(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
VitalSigns posted: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. Do you know the number of lives that will be destroyed by the deployment of said ordinance? quote: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. Who is to say Ukraine couldn't have won without using a bunch of precision munitions that have caused extensive damage to their own agricultural sector that is going to cause civilian suffering through food security concerns? How many cultivatable acres have Ukraine destroyed in the process of defending their nation? Should they have done that? And if no individual attack gives strategic advantage why are any ever made? If each individual action makes no difference to the strategic landscape then no individual action would ever be taken by someone who was conducting a war in a morally justifiable way because no individual action would have any benefit to outweigh its cost. quote:You could make the same kinds of utilitarian arguments for bombing cities or blowing up hospitals. It might end the war faster right. You could. It would help if you presented a valid train of thought as to why doing so would end the war faster. quote: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. 'The war' implies that both sides are seeking the same objective through disparate means. If Russia's goal was genocide and Ukraine's was border integrity then Russia could easily run a strategy of residential bombardment with the aim of ending the war (read: achieving their war goals) quicker while the same action by the opposing side is not true. This is not making exceptions this is appreciating the reality of war. The war could be over right now if Ukraine surrendered, of those wishing for the quickest end to the war who would champion that position? quote:Ditto making exceptions for the side that is "right", both sides always think they are right. Not relevant. Particularly when there is a third side sitting on the outside trying to define 'right' in what is effectively an existential struggle. What value is there in doing things the 'right' way when doing so leads to the end of the people you have a duty to defend?
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just because people ignore a ban doesn't mean the ban doesn't exist. Weird semantic argument. This is complete nonsense. People have to agree to a ban or it's meaningless. If all the users of a thing don't agree to it being banned and keep using it then it isn't actually banned. It's like I say that you're banned from the forums but you and the mods don't agree. Are you really going to stop posting because I say so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Do you know the number of lives that will be destroyed by the deployment of said ordinance? No one knows exactly how many people will be maimed and killed for decades after, that's the point of banning them. We know how bad they are because we've seen the results of their use in other conflicts. Utilitarian arguments that this time we've found the perfect strategy that will save lives if we use them are too self-serving and error-prone to be reliable. Poison gas was supposed to win the war faster for Germany in 1916, for Iraq in the 1980s, for example. Did it? Rugz posted:Who is to say Ukraine couldn't have won without using a bunch of precision munitions that have caused extensive damage to their own agricultural sector that is going to cause civilian suffering through food security concerns? How many cultivatable acres have Ukraine destroyed in the process of defending their nation? Should they have done that? And if no individual attack gives strategic advantage why are any ever made? If each individual action makes no difference to the strategic landscape then no individual action would ever be taken by someone who was conducting a war in a morally justifiable way because no individual action would have any benefit to outweigh its cost. Rugz posted:You could. It would help if you presented a valid train of thought as to why doing so would end the war faster. Rugz posted:'The war' implies that both sides are seeking the same objective through disparate means. If Russia's goal was genocide and Ukraine's was border integrity then Russia could easily run a strategy of residential bombardment with the aim of ending the war (read: achieving their war goals) quicker while the same action by the opposing side is not true. This is not making exceptions this is appreciating the reality of war. The war could be over right now if Ukraine surrendered, of those wishing for the quickest end to the war who would champion that position? Well the argument against surrendering is that the human suffering is likely to be greater under the boot of a militaristic occupying power. This argument is more credible to me than cluster bombs save lives just trust me bro. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
So, why is Ukraine asking for them then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick... Shut the hell up about cluster munitions already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Is talking about NATO also banned from the thread cuz there's a conference going on
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
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. I don't think he's being bad faith, I think the people in this thread have been extremely hostile to any notion that anything should be off the table when it comes to ukraine defeating russia. The mere idea that anyone could be against the use of cluster munitiions seems to be regarded by this thread as simply unacceptable wrongthink, an opinion only held by the deranged, idiototic, or evil. It is, in fact, a pretty mainstream opinion. I think that there are a not insignificant number of people in this thread so caught up in righteous blood lust that they've simply decided that any opinions they don't share are simply unacceptable. That's honestly troubling, but I guess war does tend to do that to people- though the fact that the majority of you are americans is a little hosed up. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No one knows exactly how many people will be maimed and killed for decades after, that's the point of banning them. We know how bad they are because we've seen the results of their use in other conflicts. Utilitarian arguments that this time we've found the perfect strategy that will save lives if we use them are too self-serving and error-prone to be reliable. No one knows exactly how many people will be maimed and killed when Russia rolls into a new village either, something that you listed as an unknowable hypothetical. Are we allowed to look at places like Bucha to inform a decision instead of just throwing our arms up and going 'The future is mysterious'? quote:Utilitarian arguments that this time we've found the perfect strategy that will save lives if we use them are too self-serving and error-prone to be reliable. Except that is not what is being argued? If you kill 5 people and save 10 you have saved lives. That is a utilitarian argument, it's not saying it is the perfect strategy quote:Poison gas was supposed to win the war faster for Germany in 1916, for Iraq in the 1980s, for example. Did it? Why is this relevant? If a power loses a war having only deployed conventional arms, are they post-fact condemned for the needless loss of life they caused by using lethal force that didn't change the outcome? quote:This is an argument against international law generally. One could justify any atrocity this way. Just because one conventional attack might kill civilians isn't a green light to do anything. 'Just because one cluster munition strike might kill civilians isn't a green light to do anything'. The line of acceptability seems pretty arbitrary. quote:People have and do. Bombing hospitals reduces enemy manpower and hurts morale, which will end the war faster. That's what people who do it say, just because they say it doesn't make it true. Right, and are Ukraine showing any indication that their grand strategy for breaking the back of the Russian invasion is to flatten hospitals? quote:Well the argument against surrendering is that the human suffering is likely to be greater under the boot of a militaristic occupying power. Huh, then perhaps the argument for deploying cluster munitions being that the militaristic occupying power will roll in and massacre people sounds fairly credible. quote:This argument is more credible to me than cluster bombs save lives just trust me bro. Who is saying this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
I would say if you look at the status of Chechnya and other territories that Russia has conquered and absorbed since the 90's, it's only rational to believe the exact same fate awaits Ukraine had Russia the capacity to conquer it. Edit: I definitely am saying cluster munitions will save lives, in the war. 100%. Displacing russian defenses will increase the chance of a faster Ukrainian victory. I'd prefer Ukraine had western aircraft, aerial munitions, and logistics networks to support them. But that didn't happen in time for the offensive so unfortunately it looks like they have to rely on cluster munitions. If there is a different weapon system that can be easily used without much logistical upkeep for similar results I'd genuinely love to hear about it. Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jul 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:I don't think he's being bad faith, I think the people in this thread have been extremely hostile to any notion that anything should be off the table when it comes to ukraine defeating russia. The mere idea that anyone could be against the use of cluster munitiions seems to be regarded by this thread as simply unacceptable wrongthink, an opinion only held by the deranged, idiototic, or evil. It is, in fact, a pretty mainstream opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:So, why is Ukraine asking for them then? Because they think using them is worth it, doesn't mean they are right. Rugz posted:
You are claiming that this time they've found a strategy that will accomplish this utilitarian goal, and this makes it different from all the other times cluster bombs were horrific and senseless wastes of life, doesn't mean they actually have. Rugz posted:
Rugz posted:Who is saying this? You literally claimed in this same post that Ukraine's use of cluster bombs will save 10 lives for every 5 killed, did you forget your own argument by the time you got to the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I think it's that this is a thread of little debate. This thread gets used as a way of sharing the constant stream of the most interesting new happenings, and occasionally posting follow ups that explains stuff in more details. Nobody is interested in have the same topics debated for page after page where it goes no-where. I would find the discussion less troubling if the response were simply "Hey, not the place for it, take it to X" instead of hostility and incredulity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just because people ignore a ban doesn't mean the ban doesn't exist. Weird semantic argument. well you're ignoring a ban on cluster munitions chat given by the thread ik, so does that not exist either
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Landmines serves as a good example re: cluster munitions in that they are by design undeniably worse than cluster munitions while also being highly useful which is clearly evident by the trouble UAF currently have in dealing with them around Russian defensive lines. It follows that if Ukraine decided to not use landmines they would be at disadvantage and would probably suffer casualties they otherwise would not. The trade-off is some amount of military and civilian casualties to leftover landmines in the future. Whether you should use landmines or cluster munitions or whatever depends on some form of risk and cost analysis which will necesarrily be based on incomplete data and subjective interpretation. We can argue about it until the end of time but no one will ever have more than rough guesstimates for the actual efficiency and impact of these systems on the battlefield vs the future cost of them. I would say though, that if my country was invaded by an entity that promised to de-nationalize, de-militarize and de-industrialize us the only weapons I would not deploy on the invading armies would be ones that were likely to cost us more in a potential quid pro quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Depends on the circumstances. It's generally considered correct to surrender once it's clear that further resistance is hopeless and only costs more lives for the same outcome. I do not believe Ukraine's military situation is this dire, if it were then surrendering would be the only correct choice. So we have arrived at a position where the expenditure of lives is acceptable when it changes the outcome of the conflict. This seems diametrically opposed to VitalSigns posted:everyone wants to end the war faster and thinks their strategy will do it If you are working towards a goal of changing the outcome of a war you are implicitly not working towards ending it, because if it ended you would not achieve your goals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
Rugz posted:So we have arrived at a position where the expenditure of lives is acceptable when it changes the outcome of the conflict. This seems diametrically opposed to You are ignoring the difference between combatants and noncombatans here. Just because people die in war doesn't justify committing atrocities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You are ignoring the difference between combatants and noncombatans here. Actually it does. The greatest conceptual atrocity is a staple of deterrence doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Actually it does. The greatest conceptual atrocity is a staple of deterrence doctrine. Ok agree to disagree then. Would have saved time if you just said this from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok agree to disagree then. Just so we're clear, are you disagreeing that MAD is a staple part of deterrence? You are disagreeing that letters of last resort exist? That second strike capabilities are maintained? Or are you just disagreeing that nations should be doing it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
I said atrocities aren't justified, you say they are. I think we've reached an impasse and we just disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Sounds like there's a formal agreement on how to start F-16 training. https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1678783312137953282 Who actually hands over F-16 (or cash or substitute planes for those handing over F-16) is presumably still a pain point to be solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I said atrocities aren't justified, you say they are. If atrocities are not justified then what is the acceptable level of force in your opinion that can be used in the prevention of an atrocity that will be committed against a group that you have an unshakable duty to protect? Presumably it falls short of 'any and all means necessary', which means there is some inflection point of action you would be unprepared to take despite it being required.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:I would find the discussion less troubling if the response were simply "Hey, not the place for it, take it to X" instead of hostility and incredulity. I agree that there is a population of pro-Ukrainian voices on the internet that are a little bit too zealous of their defense of Ukraine. I think by and large this thread is pretty ok about it, even if it occasionally falls into these circular discussions where people just can't agree to disagree, but that's pretty much a politics forum for ya. https://notes.citeam.org/dispatch-jul-7-10 https://notes.citeam.org/mobi-jul-9-10 CIT team summaries for the past couple days, things I found interesting: quote:A missile hitting a sawmill in the town of Bytosh, Rostov region, was caught on camera on Jul. 9. It was identified as an S-200 surface-to-air missile that was supposedly modified to hit ground targets. This was probably the most distance ever covered by a Ukrainian missile, as the sawmill is around 170 km [106 miles] away from the Ukrainian border. Only UAVs had previously reached that deep into Russian territory. I think S-200 series have been modified for ground attack before, but surprised to see it lobbed far into Russian territory, not sure what they were trying to hit. Can't imagine very high accuracy there. quote:Oleg Mantulin, the security advisor to the governor of the Belgorod region, announced plans to establish an organization with a license for firearms and the purchase of 400 weapons to address the issue of arming the territorial defense. Mantulin also revealed that the Belgorod self-defense structure currently consists of eight battalions with a total of 2,900 personnel. However, there are plans to expand the number. The regional authorities allocated over 400 million rubles for the purchase of equipment for territorial defense. The incursions are somewhat forcing a reallocation of resources. quote:Meduza [international Russian-language online media outlet] and Mediazona [independent Russian media outlet] in collaboration with the excess mortality researcher Dmitry Kobak studied data from Rosstat [Federal State Statistics Service] and the National Probate Registry and found that at least 47,000 Russian soldiers were killed during the war in Ukraine. The study also estimates the number of severely wounded, missing and captured Russians. Including those who were discharged due to serious injuries, the cumulative Russian losses could be at least 125,000. The data department of the Vazhnyye Istorii [iStories, independent Russian investigative media outlet], which also calculated Russia's losses in the war, explained the difference in the assessment of losses between the studies—the Vazhnyye Istorii estimates the lowest limit ("not less than"), while Meduza and Mediazona estimate the highest limit ("not more than"). Thus, the calculations are correct for all these media outlets, but reflect different approaches to studying data. Interesting take on Meduza's casualty estimation, not sure I got that it was a upper limit personally, since I thought it was effectively an estimate based on legally recognized losses based on estate transfers. quote:The State Duma is going to create a series of videos about the war in Ukraine for schoolchildren. The series titled "What Are We Fighting For?" features participants in the war who will tell children about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The initiative by Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education Yana Lantratova was supported by the Ministry of Defense. Can't wait for people to make fun of these videos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:
The easiest mechanically big-effect action would be removal of the ban on use of Western precision ammunition on targets in Russia, but that doesn't really address the shortage of ammunition anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick... Shut the hell up about cluster munitions already. I think it should be obvious that the reason this public debate has continued for so long, is that for some perspectives the issue of cluster munitions presents a useful wedge issue. Their usual opinions/arguments (USA = Bad, Ukraine Defending itself = Bad, Arming Ukraine to Defend itself = Bad, Russia = Good, etc) get no traction with the majority. No point in trying to keep pushing these. But Cluster Munitions? They have a public reputation as 'evil' or 'taboo' weapons, like landmines, chemical weapons, nukes, etc. So they present a great new angle of attack - a wedge issue to raise justified concerns and JAQ about, muddying the waters and potentially weakening support for the other side. Which may create opportunities to advance your real views later on down the line. And the thing is, it works! I mean don't particularly like that they are being sent, but if there isn't really a practical alternative to arming the Ukrainians, then so be it. I think this is a fairly common view. Its also a fairly common view to feel they aren't justified and alternatives should be found. These are both legitimate views! The telling thing is those commentators/groups who just won't stop loving going on about it. Its why it probably needs to be shut down for now unless any new angles emerge - I think the discussion has been done to death here, and nothing of value is being added.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
I don’t think we’re in a position to pass moral judgements on a country fighting for its life and its very existence. The goal here is to continue inflicting casualties on the enemy without any pauses or breaks to end the war sooner. Consider yourselves lucky the VDV isn’t cruising through your suburban town executing your friends and neighbors and booby trapping your bathroom. It’s one thing to sit here and livestream the war from the comfort and safety of our computer screens in air conditioned homes. It’s a whole other thing when it’s your family, your neighbours, your friends being brutalized in unspeakable ways. I promise that a good chunk of the people fighting for their lives out there have all got a story they can’t speak of that sits with them and motivates them to fight the Russians as hard as possible with everything they’ve got. For them this war is personal and is inflicting far greater horrors in the near term that using “banned” weapons is the least of their worries if it means shortening the war by even a day. What’s happening right now is far worse than a problem they can deal with in peace if they can win this war. Hate is a word we all use lightly. But if you want to know what true hate looks like, maybe talk to some of the people who actually saw what the Russians have done. Or talk to a surviving veteran who fought the Japanese in New Guinea or the Philippines. If you can even understand or empathize with their situation 10% more than what you feel when you read a tweet from Reuters it’s a lot easier to understand and even support the weapons Ukraine is getting/using. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jul 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
Comte de Saint-Germain posted:I don't think he's being bad faith, I think the people in this thread have been extremely hostile to any notion that anything should be off the table when it comes to ukraine defeating russia. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Bottom line is there's no prohibition on the use of these weapons under international, US or Ukrainian law. They're already being used in theatre by both sides, and frankly I trust Ukraine broadly to use these on legitimate and appropriate military targets, not to lob them at civilians. To do so would be a war crime, and should be treated as such. Further, not providing them will apparently seriously restrict their artillery capabilities due to shell shortages so there seems for now no meaningful alternative, if you are on the Ukrainian side of things and want to see them stop the Russian's attempted genocide. By all means if you don't agree with the transfer of the weapons, I guess you can write to your Senators or Representatives if you're American.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
MikeC posted:The fact that you are conflating collateral damage as "murder", implying the primary aim of supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine is not actually to assist them in evicting Russians from Ukrainian soil but is actually meant to kill civilians, strongly suggests trolling/bad faith. I guess it is possible the verbiage used in the first post was unintended. If so perhaps you can clarify. Material analysis of history isn’t trolling. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Since no one has read my kind appeal to limit clusterchat to only posts that add something new SHUT UP ABOUT CLUSTER MUNITIONS UNLESS YOUR POSTS ADD ANYTHING OF VALUE and circular arguments about legality and morality aint it
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
unless you use the probation button there's literally zero chance people are going to shut up
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
I just use the ignore button a lot. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Just Another Lurker posted:I just use the ignore button a lot. I didn't even notice it was there....
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:unless you use the probation button there's literally zero chance people are going to shut up Silly me hoping people realize that having final statement responding to final final statement only clogs up the thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
If Ukraine is admitted into NATO during the war, does that mean NATO is obliged to enter into the war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Jon posted:If Ukraine is admitted into NATO during the war, does that mean NATO is obliged to enter into the war? This would be a unique diplomatic situation so I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule. They could say that membership can only start once the war is over but that just incentivizes Russia to never leave. They could give a deadline and say on XX date this becomes a shooting war between Russia and NATO. It’s hard to imagine them accepting Ukraine, though, and then also letting Russia continue the invasion without putting boots on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Zelensky is specifically asking for accession after the war is finished. NATO's charter does not allow a country currently at war to join.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Zelensky is specifically asking for accession after the war is finished. NATO's charter does not allow a country currently at war to join. That seems to create a bad situation where Russia has a good reason (from their standpoint) to never leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:That seems to create a bad situation where Russia has a good reason (from their standpoint) to never leave. they're never going to leave on their own anyway because it'll be suicide for putin. they're gonna have to be stopped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Jon posted:If Ukraine is admitted into NATO during the war, does that mean NATO is obliged to enter into the war? Ukraine will never be admitted while there is still a war going on. Russia won’t leave unless they are forced to either by collapse of their lines/military, economic concerns or change in leadership. It is why those crowing on about diplomacy don’t understand the fundamental issues at play. Russia is very well aware that the second they are gone that NATO is going to move right in and fast track Ukraine. This will not only end their dreams of conquest for good but also create a giant NATO neighbor right on their doorstep. Not even considering the Black Sea concerns. NATO isn’t going to involve themselves unless Russia attacks NATO directly, uses a nuclear weapon/attacks a nuclear station or oversteps in a way where the world is forced to deal with them directly. The first is off the table, the second is also unlikely, the third is the most likely but there aren’t a ton of scenarios in which I see that happening without the other two. NATO is going to keep giving Ukraine more and more stuff to get the job done. I am assuming by next summer if they haven’t already succeeded they will push things into high gear as everyone involved will want to finish things before the US election and the uncertainty that will bring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2023 18:14
|
|