The biggest issue with these weapons is when used in areas with civilian populations. If they’re used over tranches in the battlefield, I see less of an issue. Especially as a defensive measure against a conquest invasion.
No idea when it comes to Ukraine but you’re not quite accurate on the U.S.:
The United States has signed and ratified the four Conventions of 1949 and Protocol III of 2005, but has not ratified the two Protocols of 1977, though it has signed them.
The biggest issue with these weapons is when used in areas with civilian populations. If they’re used over tranches in the battlefield, I see less of an issue. Especially as a defensive measure against a conquest invasion.
I agree, its also only controversial for the Geneva conventions, of which the US and Ukraine are not signatories.
No idea when it comes to Ukraine but you’re not quite accurate on the U.S.:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols
My bad I was looking at the Convention on Cluster Munitions