How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Harry Bosch]

So....

"but think how bad the really bad people are"

and

"well they did it first"

are the only arguments that justify this action?

No. The argument is that Ukraine is running out of ammunition.

 

[Rhea]

We are using them to save money.

This is a pretty compelling argument against them.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We are using them to save money.

This is a pretty compelling argument against them.

No one disagrees here. But there are other reasons.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Soviet system had destroyed the cultivation of good leaders. It had been in power for so long, that at the time of the fall, nobody alive had had to manage a system that had working sensible incentives.

Precisely. And calling the west some kind of great evil is clearly separating the good from the perfect. There was a period in my young life when I seriously considered emigrating to Russia. I perceived the country as a model economy where everything was planned and well executed for the benefit of the population. In hindsight I would have ended up imprisoned or dead because I dared suggest freedom instead of state terrorism. Centuries of anti-democratic, centralized, imperial rule and relative isolation has produced in Russia a baboon society where the biggest stick or the sharpest set of teeth rules the troop. This defines happiness for the masses in Russia.

Shouldn't this have held true for China also.

It was. But it lucked out with the leader Deng Xiaoping.

Not just luck. Mao Zedong was such a godawful leader that the leadership of the Chinese communist party had an uprising after the Great Leap Forward and temporarily removed Mao from being able to influence the economy of China. Mao became the face of the Chinese communist party, but essentially a puppet ruler and was only allowed to be in charge of the educational system. The other leaders had hoped they had defanged Mao. But the resilient bastard then made the Cultural Revolution and had the kids take over the economy. And that way purged the party of his biggest enemies. Mao was undoubtedly a genius. But had a laser focus on the things that was important to him personally, namely hookers and blow. As long as he got that he was happy. The anti-Mao faction within the topmost Chinese leadership never went away, and after Mao was gone they took over, and created a version of separation of powers, modelled on a democratic parliamentary system. But one which would make sure that only members of the communist nobility stayed in power. This created an environment where competent leadership could be cultivated. Essentially, they would pick competent leaders out of their own ranks, based on meritocracy. Similar how the European nobility operated at court in the feudal system.

Xi Jinping broke this system. He's the new Mao. All power is now collected in the hands of Xi. So... yeah... let's see if history will repeat itself. But the communist party of China is still operating as well today as under Deng Xiaoping.

Basically, there's reasons China is doing better than USSR was.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Giving cluster weapons is a sign of weakness. If we could give enough artillery rounds, Ukraine wouldn't need cluster munitions to make up for the shortfall.

Ukraine is saying that they will start using them in the next few days. Not sure if they will make such a big difference anyway.

I believe "If we could give enough artillery rounds" was only half the reason. I do believe cluster bombs being efficient at clearing trenches, as I have read is the other half of it. Are there other efficient ways in which to clear trenches without further risking Ukrainian lives? There might be. I don't doubt the US has a cornucopia of weapon systems to choose from. For now I'm assuming cluster munitions clearing trenches is the right tool for the job.

I was thinking, for those who stand on principle against the use of cluster munitions in this instance and more specifically those who can find their way to blame the US for all the ills of the world, perhaps this time we can blame S Korea for the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. It is my understanding S Korea is bursting at the seams with artillery rounds. It would make sense given the neighborhood they live in. S Korea may be able to bridge the deficit in artillery rounds to Ukraine while the west ramps up production. Ah but S Korea is standing on principle with regards to giving lethal aid to Ukraine.

While I do not believe that the Ukrainians should give as good as they get in their fight with Russia I do believe that in warfare principles can be the enemy of the good. Occupied areas of Ukraine are hazardous right now. They will have to be cleared. Children are not going on nature hikes for the foreseeable future regardless. I do not believe the Pentagon's claim of only a 2% failure rate of US cluster munitions. Probably somewhere closer to 10%. And innocent people will die. I believe many more will die if we stand on principle though. Further I believe the US has not signed off on banning the use of cluster munitions for my previous assumption stated that they are likely and unfortunately the best way to clear trenches. Speaking of principles, I wonder, for those more familiar with, if the Pareto principle can be applied in warfare? It's used in health and safety matter. OSHA uses it to prioritize hazards. I don't see why it wouldn't apply.

 

[Jayjay]

Giving cluster weapons is a sign of weakness. If we could give enough artillery rounds, Ukraine wouldn't need cluster munitions to make up for the shortfall.

Ukraine is saying that they will start using them in the next few days. Not sure if they will make such a big difference anyway.

I believe "If we could give enough artillery rounds" was only half the reason. I do believe cluster bombs being efficient at clearing trenches, as I have read is the other half of it. Are there other efficient ways in which to clear trenches without further risking Ukrainian lives? There might be. I don't doubt the US has a cornucopia of weapon systems to choose from. For now I'm assuming cluster munitions clearing trenches is the right tool for the job.

I'm not convinced that this assumption is true. Ukraine had cluster munitions before, and they didn't seem to make much of a dent. Maybe it was the wrong time. This is why it's very interesting to see in the coming days or weeks if those weapons can make a difference. Ukraine right now seems to be stuck, and the front line hasn't moved in a week.

From my admittedly ignorant point of view, I don't see how cluster bombs can be much more effective than anti-personnel rounds with proximity fuse. To clean a trench, you need almost a direct hit with regular artillery (because the trenches zigzag and have corners) and maybe cluster bombs will be able to increase the kill radius a little bit. Eventually Ukraine will have to still send people to mop up, and to me it seems that unexploded shells might be even slow them down.

But like I said, I'm no expert. We shall see.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Giving cluster weapons is a sign of weakness. If we could give enough artillery rounds, Ukraine wouldn't need cluster munitions to make up for the shortfall.

Ukraine is saying that they will start using them in the next few days. Not sure if they will make such a big difference anyway.

I believe "If we could give enough artillery rounds" was only half the reason. I do believe cluster bombs being efficient at clearing trenches, as I have read is the other half of it. Are there other efficient ways in which to clear trenches without further risking Ukrainian lives? There might be. I don't doubt the US has a cornucopia of weapon systems to choose from. For now I'm assuming cluster munitions clearing trenches is the right tool for the job.

I was thinking, for those who stand on principle against the use of cluster munitions in this instance and more specifically those who can find their way to blame the US for all the ills of the world, perhaps this time we can blame S Korea for the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. It is my understanding S Korea is bursting at the seams with artillery rounds. It would make sense given the neighborhood they live in. S Korea may be able to bridge the deficit in artillery rounds to Ukraine while the west ramps up production. Ah but S Korea is standing on principle with regards to giving lethal aid to Ukraine.

While I do not believe that the Ukrainians should give as good as they get in their fight with Russia I do believe that in warfare principles can be the enemy of the good. Occupied areas of Ukraine are hazardous right now. They will have to be cleared. Children are not going on nature hikes for the foreseeable future regardless. I do not believe the Pentagon's claim of only a 2% failure rate of US cluster munitions. Probably somewhere closer to 10%. And innocent people will die. I believe many more will die if we stand on principle though. Further I believe the US has not signed off on banning the use of cluster munitions for my previous assumption stated that they are likely and unfortunately the best way to clear trenches. Speaking of principles, I wonder, for those more familiar with, if the Pareto principle can be applied in warfare? It's used in health and safety matter. OSHA uses it to prioritize hazards. I don't see why it wouldn't apply.

I think it's even simpler than that. USA is using Ukraine to test weapons in this new smart drone paradigm of warfare. Since Ukraine is not in a position to be picky, USA can really use Ukraine as an experimentation workshop. It's not evil. They're giving Ukraine top of the line cutting edge weaponry. So they're still being nice. But there's a reason USA is giving Ukraine that weapons that they are. They also want to get something out of it. I think.

 

[Politesse]

I was thinking, for those who stand on principle against the use of cluster munitions in this instance and more specifically those who can find their way to blame the US for all the ills of the world, perhaps this time we can blame S Korea for the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine

Of course I do.

in warfare principles can be the enemy of the good

This attitude will be the death of the planet, sooner or later.

 

[Politesse]

Why are the people who advocate the most violent positions so precious about language? You aren't using a tool to clear a trench, you're using a bomb to hopefully kill the people in the trench, and if not them, then whoever else happens to come along. If you're going to demand someone's blood, at least have the balls to use honest language to do it. No one is fooled. The trench isn't "clear" after you explode things in it, it's full of shrapnel, body parts, and the terrified teenagers you're hoping to get with the next shot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it's even simpler than that. USA is using Ukraine to test weapons in this new smart drone paradigm of warfare. Since Ukraine is not in a position to be picky, USA can really use Ukraine as an experimentation workshop. It's not evil. They're giving Ukraine top of the line cutting edge weaponry. So they're still being nice. But there's a reason USA is giving Ukraine that weapons that they are. They also want to get something out of it. I think.

While the US isn't an innocent nation, it is extremely unlikely that anything cutting edge is being supplied to Ukraine or that Ukraine is being used as a testing bed. Security of the tech is hardly ensured in Ukraine (and we don't want the Russians getting their hands on it) and that stuff costs a lot more money than what we've committed to Ukraine as it is.

Our new toys would likely be in areas where the US is committing to attacks that don't even get into the media. The US and Europe are supporting Ukraine because the invasion was utterly indefensible and a line needed to be drawn because Putin is getting delusional over former borders.

 

[Gospel]

Russia resembles an old drug dealer who was once feared by their peers but has spent years behind bars. Upon their return to the neighborhood, they realize that not only has the community moved on, but also that they are no longer regarded with fear or apprehension.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why are the people who advocate the most violent positions so precious about language? You aren't using a tool to clear a trench, you're using a bomb to hopefully kill the people in the trench, and if not them, then whoever else happens to come along. If you're going to demand someone's blood, at least have the balls to use honest language to do it. No one is fooled. The trench isn't "clear" after you explode things in it, it's full of shrapnel, body parts, and the terrified teenagers you're hoping to get with the next shot.

When people get all upset about smart bombs and drones being used, they forget that in the current paradigm of land mines and artillery, two pieces of technology with massive collateral damage... We're already near the bottom of an incredibly slippery slope. Sure, we could do worse. But let's not forget that war is war and one side is ruled by a complete psychopath with total disregard for human lives. Putin has been mass bombing civilian targets with drones for a year now. The Putin regime kidnapped 20 000 children. They're still being held. No doubt being used a perverse form of blackmail. It's litteral terror tactics. Shit like this hasn't been seen since WW2. Not even ISIS was this bad.

There is a point when discussing the heartlessness of war where it gets silly. The war in Ukraine is really bad. There's regulary litteral attrocities being carried out on the population. Fuck Russia

 

[Patooka]

So....

"but think how bad the really bad people are"

and

"well they did it first"

are the only arguments that justify this action?

I would say cluster munition are vile.

I would also say that argument doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I am against the Military Industrial Complex.

Supplying military aid to Ukraine directly feeds the Military Industrial Complex.

I support providing military aid to Ukraine.

The reason I am not a hypocrite is because context matters. Letting Putin get away with what he is doing will cause more harm and more misery. I am not comfortable with feeding the military industrial complex but in this context I know what is going to cause more misery. So unlike libertarian cunts I will turn a blind eye in this very specific context to what Boeing and Northrop are doing in regards to shipping Ukraine gear.

I will make the same argument with regards to cluster munitions. It's not a situation that I can endorse - but it is a situation I can live with. Because of context.

 

[Politesse]

Putin get away with what he is doing will cause more harm and more misery.

Whereas sending Ukraine a handful of dirty weapons will cause the war to end? Putin will be like, "проклятие, I could have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling cluster bombs" and withdraw his troops to Moscow in shame, is that the idea? They're just outdated albeit dangerous artillery, not wonderflonium capsules.

To the rest of your post, I would observe that there isn't just one military industrial complex involved here, but at least six. I do not, in fact, think that the US is the sole or even main villain here, quite to the contrary. if what we're doing is launching a new arms race, both "sides" (and there are actually many more) could easily manage decades of ramping up before they ever had to stop. And there are far scarier things than cluster munitions in both arsenals. Treating this as a pre-midcentury style winnable war is a bad mistake. Simply "giving in" to Putin may not be a practical option, but opening up a proxy war with no limitations on methodology or scals is not a survivable option. The line must be drawn somewhere.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Putin get away with what he is doing will cause more harm and more misery.

Whereas sending Ukraine a handful of dirty weapons will cause the war to end? Putin will be like, "проклятие, I could have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling cluster bombs" and withdraw his troops to Moscow in shame, is that the idea? They're just outdated albeit dangerous artillery, not wonderflonium capsules.

To the rest of your post, I would observe that there isn't just one military industrial complex involved here, but at least six. I do not, in fact, think that the US is the sole or even main villain here, quite to the contrary. if what we're doing is launching a new arms race, both "sides" (and there are actually many more) could easily manage decades of ramping up before they ever had to stop. And there are far scarier things than cluster munitions in both arsenals. Treating this as a pre-midcentury style winnable war is a bad mistake. Simply "giving in" to Putin may not be a practical option, but opening up a proxy war with no limitations on methodology or scals is not a survivable option. The line must be drawn somewhere.

Russia has mined the occupied territory heavily. As far as I know, that's what has slowed down the Ukrainian advance. Cluster bombs are great at clearing mines. I think that's the logic here. That's how it looks like to me.

Then there's the little detail of that Russia has been using cluster bombs all the time. So it could also be an eye-for-an-eye thing.

 

[Patooka]

Whereas sending Ukraine a handful of dirty weapons will cause the war to end? Putin will be like, "проклятие, I could have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling cluster bombs" and withdraw his troops to Moscow in shame, is that the idea? They're just outdated albeit dangerous artillery, not wonderflonium capsules.

My point is I can be a cunt and say "necessary evil" when it comes to cluster munitions.

I am a cunt and I say cluster munitions to Ukraine is a necessary evil. Again, context, but I will wear cunt if I must.

I am not happy being a cunt, but I can live with being a cunt with regards to this

 

[Patooka]

Cluster bombs are great at clearing mines.

I have never heard that being said by a sapper or an engineer, ever.

 

[bilby]

Clearing mines in large numbers by the use of area effect stand-off weapons (eg cluster bombing of the minefields) sounds like a great idea.

But the problem is that nothing other than a painstaking manual inch-by-inch search by vulnerable humans on the ground can give certainty that the minefield has been completely cleared; And if there's just one single solitary mine left, someone will tread on it (probably Dave. It's always Dave.), and then everyone else will refuse to enter the area because it's obviously not been cleared properly, and nobody wants to end up like Dave.

 

[Gospel]

Indeed, utilizing cluster bombs to eliminate landmines is far from a foolproof strategy. Not only do they lack the precision to ensure complete eradication of all landmines, but they also pose the additional risk of leaving unexploded ordnance behind. Put simply, it's more plausible that Dave met his untimely demise due to a cluster bomb, rather than a landmine.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Indeed, utilizing cluster bombs to eliminate landmines is far from a foolproof strategy. Not only do they lack the precision to ensure complete eradication of all landmines, but they also pose the additional risk of leaving unexploded ordnance behind. Put simply, it's more plausible that Dave met his untimely demise due to a cluster bomb, rather than a landmine.

True. But clearly, the Ukrainians would rather have the threat of future unexploded ordnances killing and maiming future people; rather than the current threat of Russian soldiers killing civilians. The guy with the rifle deliberately targeting people is far more lethal than future ordnances. I think that Ukrainians have earned the right to decide which threat takes precedence.