Europe Needs Cluster Munitions: Strategic Necessity?

Europe‘s Defense Dilemma: Reconsidering Cluster Munitions Amidst Rising russian threat

WASHINGTON — As tensions escalate between NATO and Russia, a provocative question is emerging in European defense circles: Shoudl nations onc again embrace cluster munitions to deter potential Russian aggression? While these weapons, notorious for their devastating impact on civilian populations, are banned by over 100 countries, some analysts argue that a strategic reevaluation is necessary for Europe to effectively counter a resurgent Russia, particularly considering potential shifts in U.S. commitment to the alliance.

Cluster munitions, which scatter numerous smaller bombs over a wide area, have long been condemned for their indiscriminate nature and the high risk they pose to civilians. “Cluster munition warheads have consistently proven more effective for DEAD [destruction of enemy air defenses] fire missions than unitary variants,” according to a recent report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). This suggests that multiple warheads can neutralize several vehicles and essential components that support an air defense battery. The area of effect, they argue, minimizes accuracy degradation caused by electronic warfare.

The core of the debate lies in Europe’s perceived vulnerability in ground forces and air defense capabilities relative to Russia. During the Cold War, NATO relied heavily on airpower to offset the Warsaw Pact’s numerical superiority in ground troops and tanks. However, modern Russian air defenses pose a formidable challenge to European air operations. “NATO land forces are overwhelmingly dependent on air power for fires,” the RUSI report noted, emphasizing that “without large-scale US assistance, though, European air forces would currently struggle to roll back dense and integrated air defense systems (IADS) such as those protecting Russian forces.”

Russia has developed a multi-layered air defense network comprised of mobile short-, medium- and long-range surface-to-air missiles and radar systems. These systems create overlapping zones of fire, making it extremely challenging for enemy aircrafts to penetrate. “Modern Russian air defense systems have far greater range, are more mobile, more resilient and substantially more lethal than any faced by NATO forces in conflict,” RUSI said.

Historically, successful military campaigns have prioritized the suppression of enemy air defenses before committing ground forces. Israel’s victory in the 1982 Lebanon War and the U.S. military’s performance in Desert Storm in 1991 are prime examples.However, Europe currently lacks the necessary capabilities to replicate these successes.For decades, the U.S. has been the primary provider of air defense suppression systems within NATO. Should the U.S. reduce its commitment, Europe would be left to confront Russian air defenses with limited resources.

Did you know? The U.S. Army’s 56th Artillery Command reactivated in 2024 after a 33-year hiatus, demonstrating the U.S. military’s renewed commitment to long-range precision fires in Europe.

The “limited training and capability progress for the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) in most European countries since the end of the Cold War has made the availability of [close air support] doubtful during the initial period of any war between peer adversaries,” the RUSI report stated. This leaves European armies with the daunting task of fighting without air support or attempting to destroy enemy air defenses themselves. “Land forces cannot wait for air forces to complete the SEAD/DEAD campaign before they themselves are committed — they must be able to operate for a sustained period while the airspace is still heavily contested,” according to RUSI.

ideally, long-range ground-based weapons, such as Lockheed Martin’s ATACMS ballistic missiles, would neutralize air defenses. Though, stockpiles of these munitions are limited, and Russia has demonstrated the ability to jam their GPS guidance systems. Moreover,russian anti-aircraft missiles,like the SA-17,SA-20,and SA-28,are designed to intercept ballistic missiles and artillery rockets. “The capacity of Russian SAM systems to shoot down incoming munitions of various kinds has been demonstrated hundreds of times over the three years since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began,” RUSI noted.

This brings the debate back to cluster munitions. “Cluster munition warheads have consistently proven more effective for DEAD [destruction of enemy air defenses] fire missions than unitary variants,” RUSI argued. the rationale is that a single cluster munition can disable multiple vehicles and components of an air defense battery, while their wider area of effect reduces the impact of electronic warfare.

With European armies facing shortages of artillery pieces and howitzer shells, cluster munitions could offer a critical advantage.”The evidence from Ukraine demonstrates that there is a difference in effectiveness such that any military that is constrained on the number of fire missions it can conduct should problably prioritize cluster munitions for its artillery,” RUSI said.

The U.S. has already supplied cluster munitions to Ukraine, which have proven effective against Russian forces. In 2023, the U.S. controversially sent Ukraine M864 155-mm howitzer shells, each containing 72 submunitions. These sales proceeded despite concerns about the high dud rate and the potential threat to civilians.The U.S. also supplied ATACMS missiles, each carrying 950 bomblets.

Though, the use of these weapons has been criticized by many, including human rights organizations, who point to the long-term dangers posed by unexploded ordnance.

Pro tip: Humanitarian groups emphasize the need for increased funding for demining efforts in conflict zones, regardless of the types of weapons used.

Reintroducing cluster munitions in Europe would undoubtedly be a politically sensitive move. Lithuania withdrew from the cluster munition treaty in 2024,signaling a potential shift in attitudes.

“It truly seems that many European nations may have to do the same if they are to be able to guarantee their security in the absence of a major US commitment to the theatre, mitigating the ethical concerns by limiting the context in which such munitions are employed, and investing in reducing the dud-rate of newly produced munitions,” the RUSI experts recommended. They also advised Europe to invest in standoff weapons and loitering munitions to target Russian air defenses without risking manned strike aircraft.

“It is also worth noting that Russian forces make extensive use of cluster munitions,” the authors pointed out. Thus, “ethically motivated self-limitation by the defending side would not obviate the need for a large-scale post-conflict unexploded ordinance clearance and disposal effort to avoid lasting risk to civilians.”

The Counterargument:

Critics argue that the ethical cost of using cluster munitions outweighs any potential military benefit. They point to the high number of civilian casualties associated with these weapons and the long-term dangers posed by unexploded ordnance. Furthermore, some argue that investing in choice technologies, such as advanced precision-guided munitions and drone warfare, would be a more effective and ethical approach to countering Russian aggression. The United States is currently seeing a surge in funding towards the research and development of precision-guided munitions that limit collateral damage and civilian casualties.

FAQ: Cluster Munitions and European Defense

Q: What are cluster munitions and why are they controversial?
A: Cluster munitions are weapons that release numerous smaller submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. They are controversial because they have a high failure rate, leaving unexploded ordnance that can pose a long-term threat to civilians.

Q: What is the Cluster Munitions Treaty?
A: The Cluster Munitions Treaty is an international agreement that prohibits the use,production,transfer,and stockpiling of cluster munitions. Over 100 countries have signed the treaty, but the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine are not among them.

Q: Why are some analysts suggesting that Europe should reconsider using cluster munitions?
A: These analysts argue that Europe’s ground forces and air defense capabilities are insufficient to deter potential Russian aggression. They believe that cluster munitions could provide a critical advantage in neutralizing Russian air defenses and allowing European forces to operate more effectively.

Q: What are the alternatives to cluster munitions for suppressing enemy air defenses?
A: Alternatives include long-range precision-guided missiles, standoff weapons, loitering munitions, and drone warfare. Investing in these technologies could provide a more effective and ethical approach to countering Russian aggression.Q: What is the U.S. position on cluster munitions?
A: The U.S. has not ratified the Cluster munitions treaty and maintains a stockpile of these weapons. While the U.S. has supplied cluster munitions to Ukraine, the decision to do so has been controversial, and the U.S. military continues to evaluate the role of these weapons in its overall defense strategy.

Considering the evolving nature of modern warfare and ethical considerations, what strategic approach do you believe should be prioritized – investing in advanced technologies, or re-evaluating the role of cluster munitions?

Europe’s Defense Dilemma: A Conversation with Dr. Astrid Moreau on the Cluster Munitions Debate

WASHINGTON – As discussions intensify regarding European defense strategies, Archyde News presents a thorough interview with Dr. Astrid Moreau, a Senior defense Analyst specializing in European security strategy at the Institute for Strategic Studies.

Opening Remarks: The escalating Threat Landscape

Archyde editor: Dr. Moreau, thank you for being with us.The European defense landscape is undeniably shifting.How would you characterize the current threat posed by Russia, and how does it impact the ongoing debate regarding defense capabilities?

Dr. Moreau: Thank you for having me. The modern Russian air defense systems are a formidable challenge, far more advanced than what NATO forces have previously faced. This is not just a matter of numbers, but also the sophistication of their integrated air defense systems (IADS). The core of the issue revolves around Europe’s vulnerabilities in both ground forces, and air defense capabilities. Without the assured support of the United States, European nations will have to re-evaluate their options, that is the reality.

The Cluster Munition Conundrum

Archyde Editor: The article highlights the potential role of cluster munitions in neutralizing Russian air defenses. Can you explain their perceived utility in this context?

Dr. Moreau: Certainly. Cluster munitions, as discussed in the RUSI report, offer a specific advantage particularly in the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD). Due to their wider area of effect, they are thought to be more effective in neutralizing radar and support components that make up of an air defense system. The area of effect offered by cluster munitions also accounts for mitigating accuracy degradation caused by electronic warfare.

archyde Editor: However, cluster munitions are highly controversial. What are the primary criticisms against their use?

Dr. Moreau: The main criticism is the risk they pose to civilians. Cluster munitions have a high failure rate, leaving unexploded ordnance that can pose a long-term hazard. Humanitarian organizations and human rights groups have strongly advocated to curb the use of these weapons due to their indiscriminate nature.

Alternatives and Strategic Investments

Archyde Editor: The article also mentions alternative technologies such as long-range precision-guided missiles. Do you believe investing in these would better suit European defense?

Dr.moreau: Absolutely. Alternatives like advanced precision-guided munitions, standoff weapons, loitering munitions, and complex drone warfare systems could offer a more strategic approach. Research and development of these technologies, should be prioritized to counter Russian aggression more effectively and with reduced collateral damage.

Archyde Editor: Considering the political sensitivities, do you foresee a significant shift in European policy regarding cluster munitions in the near future?

Dr. Moreau: The situation is complex. Economic pressure, and the desire for self-reliance may force reconsideration by many European countries. Lithuania withdrawing from the cluster munition treaty signals a possible shift in attitudes. However, any such shift would need to be carefully managed.

The Role of the United States

Archyde Editor: What role does U.S. support play in this equation, and how crucial is it for Europe’s defense posture?

Dr. Moreau: The United States has been the primary provider of critical air defense suppression systems in the decades as the Cold War. A reduction in U.S. commitment would drastically change the dynamic.

A Critical Question for Our Readers

Archyde Editor: dr. Moreau, thank you for your insights. Before we conclude, a critical question for our readers: Considering the evolving nature of modern warfare and ethical considerations, what strategic approach do you believe should be prioritized – investing in advanced technologies, or re-evaluating the role of cluster munitions? We welcome your thoughts in the comments below.

Dr. Moreau: Thank you for having me.