Targeting civilians is a war crime no matter the weapons platform used.
The use of cluster munitions is not illegal, as none of the parties here are signatories to the international treaties prohibiting their use.
They are designed as anti-material weapons, whereas a regular cruise or ballistic missile might blow up a building, these are meant to destroy equipment and kill personnel over a wider area.
Their negative connotations come from the weapons mechanism which is releasing miniature bomblets over the targeted area. Some of which have been known to fail to detonate immediately, and subsequently kill or maime civilians who come across them later.
You start with: “They are designed as anti-material weapons”
You did mention personnel, as a side-note at best while they are primarily used and designed against
personnel.
If not whitewashing, it certainly is minimizing.
As if it’s some unfortunate side-effect.
They were designed during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.
The Soviets were primarily a land power and their way of war was mass formation of tanks followed closely by mass formations of troops.
I understand perfectly well why much the world has signed on to the treaties banning them, but I also know what they were designed to do, and it wasn’t to commit war crimes.
It just so happens, they’re awfully good at it, similar to landmines.
But putting aside that miniature history lesson, my comment was matter of fact. It was not endorsing their use, much less minimizing their impact on civilian populations, which I also called attention to.
You skimmed a comment, saw what you wanted to see, and then tried to attack me based on your erroneous interpretation of said comment.
I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
Not now, not during the cold war.
The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn’t have?
Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
It’s like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren’t designed to kill people because that wasn’t Nobel’s intent.
You made clear you don’t endorse their use, not denying that.
While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
That is all.
Bye serious person
Targeting civilians is a war crime no matter the weapons platform used.
The use of cluster munitions is not illegal, as none of the parties here are signatories to the international treaties prohibiting their use.
They are designed as anti-material weapons, whereas a regular cruise or ballistic missile might blow up a building, these are meant to destroy equipment and kill personnel over a wider area.
Their negative connotations come from the weapons mechanism which is releasing miniature bomblets over the targeted area. Some of which have been known to fail to detonate immediately, and subsequently kill or maime civilians who come across them later.
Were they designed as anti-material or anti-materiel? Materiel is a specific military term for vehicles and equipment.
That is only one of their purposes.
These weapons are designed for use against massed formations of troops and armor or broad targets
You are a whitewasher of war crimes
Any reason why you couldn’t be bothered to read the rest of that sentence, where I talked about their other use as anti-personnel weapons…?
Or what about my opening sentence where I said that targeting civilians is a war crime, no matter the weapon used?
You’re not a serious person.
You start with: “They are designed as anti-material weapons”
You did mention personnel, as a side-note at best while they are primarily used and designed against personnel.
If not whitewashing, it certainly is minimizing.
As if it’s some unfortunate side-effect.
They were designed during the Cold War to fight the Soviets.
The Soviets were primarily a land power and their way of war was mass formation of tanks followed closely by mass formations of troops.
I understand perfectly well why much the world has signed on to the treaties banning them, but I also know what they were designed to do, and it wasn’t to commit war crimes.
It just so happens, they’re awfully good at it, similar to landmines.
But putting aside that miniature history lesson, my comment was matter of fact. It was not endorsing their use, much less minimizing their impact on civilian populations, which I also called attention to.
You skimmed a comment, saw what you wanted to see, and then tried to attack me based on your erroneous interpretation of said comment.
Like I said, you’re not a serious person.
I never said they were designed to commit war crimes.
I also do not believe they were not PRIMARILY designed to make human casualties.
Not now, not during the cold war.
The US threw them massively in Vietnam to target only people with light weapons.
who is going to claim their purpose was to use them against tanks they didn’t have?
Every definition you can read lists humans as targets first and material targets as secondary. Exactly as I put it.
It’s like saying the first bombs using dynamite weren’t designed to kill people because that wasn’t Nobel’s intent.
You made clear you don’t endorse their use, not denying that.
While you may not have bad intentions you certainly phrased it in a misleading way.
That is all.
Bye serious person
That a lot of words just to say, “Sorry, that I mischaracterized your comments”.
let it go dude