Anti personnel mines are used together with anti armor mines. They provide the crucial element of slowing de-mining by not allowing infantry (mobiks) doing that by hand. Used alone you could argue, that they are not so effective, but that works for any weaponry.
My argument is use whatever weaponry is effective. Even if it is old technology. Would be stupid otherwise.
Also arguing for rocket artillery to replace casual artillery is... Strange. Rocket artillery is expensive and it's ammo is used up very quickly. I doubt any country can allow itself avoid regular artillery.
Interesting, although most info about cluster munitions I've read were tube artillery (the leaving convention part). Since tube artillery has little in path correction. (There are a few, but most of it is not)
The countries will have to purchase or produce the ammunition, because they don't have it stocked. Though.
Just to be clear:
I completely agree that fragmentation-based ammunition is much safer for everyone involved.
I can also agree how it might have some additional Effectiveness in offenisveness, just because your not mining your path forward at the same time.
I also agree that such artillery might have little use against combined-arms based combat USA uses.
But I'm yet to see proof, that it beats air released cluster munitions, when trenches or foxholes are involved. A.K.A. The Great War style warfare. (Which Russia seems to be oriented with)
Also with current transparent battlefield, any artillery and single-use drones reign supreme. So with the new META changes it does feel that we're arguing about nothing substantial at this point.