Fans of Cluster Bombs Dominate WaPo’s Opinion Section : socialism

[-] hamiltonicity@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago

Well this article's a pro-Putin load of shit. The reason cluster munitions are banned under so many treaties is that they tend to fail to detonate and then kill civilians after the war, requiring a long and horrible cleanup process. But Russia has already been using cluster munitions in huge quantities, so that cleanup process already needs to happen, and this article is handwringing over Ukraine being able to use them on Ukrainian territory in response. And if Ukraine loses this war, Russia has already made it perfectly clear through their actions in occupied territory that the result will be genocide - something the article curiously decides to omit, while quite happily pushing a false equivalence between Russia's use (pre-emptive, offensive, and murdering civilians of the country they're invading) and Ukraine's use (in response, defensive, and accepting some deaths to stop Russia from killing more).

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

The reason cluster munitions are banned under so many treaties is that they tend to fail to detonate and then kill civilians after the war, requiring a long and horrible cleanup process. But Russia has already been using cluster munitions in huge quantities, so that cleanup process already needs to happen, and this article is handwringing over Ukraine being able to use them on Ukrainian territory in response.

i noted this downthread but: just because you're the good guy doesn't mean everything you do is a good thing. there is a reason so many countries consider cluster munitions criminal, and that's because there's no circumstance in which the use of cluster munitions is a good thing—"they've already been used so there's no downside to using them more" is torturous logic in more ways than one. cumulative usage will obviously make it cumulatively more likely bombs will harm people long after the war ends.

separately: i think it'd behoove us all to not fall into this trap of pretending that Ukraine is completely morally unimpeachable in what it chooses to do militarily just because it's fighting on its own soil. you don't want to go down that route. if you do that you will—inevitably, because wars aren't pretty—find yourself justifying Ukrainian war crimes one of these days, and you will look like a monster for doing that.

[-] hamiltonicity@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

I don't think anything I said implied that Ukraine was morally unimpeachable on the military side. If we were talking about whether or not Ukraine should be able to torture Russian POWs or impersonate medics or firebomb Russian apartment complexes then this would be a very different conversation and I would be saying very different things. I also don't think anyone is saying that use of cluster munitions is a good thing, only that it's the lesser of all available evils.

I do think that under all circumstances it's very unhelpful and even paternalistic for us to tell Ukraine what they can and can't do for their own good. Ukraine is not fighting the Iraq war or Vietnam here. They're not lunatics, they're not children, and they're not fighting because they've been lied or manipulated or bullied into it by their leadership. They're fighting a defensive war of annihiliation in which they either win or die, much of the civilian population included. Given that, they are the only ones who should be allowed a say on what risks they are prepared to take and what costs they consider acceptable, and our role in this should be to shut up and help them unless they are genuinely violating international law. There might one day come a time where the Ukrainian people start disagreeing with the Ukrainian leadership on how far to go, and if that ever happens then I'm happy to weigh in on the side of the people, but we're not there yet - last I heard Zelenskiy was still incredibly popular.

I also didn't say there was "no downside" to using cluster munitions more. I would instead say that most of the downside is already there thanks to Russia's extensive use of them. Obviously the more bombs are present the more likely it is that someone is killed, but AFAICT the deaths are not the worst part of unexploded munitions because they are typically rare. The problem is that the reason deaths are rare is that the instant the immediate threat is over, the government has to designate huge swathes of the country as de facto minefields, unsafe for everyone including the people who used to live there until they can be painstakingly cleared. Even afterwards, the risk is never entirely gone and the population has to live with that - people don't feel safe walking in the countryside they grew up in for decades after the fact. That, to me, would be the worst part, and past a certain point increasing the number of munitions used in a given engagement makes very little difference to it.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

They’re fighting a defensive war of annihiliation in which they either win or die, much of the civilian population included. Given that, they are the only ones who should be allowed a say on what risks they are prepared to take and what costs they consider acceptable, and our role in this should be to shut up and help them unless they are genuinely violating international law.

if this is our line then: even people in this very thread are freely admitting that most uses of cluster munitions are war crimes or disproportionately harm civilians (which can be said to violate international law). there is an entire international treaty revolving around the prohibition of cluster munitions and their manufacture which more than half of the world is a signatory to. most countries don't have cluster munitions and even fewer manufacture them. the case that these aren't a violation of international law would rest pretty heavily on the obstinance of a handful of countries who disproportionately use them—Russia being one of them, and the U.S. being another.

[-] hamiltonicity@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're conflating some quite different things here. Most uses of cluster munitions are war crimes, yes, because most of the time they're used in exactly the same way Russia is using them - by an invading army who is at best eking out a military advantage and heedless of the long-term damage done to the civilian population, and at worst as part of active terror tactics to try and kill civilians and force a surrender. That's a war crime, no two ways about it, and the fact that they're so widely used that way is an excellent reason to have treaties in place banning their use. But this is a very different statement to use of cluster munitions being against international law or a war crime in and of itself. They're not chemical weapons or nukes. The problem with them isn't that they're inherently worse or more evil or inhumane than any other weapon in their effect on enemy troops, but that it's very easy to use them in evil ways against civilians and that the damage they do extends long past the end of the war. In this very specific situation it would be insane for Ukraine to use them in evil ways, most of the long-term damage has already been done, and that small part of it that hasn't should be Ukraine's own decision.

You yourself admitted in another post that it's very unusual for cluster munitions to be used by a defending army. Given that, I don't think "most uses of cluster munitions are war crimes" is a good argument, and it's still coming down to this idea that we should stop the Ukraine government from having cluster munitions in order to protect Ukrainian civilians. The same Ukrainian civilians who are now half-soldiers themselves by necessity and who desperately want those cluster munitions to stop the Russians from killing them, throwing them into re-education camps, and stealing their children to send to Russian "orphanages" whether their parents are alive or not. Do you understand why I think that's so fucked?

If Ukrainian use of cluster munitions would inherently constitute a war crime or violate international law, then I can see a coherent argument for not sending them - as awful as the situation is, further weakening international law has the potential for even worse consequences down the line in future conflicts between other powers. But if that's true, I'd like to see some actual evidence in the form of e.g. a statement from a respected bipartisan legal organisation saying so. So far I haven't seen anything of the kind in the media, or even from bipartisan organisations calling for America not to provide them - for example, while Amnesty International is against the US supplying cluster munitions, they certainly don't say it would violate international law or be a war crime. The argument I've seen from organisations like this is that using cluster munitions here is a retrograde step away from one day making these treaties global and banning cluster munitions worldwide - this is true as far as it goes, but nowhere near enough for me to ignore the clear and present harm that using them here would help to avoid.

If instead there's no war crimes or violation of international law, then to convince me sending the munitions is wrong you'd need to prove that giving Ukraine the weapons they're asking for to defend themselves is going to do significantly more harm to them than a Russian victory, and that's a very high bar to clear.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So far I haven’t seen anything of the kind in the media, or even from bipartisan organisations calling for America not to provide them - for example, while Amnesty International is against the US supplying cluster munitions, they certainly don’t say it would violate international law or be a war crime.

this took but a handful of seconds to find: Amnesty International explicitly says with respect to why they oppose cluster munitions that "Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of inherently indiscriminate weapons; launching indiscriminate attacks that kill or injure civilians constitutes a war crime.". they consider cluster munitions to be indiscriminate. the position of Human Rights Watch is likewise that "the use of cluster munitions in areas with civilians makes an attack indiscriminate in violation of international humanitarian law, and possibly a war crime.". HRW and the UN have in fact previously documented at least one Ukrainian cluster munition attack from 2022 that killed a substantial number of civilians.

[-] loops@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago

As the US escalates the already bloody Ukraine conflict

This reads as pro-Russian. Grosses me out.

[-] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It can also be read as just staunchly anti war.

Albeit the war is happening whether the US is involved or not. Though I feel it's more fair to characterize it as Russia escalating and the US trying to keep Ukraine in step and not get overwhelmed.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

No one is a fan of using cluster bombs inside their borders, just like no one is a fan of war in inside their borders.

Ukraine is going to have to clean up the metric shit ton of cluster bombs Russia already used, at least they’ll know where these are used when they clean them up.

[-] Ski@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Cluster bombs are highly effective at what they're using them for. And the alternative is mines. Neither is exactly civilian friendly, but at least this way the failure rates are lower and the bombs you're leaving behind are actually being targeted at something instead of buried and forgotten.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

Neither is exactly civilian friendly, but at least this way the failure rates are lower and the bombs you’re leaving behind are actually being targeted at something instead of buried and forgotten.

i just question the accuracy of either of these assertions (failure rates of up to 30% are well publicized, and Russian cluster munitions in Ukraine have had an even higher rate than that)—and even if you accept they're being targeted at something, how useful is that actually as a justification when the whole point of cluster munitions is sheer number and not accuracy?

[-] Ski@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Easy. A single artillery shell will likely miss, meaning you need to use more of them. Cluster munitions hit a wide area, and therefore you need to use less of them. It's like using a shotgun vs a rifle. I'd highly recommend this video for more information.

https://youtu.be/1zcUe47xerQ

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cluster munitions hit a wide area, and therefore you need to use less of them.

i don't see what this really has to do with my point—and i'd also question that the history of cluster munitions shows restraint in their usage on the specific bases that they have a better theoretical spread of fire and efficiency than normal shelling. in general, when they're used they're used to excess and without much regard for what you're talking about here because that's just kind of what happens when you give people a new weapon. that's part of why they're so devastating to civilian populations even well after wars have ended

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

The big difference here is Ukraine is bombing their own territory. Ukraine is not going to use these indiscriminately, they're not going to target civilian areas (like Russia already has). They have an invested interest in using them carefully and cleaning up the mess ASAP as soon as the war is over.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They have an invested interest in using them carefully and cleaning up the mess ASAP as soon as the war is over.

you're free to take their word for this but every state fighting a war says that they're going to use weapons responsibly. how many of them actually do so, or don't commit war crimes in doing so? the US military, literally the most well funded and powerful combat force in the world (and a force which has not fought for its survival in a long time), still routinely kills civilians in circumstances where that's avoidable. the idea that Ukraine will be "careful" in its usage of cluster bombs and not misuse them is hopium at best—particularly given the circumstances it's in. and even if they want to be, again, the point of a cluster bomb is that it's not a careful munition!

i also don't think "the bad guys are doing this" is justification for also doing a bad thing that is widely recognized as a crime.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

Ukraine has thought about this. They are bombing there own territory. They know this will leave unexploded ordinance. The know the more they use them, the more risk it is to their own citizens. They know if they use them in civilian centers they risk killing their own citizens. They're not stupid, please don’t pretend like they are.

i also don’t think “the bad guys are doing this” is justification for also doing a bad thing that is widely recognized as a crime.

They’re fighting for survival, that’s plenty justification. They were invaded, Russia kidnapped their children and disappeared them. War sucks, people, including civilians, die. The longer this war goes on, the more people will die. The longer this war goes on, the more unexploded ordinance, conventional or cluster, will be left.

I’m sorry I just don’t understand your perspective. It seems like you believe that Ukraine would use these without caution within their borders because other aggressor nations have used them without cation outside their borders. That they will not put any effort into cleanup of their borders at the end of the war because other aggressor nations didn’t cleanup outside their borders at the end of a war.

It seems like you think they’re going to bomb their own cities and just leave them to be stumbled upon later. There will be a massive cleanup effort after the war is done, it will go on for years, or likely decades. Cluster munitions will help end the war sooner, that’s just an objective fact. Yeah, they suck, so do conventional bombs, so do mines, so does war in general.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Ukraine has thought about this. They are bombing there own territory. They know this will leave unexploded ordinance. The know the more they use them, the more risk it is to their own citizens. They know if they use them in civilian centers they risk killing their own citizens. They’re not stupid, please don’t pretend like they are.

Ukraine's judgement isn't infallible or above criticism and it is possible for them to be wrong. the idea that the whole country is being infantilized or called stupid in being told not to commit war crimes or use what are widely recognized as criminal munitions is just silly.

They’re fighting for survival, that’s plenty justification. They were invaded, Russia kidnapped their children and disappeared them. War sucks, people, including civilians, die. The longer this war goes on, the more people will die. The longer this war goes on, the more unexploded ordinance, conventional or cluster, will be left.

this is an argument for unrestricted war crimes—because those would make the war end quicker—and i hope you understand that. "survival" does not mean "a get out of jail free card to do whatever you want, even if it's against international law or widely seen as illegal."

this is sort of what i mean here, by the way. you are the sort of person who is going to, if Ukraine starts executing Russian soldiers or taking retributive action against citizens of Ukraine who support Russia for whatever reason, be the first in line to defend that on these frankly horrifying grounds.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

this is sort of what i mean here, by the way. you are the sort of person who is going to, if Ukraine starts executing Russian soldiers or taking retributive action against citizens of Ukraine who support Russia for whatever reason, be the first in line to defend that on these frankly horrifying grounds.

How dare you say I would find that acceptable.

That is not acceptable conduct for a moderator.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

How dare you say I would find that acceptable.

your argument necessitates finding conduct like that acceptable if it occurs, whether you believe that or not. you already think it's acceptable to use bombs that are widely regarded as unlawful and criminal and which disproportionately kill civilians because the threat is existential—how is it suddenly beyond the pale in such circumstances under your premises to execute Russian soldiers (the people literally fighting to end Ukraine's existence)? and mind you, i'm also not the one who just said "War sucks, people, including civilians, die." in response to someone objecting to the use of cluster munitions on the very basis that they will kill innocent people. if you're not understanding why someone would say you're passively or actively fine with Ukraine killing non-combatants, i'm not entirely sure what to say.

[-] middlemuddle@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

your argument necessitates finding conduct like that acceptable if it occurs

It really does not and you've completely misrepresented that poster's argument. You can try to make the argument that their claim and executing POWs can be linked, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Support your opinion, or try to make a logical connection, if you like. At the moment, you're just putting words in someone else's mouth.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Support your opinion, or try to make a logical connection, if you like. At the moment, you’re just putting words in someone else’s mouth.

i think i've more than substantiated the point—it seems pretty clear to me that the poster just refuses to bite the bullet because they recognize biting said bullet would cast them as kind of psychotic. as with them: it's not "putting words in their mouth" because you don't like the conclusion of your own logic.

[-] middlemuddle@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago

i think i’ve more than substantiated the point

How have you done that? You've equated "there is a rationale for using cluster bombs" with "support executing POWs". These are not comparable and have extremely different impacts. War is not black and white and things that are bad are not all the same level of bad.

For the record, I don't support the use of cluster bombs and think it was a bad move by the U.S. to supply them.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

How have you done that?

i can't walk you to a conclusion you don't want to come to, sorry; i've more than elaborated at length here and my point is being pretty clearly understood by many people reading this thread so i see no need to spend another 8 replies doing this

[-] middlemuddle@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

i can’t walk you to a conclusion you don’t want to come to, sorry

That's precisely the purpose of a debate. I'm happy to read your rationale for why the two examples are equivalent, but you have not supported that statement in this thread. All you've said is that you're "logically following from those quotes". I don't see the logic you followed, and neither does the OP who vehemently disagrees with your conclusion.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

you have badly missed my point here: i don't care that you personally don't think i have substantiated the point; i think i have, and you're not entitled to ten more posts from me to substantiate to your satisfaction the point.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

how is it suddenly beyond the pale in such circumstances under your premises to execute Russian soldiers

No, that is NOT the issue. You said I would be first in line to defend them executing Russian soldiers. Which is absolutely false.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

No, that is NOT the issue. You said I would be first in line to defend them executing Russian soldiers. Which is absolutely false.

okay but... under your established premises, what is the distinction between using cluster bombs and this hypothetical—and why would you not be other than now recognizing how your position kind of inevitably leads to war crime apologia and not wanting to bite that bullet? arguably i've, under your premises, given you something more justifiable to work with because at least the hypothetical soldiers at one point were combatants trying to annex Ukraine. the civilians are just existing and are not guilty of anything.

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

okay but…

No buts, this isn’t about cluster munitions anymore. This is about your conduct here.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Stop setting up straw men to tear down. It’s not acceptable for normal users, it’s not acceptable for moderators.

under your established premises

You clearly do not understand my premise if you think the accidental and tragic death of civilians from a unexploded ordinance is the same as executing POWs. I don’t even know how to respond, there is a clear difference.

…

Using cluster munitions has consequences, not using them also has consequences. This is a trolley problem with 2 shitty outcomes. However the people who have the most information, the most to gain, the most to loose, and have to deal with the ongoing consequences believe that adding cluster munitions to the arsenal is the best option. They have weighed the consequences of using them against not using them and they’re going to use them.

…

I have been nothing but polite and arguing in good faith. You have not. Be(e) nice, Be(e) Better.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Using cluster munitions has consequences, not using them also has consequences. This is a trolley problem with 2 shitty outcomes. However the people who have the most information, the most to gain, the most to loose, and have to deal with the ongoing consequences believe that adding cluster munitions to the arsenal is the best option. They have weighed the consequences of using them against not using them and they’re going to use them.

you've spent a bunch of time complaining that i'm being uncharitable to you (even though i'm using direct quotes from you and logically following from those quotes) and you're again demonstrating what i mean here in different words. if they weigh the best option is to begin executing Russian soldiers—a thing they could do at any time and which under your premises you have no way of calling unjustified—how can your position here be anything but explicitly in favor of that? your position here outsources the entirety of itself to what Ukraine thinks should be done, and leaves no outs for what you think isn't moral if Ukraine starts doing such things!

[-] HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

you’ve spent a bunch of time complaining that i’m being uncharitable to you

Because you are.

how can your position here be anything but explicitly in favor of that?

I. Do. Not. Support. Ukraine. Executing. POWs. Full. Stop.

I’m done, you’re arguing in bad faith, and clearly have no intention of stopping.

[-] hamiltonicity@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

I think Ukraine, specifically, has a huge incentive to show as much restraint in their use as possible here. If you have evidence that defending militaries using cluster munitions typically fail to do so, then I'd be interested to see that.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

If you have evidence that defending militaries using cluster munitions typically fail to do so, then I’d be interested to see that.

ironically the best recent example of this is Ukraine (most sovereign states being invaded at this stage of history don't have or aren't known to have cluster munitions)—it is exceedingly likely that in the past 9 years Ukraine has used them without much restraint. Georgia also admitted to using them pretty freely when they were being invaded by Russia in 2008.

[-] hamiltonicity@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

As far as I can tell from a quick skim, that article is about firing cluster munitions into populated areas. I think we can both agree that this is a war crime and the people responsible should be in prison. I don't think it would have been any less of a war crime if either Ukraine or Russia had been firing conventional munitions into populated areas, though. I also don't think it has much bearing on Ukraine's likely actions in this war, since it's a conventional war rather than an insurgency with most fighting taking place inside major cities - even ignoring basic decency, there is simply no reason for them to brutalise their own population that way. I was more interested in evidence of a defensive use of cluster munitions which hadn't been properly cleaned up, which was the direction of the conversation to that point.

[-] Ski@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We're at an impasse and I'm going to agree to disagree here. Specifically on them being used without much regard for accuracy because that just seems nonsensical. The whole goal of shooting at a thing (or a person) is to hit it (or them). Firing at random just wastes ammo and doesn't help the war effort. As for "used to excess", how do you define what's excessive? Certainly an artillery battery will not keep firing once the target has been killed. And as for the cluster munitions being devastating to civilian populations well after the war ends, so are mines and no one is complaining about either side using those. Not to mention the Russians started using cluster munitions first so if anything this is just achieving force parity.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

The US-provided cluster bombs have something like a 3% failure rate.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

this is demonstrably false: as i noted in another comment and even in ideal circumstances, the Pentagon's data—rather than its words and idle wishes—suggest a failure rate of at least 14%.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

What's your source for either of your claims?

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

right here:

The Pentagon said the weapons they would send to Ukraine had a failure rate of 2.35 percent or less, far better than the usual rate that is common for cluster weapons.

But the Pentagon’s own statements indicate that the cluster munitions in question contain older grenades known to have a failure rate of 14 percent or more.

here is the original document they are quoting from. page 31/32 (35/36 in the .pdf's numbering) states that:

U.S. ammunition stockpile sample testing also indicated that DOD has experienced past problems with submunition reliability rates. For example, in 1990, testing of artillery-delivered nonland-mine submunitions identified two lots that had duds in excess of 40 percent. According to a testing document, one way to compensate for this high dud rate is to increase the quantity fired. Instructions contained in the testing document were to “Notify the user of the increase in submissile defect rate so that he can make adjustments in the tactical employment plans.” The July 2000 Army study of dud rates for ammunition reports that the dud rate for artillery-fired M42/46 submunitions is over 14 percent.

the Pentagon's actual, data based estimate (and not its uh, lying) correspond well to other data reported by groups such as Human Rights Watch (which have routinely found submunitions to have rates like that across the board), and specialists in the field who anecdotally report rates of as high as 30%.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

the Pentagon's actual, data based estimate (and not its uh, lying)

The Pentagon's five actual, data-based and more recent estimates, which indicate a much lower rate, are classified. Otherwise I take your point, seems you're essentially right about the failure rate.

I suspect the failure rate is higher than what the Pentagon is saying, probably ranging from 2-25% depending on conditions. At least it's much safer than the cluster munitions the Kremlin is using.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

The Pentagon’s five actual, data-based and more recent estimates, which indicate a much lower rate, are classified.

oh, fascinating. i'm sure there's a banal reason why the Pentagon totally can't release these supposed much lower rates and has to classify them—but we definitely have lower rates of duds now, believe us this time! the Pentagon would never do things like selectively classify or release data to manipulate narratives, misrepresent how dangerous things are or the severity of certain weapons or political trespasses, or generally and systemically lie about everything. that's why, for example, whenever we audit where our money is going and to what things, they fail said audit. i'm definitely going to take their classified word for it here instead of all the actual data (including some of their own previous data) which strongly implies they are lying as they usually do.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah if you have any sources to back that up I'm all ears, otherwise it's pure conjecture.

[-] Pseu@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Fortunately, the article states that the munitions have a dud rate of 2.35%, rather than 30%.

[-] alyaza@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

that is a claim by the Pentagon, which is so categorically untrustworthy on matters such as these that it really is not worth taking seriously. their actually-backed-by-data estimate on the same munitions is a 14% dud rate (and there are reasons to believe the rate is higher than that) and that quite literally follows the section you are excerpting from.

The editorial board cites the fact that the cluster munitions being sent by the US have a “very low dud rate,” and will therefore pose less of a risk to civilians. The Pentagon claims that the munitions it is sending have a dud rate of 2.35%; even if that’s accurate, it exceeds the 1% limit the Pentagon itself considers acceptable.

According to the New York Times’ John Ismay (7/7/23), a failure rate of 2.35% “would mean that for every two shells fired, about three unexploded grenades would be left scattered on the target area.” There is reason to believe that the true dud rate may be much higher—possibly exceeding 14%, by the Pentagon’s own reckoning.

Socialism