Uuuuh… as far as I’m aware, Russia has already been using cluster munitions in Ukraine. They used cluster munitions in Chechnya and Syria as well - and lots of them.
The US used them extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, too… but that’s okay, because those people don’t “look like us” (apparently).
It’s kind of weird that people are only now making a big fuss about them.
I thought it was just another indication that Putin really has no fucking clue WHAT is going on. It wouldn’t surprise me if he believed Ukrainians were fighting with sticks and stones before the West started helping them out, but then again he also probably considers even that to be a threat to his fragile ego.
That’s fine, it’s international waters. Unlike China we respect water treaties and don’t try to build up man made islands and claim “these are our waters now”
They already used them and already committed countless war crimes.
The people claiming Ukraine is committing crime were just distracted when Russia used them on civilians? Anyways the Ukrainian Government already stated that they will not be used in towns and cities but only to clear minefields
Distracted? I dunno. Russian propagandists/bots seems more likely.
Even at the bar I tend, filled with “conservatives” that think Donald was cheated out of the election, there isn’t anyone who believes Russia is in the right.
J&J didn’t tell the FDA that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as “rather high.” this is enlightning.
Scientists don’t publish “alarmist claims without data”. They publish scientific research which is reviewed by their peers and then built on or contradicted as needed. Scientists can’t just make stuff up - their papers are reviewed before they’re published and if they write crap, it doesn’t pass review. There have been several studies since the first paper on this so the link seems fairly robust.
Had you read the article and understood how science works, you’d have learnt that the the patients all had a form of cancer caused by asbestos, and their only exposure was via talc. You’d have also learnt that courts had already upheld the findings in previous litigation with expert testimony (this is where courts listen to scientists who provide evidence to support or refute the claims being made). So at this current stage there’s little doubt that the science is right, both in the scientific literature and in law (though of course there may be a missing piece of information that has not yet come to light).
Finally, I’d like to comment on your absurd remark “sometimes… was found to cause cancer”. Asbestos is an extremely dangerous carcinogen (thing that causes cancer), which is why we regulate it nowadays. The cancers are awful and often kill within 12 months of onset. It is frankly inhuman to suggest that any contamination of a product would be acceptable unless you’re the only one volunteering to die a horrible death.
If you’re not going to read the article or show any compassion for fellow humans then maybe don’t comment and let the mature adults discuss the issues instead.
The above has been known outside of commercial industry since the early 80’s at least
The NIH tested 50 talc containing products
All 50 of the tested products contained asbestos in concentrations ranging between 5%-20% asbestos
Application of the talc containing products was found to aerosolise the asbestos fibers in a manner that they could be inhaled
Any inhalation of asbestos is considered enough to cause mesothelioma
J&J has known since 1967 that talc products usually contain asbestos as well as the health risks and continued to market it as safe anyways (www.reuters.com/…/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/)
Some other studies have found asbestos contamination of talc at lower percentages such as 15% of market products. I don’t know about you but I don’t want to roll the dice for somewhere between a 0%-85% chance that my product isn’t contaminated with asbestos just so my taint will be dry. If there’s 100,000 asbestos containing products, then at least 15,000 of them will contain asbestos.
They were using cluster munition from very beginning. There were videos of cluster munition being used in cities with civilians. In the infamous Kramatorsk railway station attack russia used cluster munition for example. Which is what makes putin’s statement quite misleading. It’s effectively lying by omission.
Ukraine is using them to clear minefields planted by Russians who illegally entered the country for the purpose of mass murder. I think we can give Ukraine a pass on what type of munitions they think will be useful for saving lives.
you’d need submunition to hit mine directly, if you want to use boom for demining, you’re looking for something like MCLIC or UR-77 (this might be a little bit counterproductive in build up areas). unless you mean EOD techs using submunitions as a donor charge, but this makes little sense, as you can use about anything to do this, including random recast AT mines and pieces of busted ERA bricks. repurposing DPICM elements this way would be unnecessarily dangerous operation
conversely, if you use DPICM in combat, you might need to clear that area before your own troops even move in, in some cases. because of large number of these elements some will fail and it might pose risk to advancing force
Ukrainians using DPICM is good, because it shortens time russians will be able to shell civilians, plant minefields and spread UXO
We really need to lift all restrictions for Ukraine on the use of weapons they’re being given. Let them rain horror on the Russian people, and see how fast the country turns against putin and his regime. Otherwise this war will drag on forever.
Bombing Russian civilians will not hasten the end of the war and could very possibly strengthen public support putin. Also let’s encourage even more war crimes than are already happening.
No, let them rain horror down on Russian invaders inside their country. Using these in Russia will mean the west won’t send them anymore and will cut off aid, and Biden and NATO have said as much.
We really need to lift all restrictions for Ukraine on the use of weapons they’re being given
yes, attacking valid military targets within internationally recognized russian borders like weapon depots, troop staging grounds and so on would be useful operationally (if perhaps not strategically, because it gives russians push to adapt at least). however
Let them rain horror on the Russian people, and see how fast the country turns against putin and his regime. Otherwise this war will drag on forever.
attacking civilians is counterproductive if you want to turn them against current govt
reuters.com
Newest