Joe Biden Could Send Millions Of Artillery Shells To Ukraine, For Free, Tomorrow. And It’s Perfectly Legal.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

Didn’t Reagan try something like this back in the 80s, under his friend Oliver North?

merthyr1831 , 4 months ago

Yeah I get the point of the article but maybe it isn’t a good thing that the president can send anyone a bunch of weapons without oversight

And there it is:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1d09bae8-50d2-424a-be99-27e94fab616c.jpeg

Forbes recommending Biden sends Ukraine a bunch of potentially faulty ammunition that are known to make rehabilitation of warzones insanely difficult because of the civilian risk posed by dud cluster munitions.

The same kind of munitions the west condemns being used by Russia against Ukraine for those above reasons.

Draedron , 4 months ago

I hope ukraine can send them to russia soon. For free and completely legal.

SomethingBurger , 4 months ago

Express delivery!

ZoopZeZoop , 4 months ago

“If I don’t get my money, the next missiles I send will come very much faster.”

franklin , 4 months ago

This article’s title reads like clickbait

merthyr1831 , 4 months ago

Yeah, because it is. The actual munitions they theorise could be sent to Ukraine are highly unreliable cluster munitions that Ukraine is already condemning the use of because of their danger to civilians during rebuilding efforts thanks to their insanely high dud rate.

FunkPhenomenon , 4 months ago

cluster munitions, eh? the ones that no one wants the US to use because it’s a war crime or whatever? but now it’s okay to use them?

normanwall , 4 months ago

I think if the country that invades you is purposefully targeting your civilians you should be able to use ‘reasonable force’ to respond.

Flumpkin , 4 months ago

What about mines or chemical weapons?

derpgon , 4 months ago

Both sides are already using mines. Russia used chemical weapons I think once?

Gradually_Adjusting , 4 months ago

Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster munitions from the start. It’s a valid concern but it’s closing the gates after the horse has bolted.

PeckerBrown , 4 months ago

Good. Fuck the GOP, and fuck Putin.

buzz , 4 months ago

deleted_by_moderator

PeckerBrown , 4 months ago

Sorry, you’re not my type.

Heavybell , 4 months ago

The shells have cute little yellow hats :)

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

Genocide Joe will only use his powers for israel.

Quick, someone respond how giving weapons to a country committing Genocide is “arguably” legal and don’t mention all the laws that say it’s not.

GiddyGap , 4 months ago

Yeah, so let’s all get out and vote for Trump. I’m sure that will help everyone else but Israel…

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

The way you stop israel is by showing that you won’t vote for Democrats if they support them. Then the Democrats will have to change their stance on it.

If you endorse Joe Bidens Genocide now you support israel far more than if Trump would win.

GiddyGap , 4 months ago

Yeah, that’s not how it works…

Badeendje , 4 months ago

Oh stop it with the Trump style name calling already, maybe get some better people to imitate.

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

Genocide Joe is a leftie term but you wouldn’t know.

Badeendje , 4 months ago

Well people immitate who they idolize.

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

Which is why you like ad-hominems so much?

Badeendje , 4 months ago

Oh get over yourself. The name-calling serves no purpose other than virtue signalling.

And if this end up hurting you own cause it’s the cost of doing business, right.

And then when someone points it out you call foul.

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

When someone calls out Genocide Joe for doing Genocide you are the only person calling foul.

Badeendje , 4 months ago

It’s just sad that some people cannot see beyond the one point they have to hammer home. The world is already on fire and doing Trumps work for him only serves to make it worse. But that’s a sacrifice you are apparently willing to make.

And again, the Trump style name-calling is just sad and should be beneath you.

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

It’s sadder that there’s people actively defending a Genocidal Nazi

Badeendje , 4 months ago

Sure buddy, showing true colors again with the Nazi rhetoric. It serves no other purpose than an attempt at fracturing any chance you have to move the political needle in your desired direction. It is very infantile to throw over the board if you cannot have everything you want. Aiming high is good, but this is just silly.

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

This is not a difficult nor controversial political subject.

In 1940 many Germans supported Genocide. In hindsight everyone looks back and wonders how people got so stupid. Because it’s not a complicated matter. Genocide is bad.

Now we have people defending Genocide once again. And it’s not complicated once again.

Buelldozer , 4 months ago

So the author proposes using not one but two legally questionable tactics to send Ukraine artillery shells that are actually worse than useless!?!

As the article correctly notes the US quit using those M483A1 and M864 DPICM rounds because of their high failure rate. If Ukraine were to fire even 2,000 of these per day that means there would be 280 (or more) unexploded bomblets lying on the ground just waiting for a unsuspecting soldier or child to wander by and set it off.

It gets mind bogglingly worse the longer they are used too, as after just a year there would be over 100,000 of the damn things laying around!

So no, they shouldn’t be used anywhere…unless you want to spend the next hundred years dealing with the unexploded ordinance littering your terrain!

Republicans need to STFU and get back to funding the real stuff. THAT is the answer, not legal chicanery to send shit ordinance.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

So fire them into Russia. Problem solved.

sharkfucker420 , 4 months ago

Killing Russian civilians for decades is also not a good idea

13esq , 4 months ago

Why? We did it in the middle east an they’re fine!

sharkfucker420 , 4 months ago

You’re being facetious right? /gen

DragonTypeWyvern , 4 months ago

Don’t want to get war crimed, don’t do war crimes.

That’s literally the Geneva Convention btw.

sharkfucker420 , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Don’t wanna be killed by a far off nation for money? Simply do not let someone from a nearby country commit a terrorist attack you had nothing to do with.

Are you stupid? America was the invader. You really think america can just deploy the entire force of its military in another country and not have anyone fight back using whatever means necessary?

DragonTypeWyvern , 4 months ago

I’m talking about your simple minded concern for Russian fascists.

sharkfucker420 , 4 months ago

Dawg you can’t seriously believe every single Russian is a fascist. I’m concerned for the citizens of Russia who do not genuinely control the actions of their government and military. I am concerned for the generations that come after them that had nothing to do with any of it that will still be exploded by bombs not yet found.

DragonTypeWyvern , 4 months ago

“We can’t bomb Nazi Germany, some of them aren’t fascists!”

sharkfucker420 , 4 months ago

60 ish thousand killed in a foreign country by a government you have no say in is very different from 6 million killed within your borders

You just seem really bloodthirsty

DragonTypeWyvern , 4 months ago

Lmao

BrokenGlepnir , 4 months ago

No it’s not. But are you referring even a little to the 3000 “russian” civilians from the start of the conflict in 2014? Where 2500 died in Ukrainian government controlled land. I bet the Ukrainian government was shelling their own side right? Besides the fact that the Ukrainians have considered all those civilians their own citizens. I guess when separatists kill civilians its not on them.

sharkfucker420 , 4 months ago

No Im referring to a hypothetical

GBU_28 , 4 months ago

Even if you can’t agree Russian civilians are innocent, children absolutely are.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

You’re right, especially the Ukrainian children kidnapped and held in Russia.

GBU_28 , 4 months ago

I get what you’re doing, trying to play around the wording.

Just cut it out, no one is apologizing for what the Russian military is doing.

That said, Russian children are not responsible for those atrocities, and 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Ukraine defending their country is obviously just. Ukraine hunting children with UXO is not. Luckily Ukrainian leadership knows this.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

I get what you’re doing, trying to play around the wording.

No, I’m agreeing with you while taking the opportunity to remind everyone what absolute scum Russians are.

no one is apologizing for what the Russian military is doing.

Exactly. Someone should apologize.

And I also see what you’re doing, putting all the blame on the military like Putin was not generally loved in Russia before the war. Russian are pissed only because now they also have to die. If Putin only murdered Ukrainians they would still happily support him and his war.

kerrigan778 , 4 months ago

If he was actually generally loved in Russia why were the last few elections so obviously tampered with?

ExLisper , 4 months ago

Because he needs to pretend support for him is absolute while in reality only vast majority supports him. Because he cannot allow any opposition to grow in Russia in case he makes a mistake, like he did with Ukraine. Because if there’s any sign of weakness even his allies will turn against him in a heartbeat.

He’s tampering with elections to move it from 70-80% to 100%, not to move it from 10% to 100%. It’s lower since the war didn’t go as planned but most Russians supported Putin and his war.

kerrigan778 , 4 months ago

Yeah… He got 77% of the vote even after ballot stuffing and barring his real opposition from running. So your math doesn’t align with reality though.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

You’re right, I was wrong by 20%. His support is around 50% and he’s pushing it to 70%. Does this mean he’s not supported by general public? 40-50% is as much as any government gets really.

dvoraqs , 4 months ago

Only 50% after repeatedly killing opposition candidates?

ExLisper , 4 months ago

What do you mean? You think it should be lower or higher because of the killings?

dvoraqs , 4 months ago

Probably should be higher since there is less competition and an implication that you’re not allowed to oppose Vlad.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

But some people will be a bit turned off by murder so it probably evens out.

GBU_28 , 4 months ago

Lol dude get a grip.

You literally played with the wording of the second statement of mine that you quoted.

Russian children are not scum.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

I think you don’t know what playing with the wording means.

someguy3 , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

You’re playing whataboutism. It works in that direction too.

ExLisper , 4 months ago

WTF? Whataboutism would be if you said “Russians killed Ukrainian children” and I replied with “But what about Russian children!”. I said “yes, children are innocent, ESPECIALLY Ukrainian children”. I’m playing especialism you dufus.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

Those Palestinian Russian children are just going to grow up to be terrorists conscripts.

GBU_28 , 4 months ago

What the fuck man

Precrime motherfuckers on Lemmy.

GratefullyGodless , 4 months ago

So, you’re saying it’s okay for Russia to bomb Ukrainian children, but if Ukraine returns fire, THEY’RE the bad guys?

GBU_28 , 4 months ago

Obviously not.

Badeendje , 4 months ago

What a nonsense take.

For a start: The orcs are using cluster munitions since the start of the war, and their dud-rate is much higher.

Second: Ukraine has requested the DPICM munitions already and has used the ones they received to great effect. Especially against the meat wave attacks they work very well.

Third: If the choice is between no munitions or (in the opinion of non-warfighters) shitty munitions, ask the Ukrainians what they prefer, but I’ll assure you they will be loading DPICM’s.

The US quitting these munitions has much to do with the type of warfare they engaged in over the past decades, the amount of civilian casualties when using the cluster munitions in civilian centers is just unacceptable. But at a trench front in a positional war, these limitations do not apply.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

The orcs

sigh You know its going to be an informed take when we whip out LotR references.

The US quitting these munitions has much to do with the type of warfare they engaged in

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/141f25f6-379d-4904-b8d5-437eb8cece93.jpeg

Badeendje , 4 months ago

I see plenty of comparisons between the Russian army and the armies of isengard. Just look at what the land looks like when they arrive, how they treat their own and their enemies, their regard for the lives of their own. You might not like it, but if the shoe fits.

DPICM works plenty. But if you are fighting an insurgency, every last piece of unexploded ordenance is a direct issue. So the US don’t want to use them.

When fighting meate wave attacks in barren and desolate Hellscapes that are already littered with UXO… what is a few more? On the flip side, a group of 15 vatniks with no armor or only a bmp to keep them alive will not fare well against DPICM. So let the Ukranians decide if they want to use the DPICM.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

Just look at what the land looks like when they arrive

Greenscreen and aged CGI?

NIB , 4 months ago

Ukraine atm has millions if not tens of millions of mines all over the place. Adding a few hundred or thousand bomblets wouldnt make things measurably worse.

Many of these wont even be used as artillery shells, they will just strip them and ducktape the bomblets on fov drones.

Both sides have been extensively using mines and cluster munitions, because they are extremely effective. Sending Ukraine extra ammunition will save countless ukranian lives.

After the war, both sides will have a strong incentive to remove mines. Mines are often an issue for poorer countries, who dont have the funds to clear them out. Of course even in Ukraine there will be incidents decades later, but they should be comparatively low(to the amount of mines used).

Ultimately, the issue with cluster munitions is mostly about conflicts that dont already have millions of mines, because failed bomblets can act like mines. Thats less of an issue in Ukraine, because it already has millions of mines, acting like mines.

PS Russian cluster munition are terribly unreliable, much more than even old nato ones

tygerprints , 4 months ago

I'm against war and warfare in every case, but since this war is well underway, I have no issue with Joe Biden legally sending millions of artillery shells to Ukraine; I have to believe that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that Russia does not prevail in their horrific genocidal global takeover.

iAmTheTot , 4 months ago

To be clear, then, you're not against war and warfare "in every case".

tygerprints , 4 months ago

Untrue, I really am against war and warfare in every case, including this one which is as always the result of egotistical male shitheads trying to out-penis size each other with their weaponry. And I'd rather such an event NEVER occurred in human history. But it has, and with Russia now gaining so many despicable victories, it should be obvious that we must help Ukraine defeat them anyway we can.

I'm not OK with any of it, but I have to face the reality that it is what it is.

theodewere , 4 months ago

hell yeah Joe, do it let's gooooo

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.

And another president (guess who?) could in theory do the same thing to provide the same thing to Russia, which is probably why he hasn’t done it.

DarkThoughts , 4 months ago

What would stop "another president" from doing it anyway, regardless of what Biden did or didn't do?

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

Precedent.

FaceDeer , 4 months ago

That's not exactly bound Trump in the past.

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

It’s certainly made it harder for him to get the courts to side with him though.

catloaf , 4 months ago

Not like the current SCOTUS cares about precedent either.

snooggums , 4 months ago

The hypothetical person will do it whether Joe does it first or not.

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

Hypothetical, huh?

Gork , 4 months ago

I would hope there would be rather excessive backlash from all of our institutions if Trump decided to give artillery ammo to Russia.

Omegamanthethird , 4 months ago

“I would hope there would be rather excessive backlash from all of our institutions if Trump decided to…”

That sums up Trump every day since the GOP decided they were fine with him.

Omegamanthethird , 4 months ago

If Biden does it now, the conservative SCOTUS would likely rule against him, as they are wont to do. That would actually be beneficial in stopping a future potential president from doing the same for Russia.

FaceDeer , 4 months ago

Nah, a future president would give the weapons to Russia and the SCOTUS would rule "it's totally different this time somehow."

PugJesus , 4 months ago

The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.

Oh, Christ. While I appreciate looking for unorthodox solutions, that's a court case tugging at its chain.

Heresy_generator , 4 months ago

Yeah; reading the article it would seem "arguably legal" is probably a lot more accurate than "perfectly legal"

Now, there is a caveat in the EDA law. All weapons must be given away “as is, where is.” In other words, the U.S. government legally can’t pay for shipping.

But another caveat is that any weapons in Germany are excluded from this rule. Biden could ship those DPICMs to Germany aboard a few sealift ships and then declare them as excess to need before having the U.S. Army drop them off somewhere the Ukrainian armed forces would have no trouble retrieving them.

I mean, you can call this legal but when you're paying to ship equipment you've clearly decided is excess before declaring it "excess" in an attempt to get around the clear intent of the law...

Basically this comes down to: [The Executive Branch could use an arguably legal method to send to Ukraine 4 million 25 to 50 year old cluster shells that have been determined to be unreliable and unsafe]

Laticauda , 4 months ago

I’m no expert but it seems to me like it’s basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck. If someone did try to do this they’d likely still be challenged legally in order to set a precedent, so I’m guessing it’s not like Biden could do something like this and get away with it scott free.

TheDoozer , 4 months ago

I’m no expert but it seems to me like it’s basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck.

That has been the Trump administration (and post-presidency) playbook since 2016, and it has worked out remarkably well for them (and shown how flimsy many of our laws are). I say send it and let the chips fall where they may. If the courts end up deciding “yeah, that’s illegal” it’s not like they can get the shells back, unless they want to remove them piece by piece from exploded Russian equipment and Russian soldiers. They just won’t be able to use that tactic again. It’s not blatantly illegal now.

maynarkh , 4 months ago

And setting precedent might just be good so that the law is that much stronger. Those shells might end up somewhere else someday if this opportunity is not taken.

Laticauda , 4 months ago

The fact that it’s part of the Trump administration playbook indicates that perhaps it is not a great way to run a country and isn’t something that should be emulated.

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

Could you imagine Republicans letting that happen if there was any way they could stop it? I’m guessing they would try every possible avenue to stop it.

PhlubbaDubba , 4 months ago

Presumably they’d get the manufacturers to sue for the damage to their ability to set prices when the president is literally saying that their shit is worth nothing.

FaceDeer , 4 months ago

From the article:

The U.S. Army years ago determined that these DPICMs—produced in large quantities between the 1970s and 1990s—are unreliable and unsafe, as any particular submunition has up to a 14-percent chance of being a dud.

The Army around 2017 declared a requirement for a new cluster shell with a one-percent dud rate. “Rounds now in the U.S. stockpile do not meet the Office of the Secretary of Defense's goal,” wrote Peter Burke, then the service’s top ammunition manager.

Their shit is worth nothing. It's not even being manufactured any more.

PhlubbaDubba , 4 months ago

See I know you’re trying to give me valuable information about my point but what I just read is that Ukraine is gonna be pulling the Darktide Ogryn maneuver and start launching crates of the dud shells instead of actually using them as munitions.

More seriously, I was talking more about manufacturer’s current products rather than their stockpile stuff. The argument would go that devaluing any product they’ve made does damage to the demand for all products they still make.

AA5B , 4 months ago

It’s a stockpile reserved in case US military needs it. Its value is the replacement value of that functionality, and that goes directly to American businesses

FaceDeer , 4 months ago

It's a stockpile that explicitly doesn't meet US military standards. It needs to be disposed of anyway.

Chemical , 4 months ago

Why worry? Trump has made it perfectly clear that the president can apparently do whatever the hell they want to and good luck at stopping them. I believe Biden should take the same liberties. Perhaps I’ve just lost faith in the system.

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

Probably should wait and see if SCOTUS agrees with Trump on that before jumping the gun.

Afterward? Yeah, Biden should do whatever the fuck he wants. And he had better.

snooggums , 4 months ago

People doing good things shouldn’t wait to find out if shitty people doing malicious things are told no. Just do the right thing already, face the consequences later. That’s what the shitty people do, and they usually get away with it.

Norgur , 4 months ago

You all are aware that the subversion of the constitutional state for what you deem to.be good reasons will end in the same weakening of said state no matter who did it, right?

Don't lose track of what's at stake by getting blinded by bipartisan feuds. You can't fight the enemies of law, oder and democracy by undermining law, order and democracy. That is literally the only thing one can learn from the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

msage , 4 months ago

Right, like the other party cares about democracy.

Jesus Christ they’ve been gerrymandering everything they can, they ignore supreme courts orders to roll it back. They ban abortions, they try to go against people who travel to get it, they declare IVF emryos children… and that’s just the surface.

Just face it and be honest about it - there is no democracy. Majority of people are against Israel genociding Gaza. Democracy doesn’t care. Even the party of lEsSeR eViL does not give a flying fuck - DNC just says they can pick who gets to be nominated, since they are a private company.

Fuck all of that. Nobody cares about the majority of anything, except the capital. People have no value, not in the US.

But let’s worry about the optics of bipartisan support. What if the other party starts an insurrection???

AA5B , 4 months ago

This is not the right thing. The end of supporting an ally against Russian imperialism, fulfilling our promises, taking the cheapest route to safeguard our national interests, does not justify the means of the executive branch willfully misinterpreting government controls to circumvent fundamental checks and balances

alilbee , 4 months ago

You will bleed integrity with every one of those shortcuts you take. You say “let’s skip it and just do the right thing”. What can you not justify with that? You can excuse genocides, coups, war crimes. I don’t just have a problem with Trump’s motivations, but also his means. That approach, always correlated with populism, is foolish and always, always tends to oppression.

AlpacaChariot , 4 months ago

I’m not from the USA so I don’t have a dog in this fight but this seems like a mad approach to me. Think beyond the immediate short term.

In your place I’d be standing up for and strengthening your institutions and conventions; they aren’t perfect but the checks and balances are the only thing holding back people like Trump. If you don’t abide by the rules either that becomes the new normal and Trump-like figures will become commonplace and no longer be seen as an aberration.

Linkerbaan , 4 months ago

Biden had no problem bypassing Congress to give israel genocide bombs. Which is far less legal than giving Ukraine a discount.

LostWon , 4 months ago

I’m not from the US either, but I have heard of Project 2025. If Republicans actually implement what’s in it, whatever checks and balances were left will go right out the window.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

jumping the gun

Four years after he’s left office and we’re still waiting for the SCOTUS to make up its mind?

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

The “I can legally do whatever I want when I’m president” argument he’s been making is relatively new and SCOTUS is looking into it. If Trump loses, he’s fucked. If Trump wins, Biden could potentially have him assassinated. Legally. And if I were Biden, I sure would. Why not if it’s legal?

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

The “I can legally do whatever I want when I’m president” argument he’s been making is relatively new

Nixon made this argument 50 years ago.

FlyingSquid , 4 months ago

He made the argument during an interview with David Frost years after he was president. He was also roundly criticized for it and called ignorant.

Trump is making the argument in court while running for president and a scary number of people are supporting him. That’s quite different.

UnderpantsWeevil , 3 months ago

He made the argument during an interview with David Frost years after he was president.

He made the argument when he ordered the bombing of Cambodia and Laos at the advise of Kissinger. He made it when he launched the War on Drugs, as an excuse for federal harassmemt and surveiling civil rights activists and anti war protesters. He made it when he coordinated with criminal cartels down in Florida and the surrounding Gulf States to rig elections, disenfranchise voters, and red bait the opposition.

He reiterated it during the Frost interview. But he never gave a shit about rule of law.

Trump is making the argument in court

An argument guys like Nixon and Reagan and Cheney never had to make because they were never prosecuted for their crimes.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

I believe Biden should take the same liberties.

I agree, in theory. But I like if he’d use that unlimited unitary executive power to… expand Medicaid into all the states that rejected it over the objections of those state governors. Then, maybe unilaterally abolish the $1.6T in outstanding student debts. And while he’s at it, nationalize the Petroleum industry and start ramping it down, so we can avoid climate change.

I feel like we can do the military surplus to Ukraine thing once we wrap the high priority stuff up first.

Neato , 4 months ago

Yeah. Even if it goes unchallenged (it won’t), I’d rather not get this loophole codified into law for future fascists to utilize.

Not to mention if Biden says X item from Lockheed is worth $1, they are going to flip their shit. That could have a market impact on their perceived value, even if most people know it’s done to skirt the law. Or leave them open to getting very low-balled for those items later.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod , 4 months ago

I mean, if Biden sends them a bunch of "free" shells and this ridiculous loophole is closed I'd call that getting two birds stoned at once.

meco03211 , 4 months ago

Especially since it’s now known. Close that shit before Herr Cheeto has the chance to do that with arms to Russia.

gAlienLifeform , 4 months ago

Well, “a court case might force us to do nothing, so we have to do nothing” doesn’t sound like a very good argument to me, but I respect the consistency of taking the same approach to this they did with universal student loan forgiveness at least

PugJesus , 4 months ago

Actions have political costs, and optics could be the difference between Putin's lapdog and our current milquetoast administration.

I know which one I prefer, and, not coincidentally, that one is also better for Ukraine. So I do understand why saying "Fuck the law, we're gonna do it" hasn't been the first, second, or third choice.

JustZ , 4 months ago

It’s also wild speculation about something that has not happened yet.

RunawayFixer , 4 months ago

I wonder if it would be cheaper to give these cluster munitions to Ukraine, than it would be to dismantle them. The USA won’t use them anymore, so is there a plan + budget for dismantling/destroying them? Historically they dumped large redundant stockpiles like this into the sea, but that’s now causing problems, so a more expensive solution is needed.

It wouldn’t surprise me if blowing up big piles of the stuff, is cheaper than dismantling all these tiny munitions and at that point, it’s likely going to be the cheapest option (for real, not just on paper) to send it to Ukraine and let them deal with it in their way.

UnderpantsWeevil , 4 months ago

This is the “Mint the Big Platinum Coin” solution to surplus military spending.