cammerjeff
Staff Sergeant
Probably the same reason nations still have Nukes, & Poison gas stock piles. Internationally Shunned all but still in stock.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Probably the same reason nations still have Nukes, & Poison gas stock piles. Internationally Shunned all but still in stock.Since cluster munitions have been shunned / banned why do so many countries still have them ?
SCALP-EGIt seems Macron has just announced to send long rang missiles to Ukraine so more Srorm Shadows (forgot the french name for it)?
Le Storm Shadow?(forgot the french name for it)?
But its not 'neutrals' OR critics, is it? Its the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy - and the majority of NATO (and Europe.)
As for worrying about good opinion?
Some might say that after the lessons of Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan etc, the importance of needing world opinion and support and a lasting coalition of 'the willing', might have stuck in the minds of US planners - along with some kind of agreed plan on how things are going to be conducted long term. There's no irony that we're now marking 25 years since the invasion of Iraq. The concern over what kind of war is gong to be fought in Ukraine, how long its going to last and the incremental steps of escalation that are likely to happen, are entirely valid I think.
Many of the critical nations also have the unwanted 'luxury' that many commentators lack; experience of unexploded munitions in their own fields or city streets. That does tend to put a different perspective on things.
Lets play Devils Advocate a minute:
Of course the Ukrainians are fighting for national survival - but what ends justify what means? Whats the red line? Mustard gas a step too far? I mean, they'd be using it on their own land, fighting an invader who's already broken key tenets of the Geneva Convention. So why not? Expanding small arms ammunition? Flamethrowers? Not all nations are signatories to The Geneva convention... Do we supply them with weapons we wouldn't use?
Times change and public as well as military opinion changes on whats acceptable and what isn't. War - especially a war that is going to depend upon the cash sacrifice of tax payers and voters - is also a war of opinion and perception. Whether considered naive or not.
If those munitions are going to be broken down into bomblets, this is largely a non issue. If they get used en masse as tube or air-launched cluster munitions, there will be a backlash across mainstream European opinion. Whether its a large one or important in the long run or not, remains to be seen. But it simply cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand. Doing so makes the whole controversy become a QED as it also displays the attitude in some quarters towards diplomacy regarding their allies - which really would be a victory for Putin.
First 3 seconds are very important too, they saved my life once.
I believe I see your point.But its not 'neutrals' OR critics, is it? Its the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy - and the majority of NATO (and Europe.)
As for worrying about good opinion?
Some might say that after the lessons of Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan etc, the importance of needing world opinion and support and a lasting coalition of 'the willing', might have stuck in the minds of US planners - along with some kind of agreed plan on how things are going to be conducted long term. There's no irony that we're now marking 25 years since the invasion of Iraq. The concern over what kind of war is gong to be fought in Ukraine, how long its going to last and the incremental steps of escalation that are likely to happen, are entirely valid I think.
Many of the critical nations also have the unwanted 'luxury' that many commentators lack; experience of unexploded munitions in their own fields or city streets. That does tend to put a different perspective on things.
Lets play Devils Advocate a minute:
Of course the Ukrainians are fighting for national survival - but what ends justify what means? Whats the red line? Mustard gas a step too far? I mean, they'd be using it on their own land, fighting an invader who's already broken key tenets of the Geneva Convention. So why not? Expanding small arms ammunition? Flamethrowers? Not all nations are signatories to The Geneva convention... Do we supply them with weapons we wouldn't use?
Times change and public as well as military opinion changes on whats acceptable and what isn't. War - especially a war that is going to depend upon the cash sacrifice of tax payers and voters - is also a war of opinion and perception. Whether considered naive or not.
If those munitions are going to be broken down into bomblets, this is largely a non issue. If they get used en masse as tube or air-launched cluster munitions, there will be a backlash across mainstream European opinion. Whether its a large one or important in the long run or not, remains to be seen. But it simply cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand. Doing so makes the whole controversy become a QED as it also displays the attitude in some quarters towards diplomacy regarding their allies - which really would be a victory for Putin.
I believe Peskov brings the whine.packed with some french cheese and wine .....
Pure jealousy of our numerous cheeses and wines with personalities, not the stale gimmicks that can be found elsewhere.packed with some french cheese and wine .....
Pure jealousy of our numerous cheeses and wines with personalities, not the stale gimmicks that can be found elsewhere.
No. As reported below, Hungary said earlier that Budapest would no longer block Sweden's NATO membership:Ten rubles says Hungary now blocks Sweden.
Explanation: Here is why Hungary blocks Sweden's NATO accession
The political director of PM Orbán explained on Twitter on Thursday evening why Hungary is reluctant to approve Sweden's NATO accession.dailynewshungary.com