Russia may have used "cluster bombs" on a train station in eastern Ukraine last week, killing many and wounding many more.

At Fort Sill during officer training school, I was instructed in the use and effect of cluster bombs. We called them ICMs, improved conventional munitions. Fired from artillery or dropped from planes, a cluster bomb opens 100 meters or so above soft targets. They are useless against buildings, tanks and hard fortifications. When the shell opens, dozens to hundreds of bomblets are dispersed over as wide a range as chosen. Each bomblet flutters to the ground or hangs up in the trees.

They do not always explode on contact. In fact, one of their uses is to create an instant mine field. They are not always efficient at killing. But that's one of their design features. They are designed to maim. Killing is a bonus. Wounded people have to be taken care of, removing more potential combatants from the battlefield. The effect of ICMs was demonstrated to us in a film of the bomblets dropping on a herd of goats. They were a bloody, bleating mess. We used these weapons in the Vietnam War. The leftover bomblets took off the limbs of farmers and their kids for many years after, as they dropped from the trees.

I fear what it looked like at that Ukrainian train station.

John Widen, Minneapolis

•••

A recent commentary writer tried to make the case for more U.S. military involvement in Ukraine and concluded his piece with this line: "We did it in the Middle East. Let's do it in Europe. Stop the killing!" ("World's obligation: Engage, stop the killing in Ukraine," Opinion Exchange, April 9.)

This may come as a shock to some, but U.S. foreign policy is largely responsible for those deaths. America doesn't need more self-righteous warmongering — it needs less. There are better ways to help.

Craig Wood, Minneapolis

The writer is a member of Veterans for Peace.

Ron Way's April 11 commentary points out that "When Minnesota enacted a nuclear moratorium in 1994, it made sense in the context of the times and known risks, including ... no place to store the radioactive waste other than on the plant site" at Xcel Energy's Monticello nuclear generator ("Times change. Minnesota's nuclear moratorium must end," Opinion Exchange).

He then writes, "But things have changed."

Not much, it seems.

MPR News reported Jan. 1 that "Xcel ... is seeking to extend the Monticello plant's license until 2040, and is requesting authorization from the Public Utilities Commission to increase the amount of spent fuel stored there. That process could take two years ... ."

Hal Davis, Minneapolis

•••

Given the times, risks and alternatives, then and now, there was never a valid reason for a nuclear moratorium. None of the "alternatives" are sustainable or reliable.

•••

Buried in Way's opinion piece, he writes, "Sure, nukes present a list of dicey considerations ... ." This is a throwaway line that is worth illuminating. Just a few of the "dicey considerations" are a) the very long lead time and cost to build nuclear power plants, b) the unsolved problem of what to do with highly radioactive nuclear waste and c) the risks of nuclear accidents and/or nuclear terrorism (e.g., Chernobyl).

Yes, we absolutely need to move quickly away from fossil fuels, but a safer, quicker and cheaper path is to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear energy and instead increase our investments in renewable energy and energy conservation.

David Mann, Minneapolis

I was appalled and saddened to read a Saturday letter (on the Jewish Sabbath) that revived an old and hateful canard regarding the death of Jesus. I am referring to the statement in a letter that claimed that "Charges against this radically compassionate Jesus by religious leaders got him nailed to the cross ... " ("Watch who else you're criticizing," Readers Write). As scholars and many religious leaders are aware, it wasn't "religious" leaders, but the governing authorities of Roman-controlled Palestine, who "got him nailed to the cross." This year, Passover, Easter and Ramadan occur at the same time. Regardless of our faith, let us celebrate what we all share in common by joining in a prayer for peace and harmony in a very troubled world, and not contribute to the divisiveness that sadly surrounds us by perpetuating falsehoods that can only lead to hatred and tragedy.

Last week, an amazing event occurred in our nation's capital. Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed as a justice of United States Supreme Court. After more than 200 years of slavery, then 100 years of Jim Crow and over 50 years of mass incarceration, a Black woman has been appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court. What a day for our country!

And what did many Republicans in the Senate do to honor this momentous event? They walked out. How small. How petty and political — in the very worst sense of the word.

But more important than the action itself is what this action tells us about our country. It's important that our leaders start connecting the dots. If our political leaders act in a manner that is disrespectful and contrary to what is considered civil and humane, the general public will be impacted. If leaders ignore, rationalize or promote violence, then many will see such action as justifiable.

I loved Jackson from the moment she completed her remarks introducing herself to the Judiciary Committee and the country. She was warm and decent and so remarkably direct about her love of country and respect for the law and the Constitution.

Can we not honor a woman of this accomplishment? Are we beyond this civility? Does our extreme partisanship now trump our humanity? The answer bodes poorly for our country.

•••

A Saturday letter to the editor spewed several talking points that are convoluted blather and they should have been a red flag to editors. The writer said, "Justice Jackson supports an abortion industry ... ." There is no abortion industry. It's called health care. The letter insisted that the terms "diversity, equity and inclusion" constitute "a mantra that objectifies minorities as political chattel ... ." Utter nonsense. These terms would serve to mitigate the generations of discrimination fostered by "Americans of Christian conscience and conservative character." Society has long suffered under the myth that "Christian" values and political conservatism are ideologically compatible, and it has long suffered from proffered gibberish finding its way into print.

Bob Worrall, Roseville