Geneva Convention/Hague Accords question


PDA






Apple a Day
February 6, 2004, 10:12 PM
Hello all,
I am in the process of having a slight disagreement with my uncle regarding the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
He stated that it is illegal for a soldier to shoot another soldier with anything larger than a 7.62mm unless he has nothing smaller, as in shooting at troops with an Apache's 30mm chaingun or strafing with an aircraft's 20mm. It is okay to shoot at a vehicle with people inside, though.
Once upon a time I looked up the Geneva Convention and all I could find regarding the issue was

*Under the Geneva Convention the language states that it is forbidden " To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" but it doesn't give exact parameters.

*Under the Hague Accords "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."

*In the Declaration of St. Petersburg it says "The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances."

What information am I missing? Please, include actual text and/or links to the actual documents.
Thanks in advance,
Apple

If you enjoyed reading about "Geneva Convention/Hague Accords question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hkmp5sd
February 6, 2004, 11:02 PM
I don't recall reading anything about limiting the caliber of firearms used against combatants. Your uncle's argument doesn't appear to be valid however by the simple fact the US uses the M16/M4 with an attached M203 grenade launcher under the barrel. This is a 40mm firearm that can shoot an assortment of high explosive and anti-personnel rounds.

The .50 caliber sniper rifle is also a common weapon used by US forces.

On a side note, the US never ratified the 2 protocols added to the Geneva Convention in 1977, so there are parts the US (openly) ignores.

JimP
February 7, 2004, 09:48 AM
Kind of apples and oranges. The geneva convention with the associated protocols (several of which we never ratified by the US but there is an argument out there to treat them as binding under "customary international law" [scary]), were developed to try to alleviate the effects of warfare on non-combatants and the civil population or in dealing with individuals once houers de' combat (out of combat). The Hague was an attempt to deal with the waging or conduct of war.

Every weapon and round in the US inventory has had an extensive legal review conduted on it to ensure legality under the hague and international law. This does not mean that if you have a 9MM you must use that before you put a J-Dam in someone's mellon. Your uncle is confused with the issue of "proportionality". Proportionality doesn't mean that you must use the smallest weapon/round possible. It simply means that collateral damage cannot be excessive in light of the military advantage gained. These are targeting decisions for Commanders.

Kind of the old adage people used to get mixed up about when they would state "you can't use a .50 cal against ground troops". Pure Barbara Streisand. Nothing like chasing hajji through the sand with a string of 30MM HE from an apache or hosing 'em down with a Kiowa Warrior. better than clubbing baby harp seals.

HunterGatherer
February 9, 2004, 06:32 AM
better than clubbing baby harp seals. A little O.T. drift:

Proper procedure for killing baby harp seals:

Club them once to stun them, once to kill them, and once for Greenpeace*.

:evil:

* This makes it a little more fun.

MacViolinist
February 10, 2004, 04:04 AM
Every weapon and round in the US inventory has had an extensive legal review conduted on it to ensure legality under the hague and international law.

JimP,
Am I to understand that you are including the bullets made of depleted uranium used in both of the Gulf Wars?

-drew

JimP
February 10, 2004, 04:39 AM
Every system has a review. The DU round isn't as bad as the alarmists portend. Sat through a day of classes on the stuff a coupla years ago and it dispelled a lot of the "urban myth" out there about how it will be the end of the world. Course I can't recall a hell of a lot about it, must have been a result of playing catch with a couple of DU penetrators....

Oh....the info was put out by the gubmint so consider the source....

Leatherneck
February 10, 2004, 08:49 AM
I'm thinkin' of all those missions on which I dropped 2,000-lb. bombs on "troops in the open." :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

Strange1
February 10, 2004, 06:24 PM
I'm thinkin' of all those missions on which I dropped 2,000-lb. bombs on "troops in the open."

Or cycling the bomb bay doors on a drug interdiction.

It's fun watching a 90 foot boat go to all stop.:what:

Mike Irwin
February 10, 2004, 08:01 PM
You're not missing anything. I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999% certain your uncle is wrong.

Mike Irwin
February 10, 2004, 08:04 PM
"Am I to understand that you are including the bullets made of depleted uranium used in both of the Gulf Wars?"

Just the latest weenie talking head BS.

40 years ago it was cluster bomb units against the Vietnamese.

No one said boo about their placing guns in civilian areas, though.

If you enjoyed reading about "Geneva Convention/Hague Accords question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!