637
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 396 points 11 months ago

Now, I'm all for the freedom of defending your country... But am I the only one thinking that this is presented in a bit too much of a good light? Like, what is the title supposed to make me feel? If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?

I genuinely thank you for sharing this info, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable reading about atrocious killing devices in a technology thread.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 169 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm right there with you. My first reaction to the video in the article was "well that's terrifying".

[-] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wait until you hear about the semi-autonomous killer drone swarms, designed to prevent signal jamming (by not needing an operator).

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 30 points 11 months ago
[-] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 108 points 11 months ago

Russia is already using thermite charges, thermobaric weapons and tear gas. They get what's coming to them.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago
[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

Even the US uses white phosphorus against infantry in violation of international law. I can't imagine what we'd resort to with Russian soliders on our soil.

[-] Apollo42@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Of course they do, it's main use is smoke generation.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

It’s only a violation of international law when used near civilians

[-] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

Oh man.....Geneva convention would be out the window and most land based invaders at that point would probably beg to be shipped back. And it's not because of the military in America. It's because of its inhabitants. When the banjos start tuning in the Appalachian forests you know Hell is a safer space than anywhere you're going to reach.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 35 points 11 months ago

That's easy to say without bullet holes in your buildings and bombs being found every few months in your capital.

IMO the US public is presenting so warlike because they never experienced war directly to a scale of WWII as a populace, especially not in living memory.

War does not look like "let's use all our guns and go kick commie ass", especially resisting an occupation. It looks like your hometown burned and poisoned, never to be rebuilt in your lifetime. It looks like people you know and care about dying, being raped with impunity, or just plain disappearing. If you pick up a rifle, you are going up against trained and experienced and also more importantly, quite desensitized enemies who have been doing what you are planning to do for months if not years. And even if you shoot one, they will hang ten of your townsfolk tomorrow.

Just look at Mariupol and Gaza and think whether anyone would thrive in that environment.

[-] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Do you understand how many veterans are in America? How many militia there are? How many guns we have?

There's a reason America didn't get land invaded other than the giant ocean and logistical shit storm it would be. It's our gun per person situation.

You remember how hard it was for America to fight Afghanistan in the mountains? Imagine another country fighting America in their mountains lol. No infinite ammo to shell mountains, Americans trained with rifles commercially available to fire cleanly 1KM. Every. Single. American. Has one...most that own guns have a decent stock pile of ammo. Shit my 7 year old can shoot a soda cap off at 30 yards with iron sights.

We readily have explosives we can order from Amazon... 2/3 of our rural population drives what Europeans would consider monster trucks. That's one hell of a technical.

This wouldn't be a "go wolverines" situation. This would be 80+ years of war and gun culture ingrained in Americans through countless years in human lives of video games and television propaganda. Ukraine has a population of 38 million. America has 120 million just on its Eastern coasts. I think if we come to a middle ground here I think we can both agree it wouldn't be pretty but significant pushback and ultimate failure on an invaders advances purely on the geology and American civilian militarization factor.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

I am not talking about whether strategically it would be a good idea to engage in conventional warfare with the US. I am talking about the fact that how you and a lot of Americans are talking about war means that they have never really experienced one, not in living memory at least.

War is a nightmare. It's not a valiant defence with plucky resistance fighters outwitting the enemy in the mountains. It's seeing your buddy still alive and conscious with half his face missing after being hit by a drone. It's your wife writing "please, it's the children here" in front of the school in chalk before they are hit anyway with white phosphorus, burning their flesh off slowly. It's soldiers raping you for fun, even if you are a man, before they kill you.

It’s our gun per person situation.

How many of those guns are effective against artillery? Against even 60 year old tanks? Against remote targeting machine guns with thermal sights? Against attack helicopters? Russia had more tanks per person than any country on Earth, they are still getting trounced. Modern warfare does not care about your semi auto at home.

You remember how hard it was for America to fight Afghanistan in the mountains? Imagine another country fighting America in their mountains lol.

You remember how that war looked? Look at this article. One battle, 18 dead from the occupying side, 1000+ local soldiers killed. Could you bear to read these in the US? Can you imagine how the US would look like after fighting 20 years of this? Let me help you, it would look like Afghanistan.

America has 120 million just on its Eastern coasts.

China has an army of 2 million at peacetime, and it is not maintaining as many overseas bases as the US. The US currently has around 1 million people in the army one way or another. Of course, if it was real, total war as you imagine, these numbers would go up, fast.

During WWII, the Soviet Union had a population of around 200 million. 26 million people died just on their side, of which only 10.5 million were soldiers. 2 million of these people died in a single battle, in Stalingrad. We have gotten much, much better at killing people since then.

This would be 80+ years of war and gun culture ingrained in Americans through countless years in human lives of video games and television propaganda.

You don't know war. War is hell on earth. It is tragedy on a mass scale, leaving scars for generations on whole societies. Seeing war movies in TV does not prepare you for shit. The US does not even have conscription.

Shit my 7 year old can shoot a soda cap off at 30 yards with iron sights.

Great, what will he do against incendiary rocket artillery at 10 km? You know, the kind which bursts in the air and covers him in burning napalm?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 11 months ago

Yeah I'm not sure that war crimes work that way. You don't get a pass because the opponent is doing illegal things.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago

Using incendiaries away from civilians isn’t a war crime regardless of which side uses them

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 months ago

I don't think this qualifies as a war crime

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

You literally get a pass because its not illegal to set an enemy on fire any more than its illegal to blow a hole in their guts with a bullet or fill their torso full of shrapnel. I'm not sure why you think it would be.

[-] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago

If your enemy makes it very clear that they want to see you dead and your nation destroyed no matter the cost, why should you be beholden to giving them an advantage? Ukraine won't win with moral superiority.

[-] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I think that's exactly how it should work....

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I see where you're coming from. It's like tolerating the intolerant. There is a point where Ukraine needs to choose between total destruction by Russia, or doing whatever it takes to get their land and people back.

It's not like Russia is held accountable for war crimes. Why would we be so critical of Ukraine when no one is doing anything to stop the atrocities of Putin?

I don't happily endorse the thermite drones, but you won't find me playing judge on what Ukraine is doing. They didn't start this war.

[-] Toribor@corndog.social 83 points 11 months ago

I take no delight in killing but Russian forces could leave Ukraine at any point and put an end to it.

[-] TwinTusks@bitforged.space 16 points 11 months ago

Can the individual soldiers just give up and leave?

[-] Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 11 months ago

The russian soldiers are in an awful predicament in this war. But they are still the aggressors and Ukraine has the right (obligation even, seeing what Russia tends to do to civilian population it conquers) to defend itself against them..and as awful as these weapons are, they have not been used in an illegal way here according to international law (something that Russia doesn't give a flying fuck about, btw.).
Personally, I don't see a moral issue here though I of course would prefer if noone had to die of which only happens in the case of Putin withdrawing his troops right now.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The vast majority of them could simply not have volunteered. Also, you can surrender.

[-] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

He can surrender, like many already did.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago

Maybe, but I've seen plenty of videos of Russians attempting to surrender to drones, and getting killed anyway.

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I have some questions you might ask yourself:

What is the count of those vs. the number of surrendered Russians being treated well?

Which one is more likely to be in the news?

Which one is more likely to be spread around by Russian bots?

Which will be more likely to be suppressed?

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What is the count of those vs. the number of surrendered Russians being treated well?

There is no credible data.

Which one is more likely to be in the news?

Neither, I live in America, the news only intentionally covers Russian war crimes. I say intentionally, since I remember a CNN segment near the start of the invasion where armed Ukrainian soldiers jumped out of an ambulance in the background.

The opposite would probably be true if I lived in Russia.

Which one is more likely to be spread around by Russian bots?

I assume it's not Russian bots posting Ukrainian drone footage to the combat footage sub.

Which will be more likely to be suppressed?

Well I haven't seen any news covering Ukrainian war crimes and I've seen plenty of news covering Russian war crimes, and I know it's not because Ukraine isn't doing any war crimes.

The reverse would probably be true for someone living in Russia.

[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Are their shoes tied together or something?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 71 points 11 months ago

If the nationalities were reversed, would this have been posted here still?

If Russia was illegally invaded & genocided by Ukraine as a consequence for wanting to become democratic and joining the West, then yes, people would rather root for Russia instead.

If Russia don't want their men to get "atrociously killed", then they can just fuck off back into their own country.

[-] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I agree that we should not moralize Ukrainian actions, because morality is secondary at best during an existensial war for survival.

But upholding the Geneva conventions is not about morality. It's about trying to prevent the worst and most horrific actions and outcomes that happen during war.

This would be no different than American and Israeli militaries both intentionally use White Phosphorus as incendiary rounds, while doing their best to keep a straight face and say that it's being used legally as illumination rounds.

Is Ukraine using this strictly under the legally defined laws of war? I don't know.

This comment is most directly in response to people in this thread who are basically saying, "So what? Who cares if it's used illegally as an incendiary round?"

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It’s not an incendiary round though, it’s an incendiary weapon. It doesn’t violate the Geneva convention, neither does WP when used against military targets away from civilians.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

It’s about trying to prevent the worst and most horrific actions and outcomes that happen during war.

No. It's about trying to prevent militarily unnecessary worst and most horrific actions and outcomes.

White Phosphorus as incendiary rounds,

Perfectly legal. You can't use them as chemical rounds (they're shit at that anyways), or, as any other incendiary weapons, close to civilians. By far the most common use is as tracer rounds and in smokescreens, though.

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 6 points 11 months ago

I think you're confused. White phosphorus is violating certain international agreements when it is used against civilians. Ukraine is using this weapon to choke out Russian positions.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] slickgoat@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

Exactly, I hate what the Russians are doing, but as a former grunt, I'll never rejoice in killing.

[-] TheBlue22 21 points 11 months ago

Boo fucking hoo. Most of them willingly went into Ukraine to kill, pillage, rape and torture innocent ukranians. They always have an option to desert, yet they still choose to murder. I will never have any sympathy towards them.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

I do agree with you that the tone of the article doesn't really match the nature of what we're seeing, or that Ukraine is in a war of national survival.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I was thinking that too. We already have other weapons that are this effective, and we've banned them.

In most cases for the banned weapons, the US got to use them for a while first, which is what's happening here.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

And the really fun ones we refuse to sign for so technically we aren't bound by them.

[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That article reads as entirely neutral. Neither positive or negative. The last lines even read as a bit of a negative to me.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Thermite is no joke. My initial thought was whether or not we're making the next Taliban right now. They were more fundamentalist and not seeking any kind of role in the UN but this kind of firepower is frightening in anyone's hands.

[-] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah I defend Ukraine against Russia, but war is war, and war never changes. It’s been 2 years of full fighting and I can’t pretend to be okay with a continuous war even against Russia and Putin who are awful.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So you would rather Ukrainians lay down their weapons and we'll have 20 years of Bucha and Holodomor, again? I somehow doubt you would prefer that to continued warfare, more likely thinking "war is awful" is taking precedence over "not fighting it would be a hell a lot worse". But that's why wars are, by and large, fought: Because people think that not doing it would be worse. Some because they're nuts, some, like Ukrainians, because they're spot-on.

The only party which can lay down their weapons and not get absolutely kicked in the face for it is Russia. Every minute it continues is on them.

[-] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's honestly no worse than dropping bombs on them. They don't have to deal with the explosive shock blowing out their ear drums either. It's way more escapable than sudden explosions happening all around you.

Besides.... if you invade a country you're down with death. A bunch of the soldiers use rape and attack civilians as well, so my concern for their well being dried up a long time ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
637 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

73655 readers
3853 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS