While it pales in comparison to the harm being done by Russia's invasion, I have noted with sadness the intellectual poverty of arguments against arming Ukraine as they seek to defend themselves against an unjust aggressor. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s online publication Providence has done a commendable job in explaining why in light of the Just War theory aiding Ukraine is not only allowable but morally justifable.
On this note, let me share with you some key passages from Edward G. Stafford’s, “Cluster Munitions and the Moral High Ground” regarding the Biden administration’s recent decision to provide Ukraine cluster bombs.
…are cluster munitions inherently immoral weapons of war? Does their substantial destructive power place then in a category apart from other weapons of war that are regarded as legitimate tools for resisting armed aggression? Or, does the possibility that some might harm civilians as a result of delayed detonation make their use immoral?
***************************
In a July 7 press briefing, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that the US cluster munitions being sent to Ukraine have a dud rate below 2.5%. He also stated that the dud rate for the cluster munitions already in use by the Russians was between 30 and 40 percent. Such a high rate of initial failure renders the Russian cluster munitions an indiscriminate weapon as they lead to many foreseeable deaths of civilians. Several press outlets and Human Rights Watch have reported that several hundred Ukrainian civilians have been harmed or killed by Russian bomblets that failed to detonate when first used.
***************************
A vital detail in determining the ethical use of a weapon is its purpose. Russia is using cluster munitions in an unjust war of aggression against a sovereign neighbor. Ukraine is using cluster munitions as part of its efforts to dislodge and drive out the numerically superior and better-armed forces of an invader. While the particular circumstance of being the victim of unwarranted aggression does not justify the use of any and all weapons available to the defending state (for example, chemical and biological weapons are always prohibited), its status as the aggrieved party allows it greater leeway in determining the weapons to be used in its sovereign territory to defend its people.
***************************
…cluster munitions, properly designed and deployed, can be a morally licit instrument of prosecuting a state’s legitimate defense of its sovereignty and its people, but only by meeting certain conditions:
First, cluster munitions must only be used against enemy combatants and neither target nor be used in close proximity to a concentration of civilians.
Second, cluster munitions with a high dud rate must not be used if there is a strong likelihood that soon after their use, a large number of civilians will occupy the area where they were used.
Third, careful records of the areas in which they are used must be maintained so that once fighting has ended, the area can be scoured for any duds.
Fourth, efforts should be made to monitor the dud rate of the cluster munitions used and to stop their use if the dud rate becomes so high as to preclude the possibility of recovering most undetonated munitions once the fighting has ended.
Fifth, if the Russian invaders refrain from the use of cluster munitions, the Ukrainian side must refrain from using cluster munitions.
In conclusion, Ukraine has met or is meeting the conditions listed above, and will not lose the “moral high ground” by using cluster munitions to prosecute its legitimate war aim of defending its people and sovereignty.