Um, yeah. We're not getting any HP ammo until the U.S. completely drops all pretense of following the Hague accords.
Currently the Hague accords benefit the US. The US has the best most capable conventionaly force in the world.
You cannot plan permanent military policy around always fighting third world rebels.
There will be other conventional forces that the US must face in the future.
Against smaller less equiped conventional forces the capability of less sophisticated forces can be augmented with more capable small arms technology. Exploding small arms rounds using high explosive payloads would reduce some of the benefits a much more expensive conventional force has in things like body armor etc
While giving minimal benefits to the conventional force that already has size and monetary advantage (the US.)
Consider that the Hague accords also sought to prevent bombs from being dropped from balloons. This was before the use of airplanes, but anyone could see the spirit of the "law" would be the same for jets and attack choppers.
Yet the best conventional forces in the world have a sizeable advantage with air support. Disallowing aircraft strikes would significantly harm the ability to engage in warfare.
While allowing everyone to use aircraft still greatly benefits those who can afford aircraft, aircraft AA and countermeasures technology and are the more advanced conventional force. The US can sieze the sky over most battlefields, so who cares if others have less sophisticated aircraft.
My point is that the US conventional forces benefit greatly from the fact that third world nations are not producing very capable ammunition using the latest technology because they adhere to those rules. Which means both irregular fighters as well as thier conventional forces also end up with that same ammunition.
The use of poison and explosive small arms rounds would significantly increase the lethality of those potential enemy nations and insurgents without increasing the effectiveness of US military forces anywhere near as much.
So you may think you are only talking about hollowpoint ammunition but you are not. The same exact rules are why poison ammunition and various designs of explosive ammunition (that could make most body armor near worthless) are not used.
Those rules benefit US and NATO personel more than the absence of them would.
Arguably it restricts capabilities everyone has, without restricting the technology that gives the US superiority (aircraft, artillery etc.)
Why would the US stop following a law that severely limits enemy forces around the world, and only mildly impacts US forces?
