BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, podcasts.

Good evening. All weapons are nasty, being lethal is the point after all, but some are much nastier than others.

Cluster bombs that America is now going to supply to Ukraine are more indiscriminately deadly than most.

They spread sometimes hundreds of bomblets over a wide area, threatening

civilians often long after the conflict is over. There's been talk at this week's meeting of NATO

countries, many of whom, including the UK, have banned cluster bombs, that the West is abdicating

the moral high ground. But Russia has already been using them, and as one US congressman

put it, the only way it erodes the moral high ground is if you're an idiot or you're rooting

for Russia. Man has tried to frame rules for war since ancient Babylon, seeking to set a limit on

violence and damage to protect civilians and prisoners. But war is life and death,

even national existence, and as more often than not prove beyond any kind of ethical regulation.

When the ends are survival, all means can seem justified. There are obvious principles that

should be applied about proportionality and not targeting non-combatants.

But in the real world, the war in Ukraine, for example, against a cruel invader who doesn't abide by rules, when is it right to break them to win?

That's our moral maze tonight.

The panel, Anne McElvoy, executive editor at Politico, the news and opinion site.

Mona Siddiqui, professor of Islamic and interreligious studies at Edinburgh University,

Sonia Soda, author and chief leader-writer at The Observer,

and the Anglican priest and opinionator, Giles Fraser.

Mona, would you deny the Ukrainians, the cluster bombs they say they need?

Yes, I think there is nothing as unholy as war.

All war does is leave behind death and destruction.

...