Great rundown, Dan. So, I can speak with a bit of expertise here, as a career field artillery officer. While I slightly question the 2.35% dud rate (numerous colleagues of mine who fought in Desert Storm--where we shot a GAZILLION DPICM munitions think the dud rate's a bit higher than that, but the contrast with Russian munitions is valid), yes, they are at least part of solutions that, collectively, are "game changers." Sure enough, I've already seen lots of bloggers mocking the "game changer" comments, since that term has been used for everything from HIMARS to Leopards to F-16s already. Still, this could be a biggie. I never fired live DP rounds (we don't train with them), but I've seen the effects tables, lots of film and have numerous colleagues who have. There is NO comparison between them and more conventional munitions in terms of effects, particularly on armor. Putting DPICM in mothballs had a good effect--it (along with the GWOT) made the, shall we say, somewhat complacent field artillery community emphasize development of smart munitions. But smart munitions, while awesome, aren't made for attacking large scale formations.
But yes, ICM are dangerous. We didn't just put them away for nothing (we didn't sign the treaty, but we largely stopped using them).
Perhaps the most relevant point (and deciding one for me) in this was made toward the end: "on their own soil." Could anything be more typical of Western sanctimoniousness than wringing hands about giving Ukraine the ability--and more pertinenty, RESPONSIBILITY--for using a dangerous munition on, y'know, ITS OWN SOIL. I think of it this way--if my home were taken by some invading army, would I approve of using ICM in trying to take it back? Yes. And I'd deal with the consequences of that after.
I think that something missing from the analysis is the Russian propensity for dense landmine deployment on captured land... The potential for bomblet downstream casualties pales in comparison to landmine downstream casualties if Russia temporarily captures more square miles of territory.
Stenographers. I think your reasoning is utterly disgusting and vile and if your family was there on the firing lines you would never advocate for this crime. Yes. crime. You are an apologist and a promoter of war crimes.
Ukraine has been using cluster munitions on civilians for a while now but that does not seem to bother you. To this day I have not seen ANY evidence that Russia has been using cluster munitions and you can bet that f they were, it would have been very loudly condemned by western MIC shills and their strength
HRW made asses of themselves for at least the second time in this conflict. The main threat to Ukrainian civilians has and will continue to be Russia, the Russia invasion, the Russian use of rape and torture against civilians, intentional Russian attacks on civilians, and Russian land mines. All of these are facts, yet HRW in the grips of their usual “US Bad” POV can’t help but whatabout US assistance that Ukraine has begged for.
Great rundown, Dan. So, I can speak with a bit of expertise here, as a career field artillery officer. While I slightly question the 2.35% dud rate (numerous colleagues of mine who fought in Desert Storm--where we shot a GAZILLION DPICM munitions think the dud rate's a bit higher than that, but the contrast with Russian munitions is valid), yes, they are at least part of solutions that, collectively, are "game changers." Sure enough, I've already seen lots of bloggers mocking the "game changer" comments, since that term has been used for everything from HIMARS to Leopards to F-16s already. Still, this could be a biggie. I never fired live DP rounds (we don't train with them), but I've seen the effects tables, lots of film and have numerous colleagues who have. There is NO comparison between them and more conventional munitions in terms of effects, particularly on armor. Putting DPICM in mothballs had a good effect--it (along with the GWOT) made the, shall we say, somewhat complacent field artillery community emphasize development of smart munitions. But smart munitions, while awesome, aren't made for attacking large scale formations.
But yes, ICM are dangerous. We didn't just put them away for nothing (we didn't sign the treaty, but we largely stopped using them).
Perhaps the most relevant point (and deciding one for me) in this was made toward the end: "on their own soil." Could anything be more typical of Western sanctimoniousness than wringing hands about giving Ukraine the ability--and more pertinenty, RESPONSIBILITY--for using a dangerous munition on, y'know, ITS OWN SOIL. I think of it this way--if my home were taken by some invading army, would I approve of using ICM in trying to take it back? Yes. And I'd deal with the consequences of that after.
I think that something missing from the analysis is the Russian propensity for dense landmine deployment on captured land... The potential for bomblet downstream casualties pales in comparison to landmine downstream casualties if Russia temporarily captures more square miles of territory.
Stenographers. I think your reasoning is utterly disgusting and vile and if your family was there on the firing lines you would never advocate for this crime. Yes. crime. You are an apologist and a promoter of war crimes.
Ukraine has been using cluster munitions on civilians for a while now but that does not seem to bother you. To this day I have not seen ANY evidence that Russia has been using cluster munitions and you can bet that f they were, it would have been very loudly condemned by western MIC shills and their strength
HRW made asses of themselves for at least the second time in this conflict. The main threat to Ukrainian civilians has and will continue to be Russia, the Russia invasion, the Russian use of rape and torture against civilians, intentional Russian attacks on civilians, and Russian land mines. All of these are facts, yet HRW in the grips of their usual “US Bad” POV can’t help but whatabout US assistance that Ukraine has begged for.