Cost is not the immediate issue: time is. The ammo required takes time to manufacture. Russia is not going to wait.
Whether that justifies cluster ammunition no idea. An audit would be enlightening for sure. Unfortunately, none of that results in ammo where it’s needed right now.
I don’t see how that justifies the use of bombs that nearly invariably risk the lives of innocent citizens.
I get that Russia is fucking shit up right now and very likely committing war crimes themselves, but not every Russian citizen is to blame, and the entire issue here is that giving these over increases risks of murdering innocents in attempts to win the war.
I’m not sure stooping to their level and hurting innocents on the path to victory is the best solution.
Biden could be working on fast-tracking Ukraine NATO membership and giving everybody else a reason to actually do more than send weapons, but he claims they are “not ready.” Also, couldn’t Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs, if used to commit war crimes, end up being another political roadblock to getting them into NATO?
As for war crimes, article one states: "“settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
So only so much as war crimes are inconsistent with the UN. In short, probably do care. But only as much as “refrain”.
As for the second question: no. Can’t join if at war. Why tho? I can’t find a clear answer. The arguments range from: no, because that put article 5 in conflict with article 1. No, because then that means war with Russia and nobody wants that. No, because the process to join NATO requires political, economic and military integration that cannot occur while a country is at war.
If they use them purely on open battlefields then it’s not such an issue.
What is an “open battlefield” during a war is no longer a battlefield after the war is over. After the war is over, if you’ve littered what used to be a battlefield with unexploded bombs, you’ve ruined that area of land and made it extremely dangerous to civilians.
800 billion dollars should get ammo anywhere you want anywhere in the world in whatever quantity you could possibly want. The fact that it doesn’t should have Americans questioning defence spending. What happened to the US’s manufacturing capacity?
Makes sense when you see the US military as a way to extract wealth from it’s vassals and the global south and as an excuse not to solve the US’ domestic problems. This is just what peak capitalism looks like. I hope. If this isn’t the peak, we’re all fucked.
The pentagon would not survive an audit. It’s unfathomable that with $800 billion they can’t afford to replenish ammunition supplies.
Cost is not the immediate issue: time is. The ammo required takes time to manufacture. Russia is not going to wait.
Whether that justifies cluster ammunition no idea. An audit would be enlightening for sure. Unfortunately, none of that results in ammo where it’s needed right now.
I don’t see how that justifies the use of bombs that nearly invariably risk the lives of innocent citizens.
I get that Russia is fucking shit up right now and very likely committing war crimes themselves, but not every Russian citizen is to blame, and the entire issue here is that giving these over increases risks of murdering innocents in attempts to win the war.
I’m not sure stooping to their level and hurting innocents on the path to victory is the best solution.
Biden could be working on fast-tracking Ukraine NATO membership and giving everybody else a reason to actually do more than send weapons, but he claims they are “not ready.” Also, couldn’t Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs, if used to commit war crimes, end up being another political roadblock to getting them into NATO?
I’m not sure that NATO cares much whether it’s members commit war crimes. Must be a very, very new policy if it does.
Can states join NATO while at war?
As for war crimes, article one states: "“settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
So only so much as war crimes are inconsistent with the UN. In short, probably do care. But only as much as “refrain”.
As for the second question: no. Can’t join if at war. Why tho? I can’t find a clear answer. The arguments range from: no, because that put article 5 in conflict with article 1. No, because then that means war with Russia and nobody wants that. No, because the process to join NATO requires political, economic and military integration that cannot occur while a country is at war.
Eh, I’m not convinced by some of those.
It really depends where they use them. If they use them purely on open battlefields then it’s not such an issue.
Let’s also not forget during ww2 the allies leveled plenty of German cities.
What is an “open battlefield” during a war is no longer a battlefield after the war is over. After the war is over, if you’ve littered what used to be a battlefield with unexploded bombs, you’ve ruined that area of land and made it extremely dangerous to civilians.
Doesn’t matter much if you lose
800 billion dollars should get ammo anywhere you want anywhere in the world in whatever quantity you could possibly want. The fact that it doesn’t should have Americans questioning defence spending. What happened to the US’s manufacturing capacity?
Makes sense when you see the US military as a way to extract wealth from it’s vassals and the global south and as an excuse not to solve the US’ domestic problems. This is just what peak capitalism looks like. I hope. If this isn’t the peak, we’re all fucked.