News that the Biden
administration is
sending cluster munitions to
Ukraine highlights the dangerous escalation nature of wars. These are
special bombs and artillery shells with
hundreds of “bomblets” that disperse to kill
or maim as many people as possible. They
persist in the environment; children
have been known to pick them up and to be
killed or grievously wounded as a result.
The apparent rationale behind
this decision is that cluster munitions will
help Ukraine in its counteroffensive against
Russia. While these munitions will certainly
increase the body count, probably on both
sides, they are unlikely to be militarily
decisive.
There are other issues as well,
notes Daniel Larison at Eunomia:
The decision
also opens the U.S. up to obvious charges of
hypocrisy. U.S. officials have condemned the
Russian use of these weapons and said that
they have no place on the battlefield, but now
the administration is saying that they do have
a place. Providing cluster munitions to
Ukraine makes a mockery of the
administration’s earlier statements and
creates more political problems for its effort
to rally support for Ukraine. Many states in
Latin America, Africa, and Asia are parties to the
treaty banning the use, transfer, and
stockpiling of cluster munitions, and now they
will have one more reason to dismiss U.S.
appeals to defending the “rules-based order”
as so much hot air. The decision will probably
embarrass and antagonize some of our allies in
Europe, as most members of NATO are also
parties to the treaty.
It’s rather amazing to think
about the incredible variety of weaponry being
sent to Ukraine in the name of “victory.” At
first, the Biden administration spoke only of
providing defensive weaponry. Biden himself
declared that sending main battle tanks, jet
fighters, and the like was tantamount to
provoking World War III. More than a year
later, the U.S. has committed to sending
Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and offensive
weapons of considerable potency like depleted
uranium shells and now cluster munitions. And
always with the same justification: the new
weapons will help break the stalemate and lead
to total victory for Ukraine.
John Singer Sargent, “Gassed”
(1919).
Gas in World War I produced a
million
casualties—only aggravating the
horrors
of trench warfare.
This is nothing new, of course,
in military history. Think of World War I.
Poison gas was introduced in 1915 in an
attempt to break the stalemate of trench
warfare. It didn’t. But it did stimulate the
production of all sorts of dangerous chemical
munitions and agents such as chlorine gas,
phosgene, and mustard. Tanks were first
introduced in 1916.
Stalemate persisted.
Flamethrowers were introduced. Other ideas to
break the stalemate included massive artillery
barrages along with “creeping” barrages timed
to the advancing troops.
But there was no wonder weapon
that broke the stalemate of World War I. After
four years of sustained warfare, the German
military finally started to falter in the
summer of 1918. The Spanish Flu, the contagion
of communism from Russia, and an effective
allied blockade also served to weaken German
resolve. The guns finally fell silent on
November 11, 1918, a calm that wasn’t produced
by magical
weapons.
I wonder which weapon will next be
hailed as crucial to Ukrainian victory?
Who knows, maybe even tactical
nukes might be on the minds of a few of
the madmen advising Biden.
