That earlier episode with cluster bombs stood out for its sheer brutality, deployed in mass while lives fell. It happened during the 2006 Lebanon conflict, a clash between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah. In the last 72 hours of that war, the UN Security Council had already endorsed a ceasefire, and the end of the fighting was in sight. The Israeli army reportedly released four million submunitions into southern Lebanon, a figure later corroborated by UN demining teams. The impact of cluster munitions in that conflict echoed well beyond the final gunfire. In the following months, hundreds of civilians, mainly children, died when they encountered unexploded bomblets left behind after the fighting ended.
That period’s aggression gave Israel strategic momentum. Worldwide discussions intensified about banning cluster bombs. These weapons, fired from artillery or aircraft, explode in the air and scatter dozens of small bombs. They can penetrate armored fronts and kill people across a wide area, yet their lack of precision often turns them into indiscriminate weapons that fail to distinguish combatants from civilians. After landing, they frequently fail to perform as intended, leaving many munitions dangerous for long periods. A stark example comes from Laos, where roughly 300 people die each year due to remnants of such bombs, and a legacy of more than 80 million cluster bomblets remained in the country for decades after a major U.S. bombing campaign during the Vietnam era.
These factors spurred the adoption of a treaty: the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits the use, manufacture, and stockpiling of these weapons and aligns with international legal norms. The treaty earns broad participation, with 123 countries on board, though several notable nations are not bound by it, including Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and a few other NATO members. The debate intensified again after Washington supplied cluster bombs to Kyiv in the ongoing conflict, aimed at breaking Russian defenses. The decision split NATO allies and prompted human rights organizations to condemn perceived double standards in international relations.
Used for months in Ukraine
In recent conflicts, cluster bombs have appeared repeatedly, from Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen to ongoing military operations elsewhere. They have been documented in Ukraine since the 2022 escalation began, with both Moscow-led forces and Ukrainian troops reported to have used them, according to organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW). HRW documented use in at least ten of Ukraine’s twenty-four provinces. One of the deadliest incidents occurred in April 2022 in the city of Kramatorsk in Donetsk, when a Russian Tochka-U missile, packed with fragmentation bomblets, struck a railway station, killing at least 58 civilians and injuring many more. In Kharkiv region, areas later occupied by Russian forces also suffered heavy civilian harm, according to HRW, highlighting the civilian toll in occupied territories.
The United States has allowed the export of cluster bombs, authorized to be fired from 155-millimeter howitzers to support Ukrainian operations. The artillery sector itself faces production pressures to meet demand, while Ukraine has been forced to ration ammunition and set monthly caps. President Joe Biden acknowledged the strain, noting limited stockpiles and the need to manage supplies. NATO leadership has criticized the use of such weapons as inhumane and contrary to international law, underscoring the tension between strategic objectives and humanitarian concerns.
Division within NATO
Several allies have voiced misgivings about supplying cluster munitions, including Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. Spanish officials emphasized a firm stance against delivering specific weapons under any circumstances. Kyiv argues that cluster bombs could change the dynamics of the battlefield, insisting they are a factor in liberating occupied territories and enabling more effective advances with artillery support. A Ukrainian adviser argued that the weapons can deliver a psychological and strategic impact on demoralized occupying forces, while Kyiv has pledged not to use them on Russian territory or in areas currently controlled by Russia.
Military experts remain divided. Some argue these weapons could effectively counter entrenched forces and provide protection for advancing units, while others push for less indiscriminate alternatives that achieve similar military objectives. Human rights advocates warn that any expansion of such weapons risks immediate and long-term civilian casualties. The ongoing political calculations, humanitarian concerns, and the ethical dimensions of war all shape the debate in capitals around the world.