Why limit themselves to just one war crime?
They never do.
To really test the people who think they should ‘both sides’ this war too
If nothing else has gotten their attention, in not sure this will.
Just to be fair, under Obama, the US ran out of bombs from all the ones that were dropped on Syria.
If the world didn’t stop them for the first 100 ones, why stop?
The article implies that tungsten pellets are particularly bad, but they’re actually a replacement for cluster bombs that could leave behind unexploded ordnance. Technology can’t save civilians from a missile targeted at where they are, but at least these missiles don’t also endanger people entering the area in the future.
Cluster bombs are already a war crime because they by default will hit civilians, aren’t they? So of course we developed better ones, so we can be environmentally friendly while we kill civilians!
And to be 100% sure, a second missile is sent to kill the civilians who gathered to rescue the first victims.
I thought they used machine guns on aircraft for that part
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.
They are designed as anti-material weapons
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
This is just an upgraded HIMARS
ATACMS on the M142 HIMARS launcher, offering superior range (>500 km vs. 300 km), higher accuracy, and double the loadout (two missiles per pod)
The higher accuracy would mean that the school was targeted directly.
And yes, the article calls it “untested” to make it sound worse but they definitely test those things before attacking people with them. It’s not tested in battle…I’m with you, tungsten cubes are definitely less evil than cluster bombs… But any weapon used to target a school is evil. (even if negligently).
When Ukraine uses HIMARS to defend themselves from Russia, that’s not evil.
What also really sucks, for me personally, is I did want the UN to intervene in Iran, back when they were machine gunning protestors and Obama was president… Now we have kleptomaniac Donny invading them to steal their oil and willy nilly blowing up schools instead… It’s like when you make a wish to a trickster genie and they give you some cursed version of what you asked for.
Should try it on your own population some time if they aren’t “particularly bad”.
It’ll be interesting to see if you’d respond to that with the same enthusiasm.
So, instead of lots of little bombs, it’s a lot of shrapnel.
All weapons used on civilian by the american nazi scum are bad, Disgusting american swine, filthy butchering animals!
Such humanitarians.
BTW the “people entering the area in the future” got double tapped.
Great. Now invent food and shelter for everybody. That should be a helluva lot easier.
Challenge: 4cm radius target hole behind and under putin, between his legs. Extra points for delay after penetration.
It’s only a war crime if you bother to sign treaties that recognize the courts!
We, the US, still has a standing plan drawn up to literally invade The Hague, in the event anyone ever tries to hold us accountable for our crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act
The American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), known as the Hague Invasion Act[1]
There yah go, that’s America, in one sentence fragment.
Anytime they say they are trying to protect children call them out on their lies. Every damn time. Call them out. Fakest people alive.
US elites can’t get enough of children…fucking them, saving them, testing weapons on them… Always with the children…
This sounds like a very standard warhead that’s usually on a shorter-ranged missile like the GMLRS. the only thing new is probably the delivery system with 400-mile range.
So basically, we’ve upgraded from the… expanding-head-arrow-missile…
… to the buckshot-missile.
Come on Apophis, don’t miss next time.
Wow, I hadn’t heard about this school.
This type of bomb seems like the kind of thing you’d call a war crime even if not dropped on children.
Just designed for mass shrapnel damage and burns.
It’s weird they build these girl schools next to theirs military compounds but none of this was hidden info. The US should have done basic due diligence. And that’s giving them massive benefit of the doubt.
A lot of the schoolgirls and some teachers were family members of military personnel. (In the US, families often live “on base,” I guess it’s similar. The building was originally part of the compound but it was walled off when it was made into a school. It makes sense to me that ina place where girls and women are restricted from traveling, they’d need a school close to home.
