Cluster Munitions In Ukraine: A Critical View Of US Decision – OpEd

Cluster bombs are weapons that release many small bomblets over a wide area causing harm to anyone within the blast radius regardless of whether they are combatants or non-combatants. They also have a high failure rate meaning that many bomblets do not explode on impact and remain as unexploded ordnance that can kill or maim people who encounter them later, often years or decades after the conflict.

Cluster munitions cause long-lasting socioeconomic problems by contaminating land, hindering development, agriculture, reconstruction and access to basic services. They disproportionately affect children, who are more likely to pick up the bomblets out of curiosity or mistake them for toys. They violate international humanitarian law and the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution in the conduct of hostilities. 

However, despite these serious concerns and criticisms, some countries still use cluster bombs in armed conflicts such as Russia and Ukraine in their ongoing war.  Recently, the US has announced that it will supply cluster bombs to Ukraine as part of a new military aid package worth up to $800 million which also includes armoured vehicles and anti-armour weapons.

The US claims that cluster bombs are safer than the ones Russia is already using in the conflict, and that they are needed to deter a Russian invasion and protect Ukrainian civilians. The US also argues that cluster bombs have a legitimate military utility and that its stockpiles are compliant with certain technical standards that reduce the failure rate of bomblets.

Here we will examine the arguments for and against the US decision to supply cluster munitions to Ukraine, and analyze its impact on the conflict, the civilians and the international community. It will not take a position or make a judgment on the US decision, but rather present different perspectives and evidence on the issue. 

Supporting Ukraine’s Fight Against Russia

According to reports, the US decision to supply cluster bombs to Ukraine is that it will support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s invasion and to deter further Russian aggression. The US decision will also show its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as defending its leadership role in Europe and beyond.

The US decision will also address Ukraine’s shortage of ammunition for its artillery and rocket systems and enhance Ukraine’s military capabilities and firepower, as cluster bombs are more effective than conventional shells in attacking large and dispersed targets such as concentrations of Russian soldiers and vehicles, especially in urban areas. Ukraine wants to close Russia’s numerical superiority in artillery, as Russia has more than 2,000 artillery pieces and rocket launchers deployed near the border, compared to Ukraine’s 1,000. 

Causing More Civilian Casualties and Damage

However, one of the arguments against the US decision to supply cluster bombs to Ukraine is that it will cause more civilian casualties and damage both during attacks and afterwards. Cluster bombs are inherently indiscriminate weapons that can strike anywhere and anyone making them especially dangerous for civilians living in or near conflict zones.

Cluster munitions also have a high failure rate meaning that many bomblets do not explode on impact and remain as unexploded ordnance that can kill or maim people who encounter them later, often years or decades after the conflict. Cluster bombs also cause long-lasting socioeconomic problems by contaminating land, hindering development, agriculture, reconstruction and access to basic services. 

Violating International Humanitarian Law

Another argument against the US decision to supply cluster bombs to Ukraine is that it will violate international humanitarian law and the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution in the conduct of hostilities. Cluster bombs are widely banned by more than 120 countries under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of these weapons. The convention aims to prevent the humanitarian harm caused by cluster bombs and to assist the victims of these weapons. The US, Ukraine and Russia have not joined the convention and continue to produce, possess or use cluster bombs. 

The US argues that cluster munitions have a legitimate military utility and that its stockpiles are compliant with certain technical standards that reduce the failure rate of bomblets. However, human rights groups and other advocates have criticized the US decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine, saying that it will inevitably cause long-term suffering for civilians and undermine the international norm against these weapons. They have urged the US to join the convention and to stop supplying cluster bombs to any country. They have also called on Ukraine and Russia to stop using cluster bombs and to join the convention as well. 

Matching Russia’s Use of Cluster Bombs

A fourth argument for the US decision to supply cluster bombs to Ukraine is that it will match Russia’s use of cluster bombs as Russia has used them extensively in the conflict causing numerous civilian casualties and damage. The US argues that its cluster bombs are safer than the ones Russia is using as they have a lower failure rate of bomblets. The US also argues that by supplying cluster bombs to Ukraine, it will deter Russia from further escalating the conflict or using more weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or nuclear weapons. 

Facing More International Condemnation and Isolation

By supplying cluster bombs to Ukraine the US will face more international condemnation and isolation as well as domestic opposition and criticism for escalating the conflict and supplying inhumane weapons to Ukraine. The US decision may also increase the uncertainty and responsibility for the outcome of the conflict as well as the accountability and liability for the humanitarian and environmental consequences of using cluster bombs in Ukraine.

The US decision may also provoke more retaliation and escalation from Russia or its allies, who may impose more sanctions, expel diplomats, cut off energy supplies, launch cyberattacks or support proxy forces in other regions. The US decision may also trigger more instability and violence in other regions, as the US and Russia compete for influence and security in Europe and beyond. It may spark a new arms race and a new cold war as the US and Russia develop and deploy more weapons of mass destruction. 

Where they have been used?

Cluster munitions have been used in various conflicts by different countries over the decades. Some examples are:

They were first used in World War II by the Soviet Union and the UK, and later by the US, Germany and Italy.

They were used extensively in Southeast Asia by the US in the 1960s and 1970s, especially in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia leaving millions of unexploded bomblets that continue to cause civilian casualties .

They were used by several countries in the Middle East in the 1970s and 1980s, such as Israel, Syria, Iraq and Iran in conflicts such as the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War .

They were used by NATO forces in Yugoslavia in 1999, by Russia in Chechnya in 1999-2000, by Ethiopia and Eritrea in their border war in 1998-2000, and by Sudan in Darfur in 2005 .

They were also used by Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, by Georgia and Russia in South Ossetia in 2008, by Libya under Gaddafi in Misrata in 2011, and by Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners in Yemen since 2015 .