"The gun was designed to wound, not kill an enemy"

[Shadow 7D]

Cosmoline, I don't disagree, and one could point out that it was mostly limited to European countries, AND only if both sides abide by ALL the particulars, I was a MEDIC, how many time in Iraq do you think I ran around with my red crosses on??? Read the convention, it specifically mentions 'dum dum's and SP's as being inhuman and maiming rounds. The idea was a clean kill, or recoverable wound.

I understand it, but, on the other hand, a FMJ round, is a 'little' cleaner when it comes to a through and through wound.

But, speaking of particulars, a US soldier is going to shoot what doesn't get him locked up by his own side, so I guess that FMJ is here to stay, for now I guess.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The people we are fighting are a military force. If they were criminals, operations would be carried out by INTERPOL

INTERPOL is not an operational police force -- it's merely a central clearing house for information.

 

[LibShooter]

What about nations that threaten us with the use of NBCs...should we bring our proverbial sticks & stones to the gunfight?

Kinda. I think the US is party to a treaty banning any use of biological weapons. Therefore we should never ever use them. Ever.

That doesn't mean we have disarmed ourselves. I don't believe the US ever agreed to never use nuclear weapons. So there's that.

We are party to a treaty saying we won't use hollow point bullets. Therefore we shouldn't. The fact that the bad guys don't have serial numbers or uniforms issued by a government doesn't matter. Besides, FMJ ammo seemes to be working just fine.

Here's the thing, we should never ratify a treaty we don't intend to abide and we should abide all treaties we sign. If the situation changes so much that we don't want to obey a particular agreement any more, we should publicly renounce it.

Does that mean police officers need to switch to FMJ only?

Nope. The spirit of The Hague protocols covers how we kill foreigners. What we do to each other isn't covered by letter or spirit.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

FAIL

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

Seems the MILITARY would disagree with you, and guess what, if you break it, YOU WILL BE PUNISHED... so it makes it a HUGE deal, even if the other side doesn't abide by it, we, the US will, cause we are like that.

So, please, don't make yourself sound even more uninformed.

he wasn't referring to the international rules of war.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

"Rules" of war are flexible. I can tell you that as the war against the Japanese in the Pacific in WWII heated up, our guys were moving fast across some islands, encountered evidence of atrocities and tortures to captured US soldiers, and orders were given at times to "not take prisoners". The speed with which our troops advanced,, with no time or ability to deal with prisoners, combined with the anger of finding US soldiers hung, gutted, and tortured by the Japanese, made the order acceptable and necessary. Like it or not, this was the case, as related to me by my dad, who was heavy weapons infantry in the Phillipines. He was issued a carbine, but the carbine's reputation then was that it was innefective at killing reliably, and he quickly found a Garand, and carried it for the rest of the war. The carbine was designed to kill, not wound; it just wasn't as good as the Garand at that task.

 

[exavid]

Rules of War are for armies that are winning. If they're losing they're going to use whatever they have on hand. The US for instance once said we wouldn't use atomic weapons in a first strike. Wanna bet? If Russian armor had stormed through the Fulda Gap in the late 50s or early 60s you think we'd have abstained from dropping a big one on them? The USSR could have fielded a much larger army on the ground in Europe than anyone else and they could have done it faster being much closer. Nope, I firmly believe our 'rules of war' would have been modified very quickly. The rules are what the winner decides and can be enforced only by the winner. The only question is 'who is the winner'.

 

[LibShooter]

The US for instance once said we wouldn't use atomic weapons in a first strike.

I don't think the US ever formally made such a promise. Weren't "Battlefield Nukes" deployed just to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe.

Lately I think we've promised not to use nuclear weapons against countries that don't have their own nukes, and are signatories of the Non-proliferation Treaty.

We still aren't saying we wouldn't nuke a country with its own nukes... I think.

 

[Maverick223]

So it's okay to deploy nuclear weapons on someone that threatens (or God forbid follows through on the threat) to attack us with nuclear weapons...but not use dum-dums, HPs, SPs, et cetera when someone does likewise (or, in the case of our current foes, employs other tactics/weapons barred from use by Hague {specifically those in Hague '07 Sec. II, Chapter. I - Article 22})?

I do believe we should lead by example...but not at the expense of our brave men and women that serve us in the armed forces.

 

[metalman8600]

Rules of War are for armies that are winning.... The rules are what the winner decides and can be enforced only by the winner. The only question is 'who is the winner'.

Exactly.

You only abide by "the rules" if it is going to be an easy victory for you.

Kind of like "I'd never kick a guy in the balls." You definitely would if he was 300 lbs of muscle and about to kick your ass if you didn't.

 

[LibShooter]

So it's okay to deploy nuclear weapons on someone that threatens (or God forbid follows through on the threat) to attack us with nuclear weapons...but not use dum-dums, HPs, SPs...

Exactly. We never made a promise to never use nukes. We did make a promise to the world not to use HPs. If we decide we need them we need to change or exit the treaty. We shouldn't violate it.

 

[Sam1911]

Looks like the original question has been sufficiently answered and now we're wondering off into WMDs and nukes.

Let's call it asked and answered.