- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
UN is one of the most irrelevant organisation in current time.
In last few decades powerful countries have literally rolled over it.
So even if they condemn, they can’t enforce it. Because one of the major money source for them is US.
The UN is not here to enforce anything. It’s a forum for nations to talk to each other, in the hopes that a peaceful resolution can be reached. They condemn things in the hopes that this soft pressure on heads-of-state makes them reconsider their actions.
Unexploded cluster bombs will be discovered in Ukrainian dirt for generations to come — probably by farmers and children. The UN has to condemn it.
UN is irrelevant in some sense I guess but that depends on what you expect them to be. If they could enforce things everyone would leave at once. It’s a place where countries can talk to eachother that might otherwise not. And that is at least worth something.
Considering that there have been no world wars since it’s creation, I’d say it has a 100% success rate
Why is telesureenglish the only news site on earth covering this?
Because, the UN didn’t “reject” anything.
“Accordingly, (Guterres) does not want cluster bombs to continue to be used on the battlefield,” Farhan Haq added.
Wtf is Farhan Haq? The deputy spokesman?
The UN didn’t say a word. Guterres hasn’t said a word. A deputy spokesman said Guterres said “he does not want them”.
High ranking UN official obviously speaking in official capacity said that UN rejects use of cluster munition. Imagine being the sort of scumbag who jumps in to defend the use of cluster munitions.
Lol, I’m a scumbag?
You spend all day posting sketchy ass news from sketchy ass websites that have sensational, nonsense headlines.
This is serious shit, not your play place. The use of cluster munitions and the US’ decision to send them are very important, very real things that are happening.
I don’t have an opinion, and haven’t expressed one here on the use of cluster munitions. My opinion is that you’re a spamming misinformation spreader whose @ pops up in my feed 30 times a day.
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
