I’m not gonna waste my time arguing with a troll, but just going to leave this here so people reading this thread understand what use of cluster munitions means and why most countries and UN advocate banning these munitions.
There are a couple variants of these shells, but given that the M483A1 has already been delivered to Ukraine from Turkey in 2022, I’m going to focus on that one for now. Failure rate of the submunitions is reported at between 2.4% to 4.1% depending on the source, so we can take 3% as a probable number.
Each shell contains 88 submunitions - 64 anti-personnel, 24 shaped charge. To be conservative, let’s count the shaped charge submunitions as I find them less concerning for the civilian aspect in this regard. This would give about two undetonated fragmentation submunitions scattered in an area of 30,000 square meters per shell.
Assuming these shells are being supplied because Ukraine is running out of conventional payloads, which Biden appeared to admit to be the case, it is logical they will not be used only for “specific targets” but used for general artillery.
Given reports of around 5,000 shells fired by Ukraine per day, that gives us up to about 10,000 undetonated fragmentation submunitions left behind per day, with each having a 10 meter kill radius if detonated.
This is the real issue with these munitions. These will present danger to people living in this area long after the conflict is over. Any country that chooses to supply these munitions to Ukraine clearly does not care about the people living there. Anybody who tries to rationalize or downplay the horror of these munitions is a piece of human garbage.
Yes? Wtf do you mean? Does UN secretary general asserting his own opinion through a deputy spokesman does not equate to the UN rejecting shit.
Antonio Guterres is the Secretary General of the Secretariat. He does not speak for the UN on policy. Which, is exactly why your quote from Forbes says “Guterres was against the use of cluster munitions” not “UN Rejects”. The UN hasn’t done shit. They’ve not made a rejection statement or vote. They’ve not “condemned” anything.
One dude, through a deputy spokesman, at a morning briefing, said he didn’t like it.
I’m not gonna waste my time arguing with a troll, but just going to leave this here so people reading this thread understand what use of cluster munitions means and why most countries and UN advocate banning these munitions.
There are a couple variants of these shells, but given that the M483A1 has already been delivered to Ukraine from Turkey in 2022, I’m going to focus on that one for now. Failure rate of the submunitions is reported at between 2.4% to 4.1% depending on the source, so we can take 3% as a probable number.
Each shell contains 88 submunitions - 64 anti-personnel, 24 shaped charge. To be conservative, let’s count the shaped charge submunitions as I find them less concerning for the civilian aspect in this regard. This would give about two undetonated fragmentation submunitions scattered in an area of 30,000 square meters per shell.
Assuming these shells are being supplied because Ukraine is running out of conventional payloads, which Biden appeared to admit to be the case, it is logical they will not be used only for “specific targets” but used for general artillery.
Given reports of around 5,000 shells fired by Ukraine per day, that gives us up to about 10,000 undetonated fragmentation submunitions left behind per day, with each having a 10 meter kill radius if detonated.
This is the real issue with these munitions. These will present danger to people living in this area long after the conflict is over. Any country that chooses to supply these munitions to Ukraine clearly does not care about the people living there. Anybody who tries to rationalize or downplay the horror of these munitions is a piece of human garbage.
Oh so you are all for russia using them but not ukraine? surprise face
Please show a quote from me where I say I’m for Russia using cluster munitions troll.
Dont worry man, I’m up to speed on cluster munitions. Again, not the issue here. The issue is your link and headline. They aren’t true.
Munitions have nothing to do with it.
The link is perfectly true, and here’s Forbes reporting the same thing:
Claiming that UN Secretary-General doesn’t speak for UN is some serious mental gymnastics.
Yes? Wtf do you mean? Does UN secretary general asserting his own opinion through a deputy spokesman does not equate to the UN rejecting shit.
Antonio Guterres is the Secretary General of the Secretariat. He does not speak for the UN on policy. Which, is exactly why your quote from Forbes says “Guterres was against the use of cluster munitions” not “UN Rejects”. The UN hasn’t done shit. They’ve not made a rejection statement or vote. They’ve not “condemned” anything.
One dude, through a deputy spokesman, at a morning briefing, said he didn’t like it.
lol ok dude