Do you support Joe Biden sending cluster bombs to Ukraine?

[llorando]

Warmonger John Bolton supports it, so it must be a good idea, right?

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4086281-bolton-hails-biden-decision-to-send-cluster-bombs-to-ukraine/

Yes

No

[BadApple69]

Ukraine can not beat Russia no matter how many weapons we send. Until we put boots on the ground Ukraine will lose. Do we want to put boots on the ground? Remember China is backing Russia so we are talking WWIII if we go in to help with soldiers. All we are doing by supplying weapons is killing more Ukraine people.

[richardcory]

Cluster munitions leave bomblets that didn't explode, and those are hazardous for years after the war ends. They are often picked up by children.

Russia is the bad guy here - no question about it, but that doesn't mean that its OK for us to sink to their level.

I'm pretty outraged.

[TooHot2Care]

It's not a matter of whether or not I approve or not, this is the wrong question, here is a better one : Do you like bread?

Do you like being able to pay for bread at a fair price? Would you like to live in a world where a loaf of bread was 10-15$ ?

Because, if Ukraine loses? That's what happens.

[Anonymous]

Every weapon we give to Russia's enemies just means Russia will give that much more to our countless enemies.

Russia has a wide range of options to get their revenge against us ranging from bio-weapons (nobody would know anymore than they knew with COVID-19), to even 'losing' a nuke to a anti-western terrorist group.

[Drewtate]

Russia has been doing that for decades. They gave away so many AKs and other weapons that they barely have enough to equip their army in Ukraine.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate An AK is just a small arms it is comparable to what American already own at home.

The other weapons are also not that significant, the big weapons you really don't want our enemies having are nukes and missiles. capable of taking out our carriers.

[Drewtate]

Basically for the past 20 years the Russian military has been auctioning off its military equipment. Even tyres for vehicles. An Ak is just small arms I agree but it's a lot better than arming your troops with WW1 bolt action rifles.
They may have nuclear missles capability but have they maintained that capability is the question. Carriers are not so easy to sink, a missles may be able to sink one but you have to first get past the fighter screen, escort ship, phalanx cannons, anti Air missiles, electronic jamming systems and laser anti missle systems.
By comparison the outdated ships of the Russian Navy can be easily sunk as shown by the sinking of the Russian Navy flag ship the guided missle cruiser Moskva.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate Althou a Russian ship may be easier to sink than a U. S. Aircraft carrier the cost in time and money of overwhelming theses defenses and sinking a U. S. carrier is now dwarfed using modern super sonic missile tecnoligy available to both Russia and china by the cost of replacing that carrier and all that is lost with it.

When either of theses powers start selling theses missiles to the 3rd rate powers our power hungry politicians in D. C. always try to 'police' we will start losing carriers and with them much of our navel power.

I personalty think the modern super carrier as such is an outdated tecnoligy. Its original function was to compensate for the limited range of aircraft and missiles by bring them closer to their target. With modern engines, in flight refueling and missiles that range is not soo limited anymore.

Hence why we can now build supersonic missiles so inexpensively as to overwhelm their defenses.

[Drewtate]

None of this new. Carriers have been a big target since WW2. At one point the big threat was anti ship missiles like the exocet now its transonic anti ship missiles but counter measures have kept up to date.
An aircraft carrier gives the US navy the ability to park an airforce anywhere in the world without relying on vulnerable refuling and dependent on the goodwill of allied host nations. At 13 billion dollars per unit the US Navy would not be investing so heavily in them if they were uneeded.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate I am not at all convinced the U. S. Navy's defenses have kept up with modern weapons tecnoligy, certantly not with cost and availability of such weapons.

That you can shoot down a few supersonic missiles does not mean you can shoot down 100 of them.

That you can be to in the ocean in a world with ever more advance satellite tracking systems does not mean you are still hidden. The military is unfortunately too often in the habit of waiting until someone dies or a ship is sunk before accepting modern technology poses a risk.

Given how they think a modern war between major powers may play-out in the space of a few months, their irreplaceable investment will be largely sunk by then.

Air refueling may be vulnerable but it is also faster and necessary even for the navy to extend its already out dated f-18's limited range to keep their carriers operating at a "safe distance".

We need new longer range Jets and missiles, and we need to move more of our assets under water.

[Drewtate]

Of course they can. You have to get in range of a carrier with 100 of them. If you try to launch an anti ship missile by aircraft it will likely be shot down by the screening destroyers by anti-air missiles. Then there is electronic countermeasures, the British used these in Falklands war to counter exocet missiles, the British lost ships in the Falklands war that lacked these countermeasures.
Satellites can be shot down. US AEGIS destroyers have this capability.
As for air refueling one time during a NATO operation the Austrians became aware of two Stealth bombers operating over their airspace due to them being refuelled in the air. Air to air refueling is a prime opportunity to shot down incoming attack aircraft. US Navy Carriers can refuel their aircraft in mid air.
The F18 has a range comparable to the F35, F15, F16 etc. The F18 has been replaced with the F18 Superhornet which has a variant of electronic warfare aircraft. The US Airforce does not have the capability of striking anywhere in the world with 90 modern fighter jets like a single US aircraft carrier can with F18 Superhornets, F35C, F35Bs and the revelevant EW, radar and refueling aircraft, along with the cruise missile capability of drones and amphibious warfare attacks. If the US Navy wants to control the Pacific and Atlantic it needs carriers.

[Opinion Owner]

@Drewtate A carrier is valuable only so long as you can keep it afloat and operational.
This very much depends upon an enemy not being able to locate and and reach the carrier before begin destroyed.

As tracking systems become ever more effective, and weapons become ever longer range the carrier's is ever more competing with unsinkable land based airports.

Personally i think stealth tecnoligy is a sensor trick that can be overcome using alternate systems of tracking.

The U. S. Air-force as such is very much depended upon other nations not bothering to develop and deploy theses technologist.

Granted if you shoot down all the satellites you can significantly compromise tracking system, but even satellites are not the only option for global communication and tracking.

[Drewtate]

You don't have to sink airport's just destroy the aircraft on the ground, enemy anti ship cruise missiles and anti air batteries, aircraft wouldn't alond do that, missile cruisers and submarines would launch cruise missiles against them.. As tracking systems become ever more effective, and weapons become ever longer range the carrier's is ever more effective.
Stealth technology just makes it very difficult to detect or accurately shoot down a stealth aircraft, you may know its there but can't target it at least not until its shot you down or completed its mission such as destroying radar instalations or missile sites, they may not even have to fire just communicate enemy postions which is what aircraft Orginially first did in WW1. Without satellites an enemy is virtually blind at least until another of their satellites orbits around.

[Drewtate]

We are sending them everything else so why not and it is their country and they are fighting a very real war.

[strateguy632]

i thought those are "not precise enough" like wmd. geneva convention?

[strateguy632]

an exception might be the expensive heat seeking ones. but biden is wrong policy again.

[JoeMichael67]

That whole family are nothing more than white collar criminals.

[Exterminatore]

I support all the other nations funding this war except us.

[gorydetails]

Didn’t Jen Psaki say cluster bombs were a war crime?

[jshm2]

The Hill is hardly a reputable and credible source.

[zebronics]

No no no

[BLP11520]

I am not sure cluster bombs are nasty