This update contains a Key Item of Importance — the reaction of our allies. In addition, The New York Times is now copying the Daily Kos, and has a very strong editorial against supplying cluster munitions. A very interesting analysis of the poll results is given. And, the poll is open for round 2, There are two more important items about cluster munitions.
Sources are at the end of the update. Finally a great discussion can be found in the original post (same title, but starts with “The Good”)
The original diary follows this update. (Note: This update is being done as a new diary, as the DK update function is designed for shorter updates.)
The New York Times copied the Daily Kos. They asked: “Should the U.S. supply Ukraine with cluster munitions ?” for their Sunday Question, which is essentially the same question this diary asked in its poll on Friday. Obviously they are reading the Daily Kos. 😁 (tongue in cheek emoji goes here)
3 More Items to Add to “The Bad” Section (of Cluster Munitions)
Key Update: International Treaty — Convention on Cluster Munitions
ALL of Europe, except for 8 countries in the east (see notes), including the UK, Canada, Australia and Japan have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions which bans the use, production, storage and transfer of cluster munitions. These are virtually ALL of our allies, and include our closest ally, the UK. (Notes: While we consider the UK to be part of Europe, there are a lot of people in the UK who think they are not. Thus, the separate listing of the UK. The European countries that haven’s signed the treaty are, from north to south: Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey, and Greece )
The US has broken ranks with our allies to start supplying cluster weapons to Ukraine. We have been trying to maintain unity within NATO, and have been critical of other countries for going their own way. Now, this decision will make it easier for these other countries to break ranks and go their own way. It also causes internal problems for our allies with that part of their populations that are queasy about supporting the war, especially in Germany. We should expect this decision to come back and bite us in the future.
(Note: The author hasn’t seen this issue discussed elsewhere in the Daily Kos as of the early morning hours of July 10, when this diary was written. Thus, one of the reasons for calling this a key issue.)
Dud Rate, or UBP
The “Dud Rate”, or better the “unexploded bomblet percentage” (UBP), is 2.35% in carefully controlled test conditions. In actual field conditions, it is 10%, and can be as high as 16.5%. For the older cluster munitions that the US is likely to supply (as they are approaching the end of their storage life), this rate could well be higher. (The differences between test and field conditions are the hardness of the ground, and the angle the bomblets strike the ground, both of which affect the force needed to detonate the bomblets; wind conditions; and the height at which the munition actually detonates. Also, trees and bushes can catch the bomblets prior to their striking the ground and detonating. See the title figure to get some sense of these problems.)
The higher UBP means more danger and slower going for Ukrainian forces trying to cross areas that have been hit with cluster munitions. This is one of the major disadvantages of cluster munitions. Making a decision based upon a UBP of 2.35% is both foolish and dangerous.
Another issue is trying to clean up these unexploded bomblets later. Regardless of the tracking of these bomblets, shooting a lot of cluster munitions will cause a major cleanup problem added onto the Russian UBP problem.
Fortifications / Trenches
Cluster munitions are a poor choice for taking out pillboxes and other hard covered fortifications. The bomblet has to find its way into a narrow opening. While they have a much better chance of entering open trenches than explosive shells that have only one chance to get in, they are not the best weapon against trenches.
Thermobaric weapons (or air-fuel bombs or vacuum bombs) are much better for attacking these fortifications. They don’t have to fall into an open trench or a slit in a pillbox. Thermobaric weapons simply explode near the vicinity of these fortifications and kill or maim the soldiers inside. (The author is working on a diary about thermobaric weapons.)
New York Times Editorial
The NYT published an editorial on Monday July 10 condemning the US for sending cluster munitions to Ukraine. It is titled “The Flawed Moral Logic of Sending Cluster Munitions to Ukraine.” It is given in the Sources. Rather than commenting on it here, other than to say it is well written and has some good arguments, I will allow the reader to form their own opinion before offering my opinion in the comments.
Poll Results
The question asked in the poll is “Considering the Good and the Bad, Should the US Be Sending Cluster Munitions to Ukraine Now ?”
The poll results as of midnight, July 8 are:
Yes — 538, or 86%
No — 63 or 10%
Undecided — 25 or 4%
Total Votes — 626
This is an amazing result for an internet newspaper that some consider to be a left wing, bleeding heart, liberal publication. One would have expected more than 10% to refuse sending a weapon that is banned by most countries for its terrible reputation of killing children and civilians long after the fighting has stopped.
But, perhaps those who read about the Russo-Ukraine War are the war hawks.
Aside from these (purposely) blatant stereotypes, it is still amazing that in our heavily divided and politicized country that there can be such an overwhelming consensus on such a divisive issue as cluster munitions.
Another interesting result is that the undecided rate of 4% remained rock solid throughout the voting, regardless of the number of votes cast.
Round 2 of the poll is open, so you can cast more votes.
Sources
International Treaty — Convention on Cluster Munitions — en.wikipedia.org/…
Dud Rate, or UBP — www.nytimes.com/… www.nytimes.com/…
New York Times Editorial Against Cluster Munitions to Ukraine — www.nytimes.com/...
-— ORIGINAL DIARY ---
Why is the US now sending cluster munitions to Ukraine after waiting so long to provide them ? The good, the bad and the ugly of this decision. The good is the military benefit for Ukraine and for the US. The bad is the military effect on Ukraine and their civilians, and international condemnation. The ugly is why they are being sent now.
At the end, there is a poll for you to vote your opinion. Comments are always welcome.
The Good
Cluster munitions are used for a variety of military reasons. At the current time, Ukraine needs them to stop Russian counter-attacks on their positions, especially after they breach Russian defenses. They can also be used to attack Russian trenches by getting small bomblets into and near the trenches and making it more difficult for the Russians to get out.
Cluster munitions are good to attack Russian troop and equipment concentrations because these munitions cover a wider area than artillery and missiles.
The military benefit to the US is discussed in the Ugly.
The Bad
There is a lot of bad.
Militarily, the unexploded bomblets impede Ukraine from advancing into an area that has been hit with cluster munitions. These bomblets are just as dangerous to Ukrainian troops as they are to Russian troops.
Cluster bombs are a disaster for civilians. They kill and maim civilians during and long after the war is over. This is the main reason for the international ban on their use. (Neither Russia, Ukraine, nor the US are signatories to the International Treaty banning the use of cluster munitions.)
Ukraine and the US have been wearing the white hat of the good guy in this war. Supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine sullies the US image as it receives international condemnation for their decision. Using these weapons may sully Ukraine’s image depending upon where they use them (not in populated areas), and how much they clean up after them. How they are used will also affect the US image.
The Ugly
The real ugly part of this decision is why it is being made now. The US supply of conventional artillery shells is projected to run low at their current rate of expenditure. The US lacks the manufacturing capacity to keep up with the current rate of expenditure of conventional shells. Supplying cluster munitions now is to make up this supply gap.
While this decision is understandable, and probably necessary, the author thinks it is terrible to have to resort to these munitions now to fill the supply gap. The US should have been able to project this gap once the Russian winter offensive began, and supply these munitions much earlier in 2023.
If Ukraine had cluster munitions during the Russian winter offensive, then they would have had to use far fewer conventional munitions to stop the Russians. It takes fewer rounds of cluster munitions to hit the same area than with conventional munitions.
Using cluster munitions in the Battle of Bakhmut may have turned the tide for Ukraine, as they would have been far more effective in stopping the initial Wagner human wave attacks, as well as their later improved attacking strategy using fewer soldiers. And, regardless of when used, they would have caused more Russian casualties, which was one of the major objectives of Ukraine’s defense.
Go Figure !