alt Hacker News> You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!
By that logic, we should skip the depleted uranium and head straight to thermonuclear weapons, and throw in some Sarin for good measure. No, the purpose of prohibiting such weapons is for wartime, and whilst it is true that some countries are backsliding on previous commitments, that comes out of cowardice; it should not be reinterpreted as pragmatism. The rules of war weren't idealistic, they were prompted by very real horrors that were witnessed on the ground, especially during the Great War.
Replies
The problem is that it is both pragmatic and cowardly. The unfortunate logical consequence of this is that as a race we will likely cease to exist as a result of a nuclear weapon(s) being used for any number of reasons including political expedience.
I genuinely agree with you and I am glad you are pushing back on those arguments, but our tendencies does not put me in an optimistic mood.
The main reasons those weapons aren't used is not idealism, it's because they're not actually that effective in a battlefield scenario.
Strategic nukes in particular are a hilariously bad example here. In most cases in war, the objective is to take ground, and making the ground uningabitable is counter productive. MAD, aka "pragmatism", is the main factor that prevents their use in general.
Chemical weapons, well, let's hope MAD holds there too, to some extent. But the US to my knowledge never signed any treaties banning them. We took them out of inventory because they're not that useful to a modern, mobile military.
> By that logic, we should skip the depleted uranium and head straight to thermonuclear weapons
Yes, actually.
(With a massive caveat being if the opponent does not also have nukes.)
I mean, why do you think the US nuked Japan at the end of WW2? Because it was the most expedient and economic way to kill enough people to break the government's will to fight and make them surrender.
The estimated losses for the invasion of their main islands were 1 million. Would you kill 1 million of your countrymen, some of those your relatives and neighbors or would you rather kill a couple hundred thousand civilians of the country that attacked you?
Ironically, this time the math works out even if you give each life the same value. If you give enemy lives lower value, how many of them would you be willing to nuke before you'd prefer to send your own people to die?
I don't believe that's historic; the landmine convention was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one in 2008. The European nations that dominated these movements (USA signed neither) were in peacetime, and had known nothing other than peace for a very long time.
The treaties they're withdrawing from today aren't the post-WW1 Geneva conventions; they are modern treaties that were in actuality products of eras of peace.