• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Agreed the risk is different, but I don’t know that the US should be involved in supplying questionable munitions like this. It’s a small step below chemical and biological weapons.

    We shouldn’t be sending them to anyone…

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s… Not great on that basis. However in this context Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster munitions and worse on each other since the start. They didn’t sign those treaties. If the argument is look, Ukraine is already hitting infantry positions with thermite spraying drones, and these weapons can win the war sooner, I’m not going to be thrilled, but given the consequences of a less than total defeat for Russia I’ll bite my tongue.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      I disagree. The main reason they’re banned is due to the high risk of starting uncontrolled fires, which pose a danger to innocents. This indiscriminate danger is a similarity they share with chemical and bio weapons, but can be mitigated with responsible usage. It’s not just “wp is bad”.

      Additionally, smoke munitions that rely on WP could potentially be very useful even when not used in direct attack. It’s already present on the battlefield in a variety of forms. Tracer rounds are phosphorous. If you’ve ever seen a tank shoot out a smokescreen for cover, that’s phosphorous too. This would just be another delivery mechanism.