be forbidden in all circumstances. All weapons that leave lasting dangers after the war ends are bad and should be discouraged. It's terrible that they have been used so extensively in Ukraine. Nobody is going to argue that point and if there was a scenario where this war could have been fought without them it would be fantastic, but that isn't a real thing. Any discussion on this has to acknowledge that the horse has bolted on any situation where Ukraine doesn't have to painstakingly demine hundreds of thousands of kilometres of territory. Telling Ukraine they shouldn't use cluster munitions today it's like telling a man standing in the burnt out wreck of his home that he shouldn't light a camp fire in his living room. That's great advice in a completely different context, but now? It's not possible to ignore the context of this decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
Lot of cluster round this and war crime that, but a not single word about Ukraine is probably going to disassemble them and use the bomblets on drones to help clear out trenches, stationary vehicles, and other fortified positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
Shogeton posted:It is I think the second. The act and the consequences. I'm not opposed, and am in fact very happy that Ukraine gets things like Stormshadows and those French missiles, because I have confidence that Ukraine will use them on military targets. An AU where Ukraine was more vengeful and decided to go tit for tat on bombing civilians, my feelings would be very different. More civilian casualties than what? This is exactly what I was talking about with the base assumption being that civilians have a default state of 'not suffering and dying'. Sure, if cluster munitions were not used these specific 10 civilians that stepped on UXO would not have suffered and died, but if in not using cluster munitions you are unable to prevent another Bucha what exactly is the rationale for a state that has a social contract to protect its population not to use cluster munitions? quote:But like I said, it's not a binary thing. You don't have one box with 'These are things that are weapons and actions with weapons that are just 'business as usual' in a war, part of the package' and 'These things are EVIL, EVIL and anyone who uses them is absolutely the bad guy' It's a sliding scale, and just because Ukraine is the good guy in the conflict, (and they ARE) doesn't mean we cannot take a moment to consider that this is to go a step deeper towards 'the bad stuff'. We might, after that consideration decide 'This was sadly a necessary evil, the least bad of choices' But if we say 'This isn't even something to consider, war is hell, civilians gonna die,' then we shouldn't be surprised if in other wars, wars where the stakes are lower, where the 'good and bad' side are murkier, people are going to shrug and say 'Well, we all agreed that cluster munitions weren't a big deal, right?' But that is exactly what we do have, and exactly what is being deconstructed by the realities of war. Countries signed a piece of paper saying 'This thing is bad bad bad and no we will not ever use them', and that position is being used as the starting point for 'deep concern' over the use of certain weapons. Saying 'civilians gonna die' is reality and any position that opposes a wartime decision based on the civilian impact must by necessity consider the alternative, and that alternative is not 'civilians go about their lives'. I also disagree with the idea that it is a sliding scale, because when you go far enough down the path of moral squeamishness you find at the end of it all the powers in agreement that when push comes to shove they are going to glass your entire nation with the concept of MAD. They might balk at the idea of using smaller grade munitions that will maim a bunch of innocent civilians but none of them would openly flinch at the idea of eradicating an entire nation state when the chips are down. quote:And yes, Russia doesn't get commented on for using Cluster Munitions. The Russian Army is a War Crime machine that deliberately targets civilians. This is known. Making the point that they're using weapons that are going to kill civilians later is rather pointless, isn't it? It's horrible what Russia is doing, and it is why we're all supporting Ukraine. That doesn't mean Ukraine can do no wrong. Is it wrong for Ukraine to deploy weapons that will kill/maim 100 civilians if the outcome is that the Russian War Crime Machine is prevented from rolling in and killing/maiming 1000 civilians? That is the point. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I don't think very many people are arguing that this is a binary decision besides those saying they should be forbidden in all circumstances. Honestly, I feel that that second paragraph is not accurate. It feels like a lot of people in the thread are minimizing it, or suggesting that 'war is hell, civilians suffer, best just to end the war quickly'. Or that, because Ukraine is on the right side of the war, any tools they use are allowed, and they are free of all responsibility. if the mood was 'Yeah, this sucks, cluster munitions are a terrible weapon, but the situation is so dire that the alternatives are worse for the civilians' then I wouldn't feel the need to belabour this point. But yes, agreed that context matters. The fact that I'm kind of torn on the use of this weapon by a side I support is only BECAUSE of that context. If Russia was just as imperialistic, but wasn't on a bloodthirsty, genocidal bender I'd feel more negatively about the use of those weapons. An if Russia went fully mask off and started up large scale extermination camps, the other way around. The civilian deaths that Cluster munitions cause are not the only weight in the scales. I agree. I just feel that people minimise that weight, because it makes us uncomfortable. And that is a bad habit to get into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:13
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Lot of cluster round this and war crime that, but a not single word about Ukraine is probably going to disassemble them and use the bomblets on drones to help clear out trenches, stationary vehicles, and other fortified positions. Well, we can't go around destroying a carefully constructed narrative just to find the truth can we?  edit: Ukrainians defending their country have a right to do so and to do it to the best of their ability, it is after all a matter of life & death. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
I think the issue is not with Ukraine using them (desperate times call for desperate measures), it is with the US supplying them. The US has other shells to supply (even if the US does find it much more convenient to empty the cupboard of old gear along with much needed stuff) and normalizing exporting cluster munitions is not great, even if it is a free donation to a worthy cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
Shogeton posted:Honestly, I feel that that second paragraph is not accurate. It feels like a lot of people in the thread are minimizing it, or suggesting that 'war is hell, civilians suffer, best just to end the war quickly'. Or that, because Ukraine is on the right side of the war, any tools they use are allowed, and they are free of all responsibility. if the mood was 'Yeah, this sucks, cluster munitions are a terrible weapon, but the situation is so dire that the alternatives are worse for the civilians' then I wouldn't feel the need to belabour this point. bolded is the exact sentiment that i've seen in response to this in 99% of places in support of giving ukraine those weapons. no one is really arguing anything else so idk who/what you are exactly responding to at this point zero people are arguing the italic statement Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jul 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
Shogeton posted:Honestly, I feel that that second paragraph is not accurate. It feels like a lot of people in the thread are minimizing it, or suggesting that 'war is hell, civilians suffer, best just to end the war quickly'. Or that, because Ukraine is on the right side of the war, any tools they use are allowed, and they are free of all responsibility. if the mood was 'Yeah, this sucks, cluster munitions are a terrible weapon, but the situation is so dire that the alternatives are worse for the civilians' then I wouldn't feel the need to belabour this point. I'd be interested in talking about why you don't think it's a good analogy. After the war, Ukraine is going to have to send demining crews out and say, these 10 square km are heavily mined and scattered with cluster munitions and other uxo. Go meter by meter, painstakingly clearing the area. Ukraine has 250,000 square km of minefields at this point. Then you say "also, there's a 3% chance of the area also containing one or more US made cluster munitions". Ok fine that math doesn't work because it's not like Ukraine is using these things in a uniform way, but you see my point. Your saying, if I understand correctly, that this is a significant change. I don't really see it. It's not nothing, and every civilian death is terrible, but it feels like there is a big difference between the scenario discussed in the very convincing arguments to ban the weapons and the current one. I think pointing this out is valid. When the objective is protecting civilians, helping Ukraine to end the war is the way to do this. No question. In other wars this may not be true, but it is here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I think the issue is not with Ukraine using them (desperate times call for desperate measures), it is with the US supplying them. The US has other shells to supply (even if the US does find it much more convenient to empty the cupboard of old gear along with much needed stuff) and normalizing exporting cluster munitions is not great, even if it is a free donation to a worthy cause. I don't know that they have other munitions. The Biden administration has explicitly stated that they are sending cluster munitions because Ukraine is running out of shells. This implies that Europe and America simply can't keep up with the demand for munitions. And when you look at the numbers of arms and armaments being shipped, that makes sense. There is much hullabaloo about tiny portions of arm supplies. 14 tanks here, 3 radars there, a dozen humvees, etc. These are not numbers that reflect a healthy military apparatus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Clearing UXOs does not happen instantly and does not have a 100% success rate. If it did, no movement to ban cluster weapons would have ever been necessary. The more you drop, the longer it takes to clear and the more you miss. Russia could argue the same way. Well we've dropped so many now it doesn't matter anymore how much more we drop after this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt the 24th page of cluster munition chat, but here's a new video from thread favorite Anders Puck Nielsen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fR9HJnYXoc
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The more you drop, the longer it takes to clear and the more you miss. Ok, and when making a value decision on the cost of missing additionally deployed UXO what is that cost being compared to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Clearing UXOs does not happen instantly and does not have a 100% success rate. If it did, no movement to ban cluster weapons would have ever been necessary. Yes but civilians aren't generally going to be running around in unsafe minefields as soon as the war ends. And I know that it's not 100% successful, that's why I said "it's not nothing". I does have an impact. If an area has 1000 pieces of uxo, and you add one more, it's possible that they miss one, and it's the one you added. I get it. However, how big is that impact on the overall situation? Compare it to the scenario described in the proposals to ban the weapons, where these cluster munitions are the only source of uxo in an asymmetric war. I would describe it as substantially smaller. Would you say that's an unfair assessment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Mods, can we have a clusterchat clause like the clancychat one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Ok, and when making a value decision on the cost of missing additionally deployed UXO what is that cost being compared to? Well presumably you're wanting to compare it to the amount of lives saved by deploying that same ordinance, I don't think it's even possible to have enough information to make that utilitarian calculation which inherently involves unknowable hypotheticals. If Ukraine wins quickly it may save lives, but if they would have won without dropping cluster bombs then it may not. If they win faster, how much faster, how many minutes does each drop shorten the war, surely some individual attacks will have no strategic advantage because you can't ever know for certain what the enemy will do etc. You could make the same kinds of utilitarian arguments for bombing cities or blowing up hospitals. It might end the war faster right. Making exceptions if you think it might end the war faster has an obvious problem: everyone wants to end the war faster and thinks their strategy will do it, Russia wouldn't be bombing cities if they thought it was a waste of limited ordnance and will make the war take longer. Ditto making exceptions for the side that is "right", both sides always think they are right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
To be fair... posted:Mods, can we have a clusterchat clause like the clancychat one? It's something which is actually happening and which many western countries disagree with America on, it's not the same league as clancychat
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Was it mentioned that Lieutenant General Oleg Tsokov, by some sources a deputy commander of the Southern Military District as well as the commander of the 122nd motorised rifle division, was killed in Berdyansk on the Azov coast by a Storm Shadow missile? He was also wounded in a Ukrainian strike last September so the guy sounds like a commander who was really bad at keeping his command post locations unknown to enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:13
|
|
