this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
41 points (97.7% liked)

World News

36841 readers
531 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Speaking to CNN‘s Fareed Zakaria on Friday, President Biden said he needed to send cluster bombs because Ukraine and the US are running out of ammunition. “This is a war relating to munitions. And they’re running out of that ammunition, and we’re low on it,” he said.


the FY2023 presidential budget request was $842 billion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

not enough for ammo, apparently.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The pentagon would not survive an audit. It's unfathomable that with $800 billion they can't afford to replenish ammunition supplies.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

Doesn't matter much if you lose

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They're only War Crimes when someone the US doesn't like does it. /s

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Bob Dylan's "Masters of War", anyone?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago

Yay!

I hope they help drive the murdering Russian imperialists from Ukraine.

load more comments
view more: next ›