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

[Gospel]

And that is what this cluster bomb discussion is really about. My belief is that they have been maneuvered into a predicament with very few viable humane solutions.

 

[Politesse]

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.

"The Ukrainians" are responsible for the actions they take. We have responsibility for the actions we take. They are fighting for their country. We are using them as bullet sponges in a "symbolic" gesture of antipathy.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Nothing is foolproof when it comes to mines and war.

 

[Harry Bosch]

And that is what this cluster bomb discussion is really about. My belief is that they have been maneuvered into a predicament with very few viable humane solutions.

Totally agree.

 

[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.

"The Ukrainians" are responsible for the actions they take. We have responsibility for the actions we take. They are fighting for their country. We are using them as bullet sponges in a "symbolic" gesture of antipathy.

Well, I don't want to strawman your position. When you say that we're using the Ukranians as bullet sponges as a antipathy against who or what? The Russians? Is it your position that the west or America wants this war in order to kill Russians? If I'm strawmanning you, I apologize.

 

[Gospel]

I believe it's dual-faceted, Harry. On one hand, America did not instigate this conflict. However, on the other hand, it's unlikely that America would intentionally assist a country in overcoming a nation that counts itself among America's allies. Hope that made sense.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I believe it's dual-faceted, Harry. On one hand, America did not instigate this conflict. However, on the other hand, it's unlikely that America would intentionally assist a country in overcoming a nation that counts itself among America's allies. Hope that made sense.

And what's the focus on cluster bombs anyway? If they didn't exist there would be some other bogeyman munition to fill the need, something that goes just too far, even in a war of survival. If I was fighting in Ukraine, absorbing waves of rockets and cruise missiles on my cities, I'd want truckloads of cluster munitions to throw on my enemy. And I'd keep throwing them as long as the rockets and the bullets and the missiles keep landing on my country. Fuck the moral high ground preachers who aren't in the fight and aren't being targeted and who, for some reason, seem unable to appreciate their freedom and how it was won and needs protected.

 

[TV and credit cards]

And what's the focus on cluster bombs anyway? If they didn't exist there would be some other bogeyman munition to fill the need, something that goes just too far, even in a war of survival. If I was fighting in Ukraine, absorbing waves of rockets and cruise missiles on my cities, I'd want truckloads of cluster munitions to throw on my enemy. And I'd keep throwing them as long as the rockets and the bullets and the missiles keep landing on my country. Fuck the moral high ground preachers who aren't in the fight and aren't being targeted and who, for some reason, seem unable to appreciate their freedom and how it was won and needs protected.

I'm inclined to agree with most of this.

Were we to stand by watching Russia invade Ukraine without provocation, indiscriminately kill, torture, and rape Ukrainian civilians, steal their children, bomb their cities and for what, so we can take the moral high ground? Perhaps it's Ukraine's fault for not submitting to Russia at the outset. After all this would have saved so many lives. Just give Putin what he wants and no one gets hurt.
I find some of the comments here lately regarding war similar to notions I had a preteen/teen.

The war is here. It is happening with all it's ugliness. Is it not the most humane thing to do to bring it to a swift conclusion? Is that not Ukraine's intention?
Considering Putin's resume, I think we are taking the best course of action, if not being too passive.

And now maybe we'll all get to watch populations in Africa and Asia starve while Russia bombs Odesa ports and blocks grain shipments.

 

[Copernicus]

"The Ukrainians" are responsible for the actions they take. We have responsibility for the actions we take. They are fighting for their country. We are using them as bullet sponges in a "symbolic" gesture of antipathy.

Not sure who you think are being used as bullet sponges, but I do worry that there is a lot of misguided hatred and anger directed at Russian soldiers for the suffering of Ukrainians. Both sides will commit atrocities in a war, and they will often do things that have horrible consequences for civilians both during the war and afterwards. Many of the Russians doing the fighting aren't there by choice, but most of the Ukrainians are. Pretty much all of them have family and loved ones somewhere that are desperately concerned for their safety and wish the hostilities would end. A lot of young soldiers have no idea of what they are getting into when they decide to go off to fight in a war. We should try not to dehumanize the people caught up in this madness. That strikes me as also a process for dehumanizing ourselves.

 

[Rhea]

The war is here. It is happening with all it's ugliness. Is it not the most humane thing to do to bring it to a swift conclusion? Is that not Ukraine's intention?
Considering Putin's resume, I think we are taking the best course of action, if not being too passive.

This is what I meant with my reply about not being willing spend enough.

I do not like the thought that we are giving them cluster bombs (effective ~enough~ but with a dangerous caveat) only because we weren’t willing to spend the money to give them something that is effective with less danger.

That’s what bothers me about the cluster bombs. That we could help them advance in their war with less collateral risk, but we aren’t, because we care more about money than collateral risk.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The war is here. It is happening with all it's ugliness. Is it not the most humane thing to do to bring it to a swift conclusion? Is that not Ukraine's intention?
Considering Putin's resume, I think we are taking the best course of action, if not being too passive.

This is what I meant with my reply about not being willing spend enough.

I do not like the thought that we are giving them cluster bombs (effective ~enough~ but with a dangerous caveat) only because we weren’t willing to spend the money to give them something that is effective with less danger.

That’s what bothers me about the cluster bombs. That we could help them advance in their war with less collateral risk, but we aren’t, because we care more about money than collateral risk.

How could we help them more? We’re out of artillery. You talking about the F-16’s?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We provide the eyes in the sky. They're not going to be able to move enough supplies without us seeing it.

Satellites can identify potential fixed targets, but they aren't useful in giving artillery "fire control" over logistic routes. First, because satellites aren't always over the area of interest. And second, because Ukraine isn't getting a real-time satellite data. The US intelligence probably vets the images and even if they pass it on to Ukraine, it's not available to artillery crews immediately for targeting purposes.

I was thinking of aircraft, not satellites. Vehicles moving on the ground can be detected by doppler. We can't ID them but we can tell Ukraine that there is traffic on the road and they can eyeball that traffic with a drone and fire if appropriate.

The closest US or NATO can fly their surveillance planes is Poland or the Black Sea. I suspect that's way too far away to detect anything in Donbas or Zaporizhzhia.

I think ground targets could be detected by a high flying plane in Zaporizhzhia. Donbas, marginal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Ukrainian invasion was largely driven by a vision of rebuilding part of that lost empire and sense of power, not just an inability to handle democracy.

That's KGB propaganda that the KGB is glad to have people swallow. The reality is that the closer democracy and accountability arrive at Russia's borders the worse things get for gangsters like Putin. He will kill every living soul in his country to save his hide. There is nothing honorable or moral about the man and men like him.

Yeah. I'm thinking of a game, I think it might have been one of the older versions of Galactic Civilizations but I'm not sure. It had a concept of how attractive your empire was--I'm thinking of a particular game where I got a basically bloodless victory because border systems kept drooling over how much better my people had it and flipped. Build up that planet and pretty soon the next one flips. And because I was way ahead the empire I was devouring had the sense not to attack.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can't find the articles presently but the top Ukrainian commander says he has no qualms or reservations about striking targets inside Russia that are supporting the killing of his people. He stated that he knows he cannot do it with western supplied weapons but will use Ukrainian ordnance. Meanwhile Russian baboons threaten that if such things occur they will have to escalate. Typical response that they continue to use because the propaganda has been working for them. But it is not working on the Ukrainians.

It makes sense to handle it this way.

By requiring that the US supplied weapons not be used to strike Russia Russia knows they will only suffer a localized defeat, not a total defeat. Nuclear diplomacy 101--never back a nuclear power into a corner, always give them a reasonable out. Ukrainian weapons alone aren't sufficient to defeat Russia. Thus we are making it very plain that they have an out, this is not a fight for their existence.

Would I like to see the rounds falling on Russian logistics targets? Yes. But that fudges the hard line and that's not acceptable--better to prohibit such targets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So popular cluster munitions are now being provided by the US. Damn cluster munitions.

The Russians have been using cluster munitions on civilian areas from the start. But they work quite well against an enemy dug in in trenches as the Russians are.

"They did it too" is not a good reason for the US to engage in something the US considers to be a war crime.

1) Ukraine is dropping on friendly territory--they have good reason to keep very good track of where they drop.

2) Since Russia has been dropping them anyway the landscape is already contaminated. Adding possible Ukranian contamination doesn't really make much difference--cleaning the land is a matter of area far more than a matter of the number of things that go boom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Airburst artillery sprays fragments over a fair area. However, those fragments are flying straight--it's a line of sight weapon. If you're huddled down in the trench you're pretty much safe from a shell that doesn't burst over the trench and if you have alcoves that provide overhead cover you're likely ok even if the shell does burst over the trench.

Cluster bombs, however, spray bomblets around. While any given bomblet is nowhere near as deadly you have hundreds of burst points--some of which will likely fall in the trenches. There are far fewer shadows to give safety.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

They're working on non-human ways of clearing mines. The one I think is rather interesting was IIRC rats. They're light enough they're not going to set off the mines so they're at basically zero risk.

 

[Politesse]

"The Ukrainians" are responsible for the actions they take. We have responsibility for the actions we take. They are fighting for their country. We are using them as bullet sponges in a "symbolic" gesture of antipathy.

Not sure who you think are being used as bullet sponges, but I do worry that there is a lot of misguided hatred and anger directed at Russian soldiers for the suffering of Ukrainians. Both sides will commit atrocities in a war, and they will often do things that have horrible consequences for civilians both during the war and afterwards. Many of the Russians doing the fighting aren't there by choice, but most of the Ukrainians are. Pretty much all of them have family and loved ones somewhere that are desperately concerned for their safety and wish the hostilities would end. A lot of young soldiers have no idea of what they are getting into when they decide to go off to fight in a war. We should try not to dehumanize the people caught up in this madness. That strikes me as also a process for dehumanizing ourselves.

I meant to mock the childish idea that "the Ukrainians" are all of a single mind about how or to what extent this war should be waged, let alone that they all as a people have deployed cluster munitions and therefore deserve no further consideration.

I agree that people deserve human empathy, and find it disturbing to witness the glee even so-called liberals seem to feel at the death of Russian soldiers these days, as long as its someone else's troops doing the killing and dying for us. They're kids, mostly, just like in any war, and are not consulted on matters of state before they are deployed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So popular cluster munitions are now being provided by the US. Damn cluster munitions.

The Russians have been using cluster munitions on civilian areas from the start. But they work quite well against an enemy dug in in trenches as the Russians are.

"They did it too" is not a good reason for the US to engage in something the US considers to be a war crime.

1) Ukraine is dropping on friendly territory--they have good reason to keep very good track of where they drop.

2) Since Russia has been dropping them anyway the landscape is already contaminated. Adding possible Ukranian contamination doesn't really make much difference--cleaning the land is a matter of area far more than a matter of the number of things that go boom.

Is this supposed to make it good?

 

[ZiprHead]

So popular cluster munitions are now being provided by the US. Damn cluster munitions.

The Russians have been using cluster munitions on civilian areas from the start. But they work quite well against an enemy dug in in trenches as the Russians are.

"They did it too" is not a good reason for the US to engage in something the US considers to be a war crime.

1) Ukraine is dropping on friendly territory--they have good reason to keep very good track of where they drop.

2) Since Russia has been dropping them anyway the landscape is already contaminated. Adding possible Ukranian contamination doesn't really make much difference--cleaning the land is a matter of area far more than a matter of the number of things that go boom.

Is this supposed to make it good?

You're expecting good or bad in a war? How naïve.