NATO went on to develop high-impulse, low-mass .22 cartridges which "totally aren't" designed to tumble/fragment on impact and cause enormous cavitation injuries in situations where a .30 round would just punch through flesh cleanly.
Should such ammo be banned for being too inhumane?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
theaustralian.com.au
abc.net.au
ibilabs.com
au.af.mil
news.bbc.co.uk
twitter.com
fuck rules of war, always cheat and always win
Bleeding heart faggots ruin everything.
no
So how come you didn't post pics of the ammo in question, like a faggot?
And once you win you hold mock trials for all enemy combatants where your judges don't require evidence and you accuse losers of doing everything you did.
So much this. 'War crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' are what the loser did. The much more awful things that the winner did was clearly just a sensible strategic move, or at worst a necessary evil. Also why the fuck are you even talking about the horrific things we did? GB2JAIL traitor!!!
Read article 19 and 21 of London Charter.
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Charter of the International Military Tribunal
Article 19.
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.
Article 21.
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.
War Crimes trials are just the legalistic form of Vae Victis.
Well, when it doesn't pencil.
British did it first and better anyways. Same concept, heavy base light nose, was used in .303 British MKVII but of course in a 174 grain .311 diameter bullet. Did the US army ever try the concept in the 7.62x51? I feel like it would be a real winner of a cartridge.
Lel, Sherman was fucking wrong.
NATO withdrew the American 5.56mm round for not being able to penetrate armour and complaints about it being inhumane, and adopted the Belgian one.
>The Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization as the second NATO standard rifle cartridge which led to the 1980 STANAG 4172. The SS109 used a 62 gr open tip bullet with a seven grain steel core for better penetration against lightly armored targets, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a WWII U.S. M1 helmet at 800 meters (which was also the requirement for the 7.62mm). It had a slightly lower muzzle velocity but better long-range performance due to higher sectional density and a superior drag coefficient. This requirement made the SS109 (M855) round less capable of fragmentation than the M193 and was considered more humane.[12]
en.wikipedia.org
You mean the time when the USAF bombed several Kriegsmarine U-Boats and red-cross vessels engaged in humanitarian recovery work (saving the sailors of the RMS Laconia, a British Merchant Navy ship - in accordance with the laws and customs of naval war at the time)? The incident that the Americans decided to memory hole after giving the aircrew and officers involved several medals for bombing their allies and men engaged in saving the lives of their allies? The incident that lead Admiral Donitz to issue the 'Laconia Order' which commanded the Kriegsmarine to stop offering humanitarian aid to the men of the ships they sank, leading to the deaths of god knows how many British and American sailors (Naval and civilian), which Admiral Donitz used to shame his prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials? The first incident in Americas history as world leaders in friendly fire and sociopathic jackassery? That Laconia Incident?
They should just make poison rounds standard issue then. Make a small glass ampule and embed it in the lead core of the bullet. It will break when fired but will stay in the bullet because it is sealed. Impact-deforming lead will displace the incompressible fluid into the wound.
Well, as you were so persuasive …
We've been making it worse for 250 years, and the end is nowhere in site.
Fuck 150 I'm nigger-tier today.
Nigger tier or not there's no excuse for phonetic spelling
Give it a decade.
A decade until the end of war? That's optimistic. Are you predicting global apocalypse, the second coming, one world government, or what?
I was predicting the end of America. At least as THE world power. War will continue for as long as the number of humans (or intelligent organisms) is greater than 1.
you've obviously never shot anything with a .30 rifle round
Here's what happens with a .30: it causes even more tissue damage than 5.56 AND it blows clean through the target
All right. I had trouble tracking where end of war as predicted by Sherman equals end of US dominance, but I'm not going to say your assessment of the changing power balance isn't correct. It most likely is.
Mace is banned by the rules of war. Let that give you an idea of how much I give a shit.
Poison is expensive, and the kinds that are useful in bullets are unwieldy and could kill your own men. Rubbing tomato juice into lead would be more effective form of poison.
Nope. That would make the bullet horribly expensive even with a cheap poison like cyanide. It would also force your troops to use NBC gear.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure using polonium or some other poisonous element, which would make the bullets expensive again and difficult to handle (better be careful with those arsenic rounds fucker).
In theory the US already uses depleted Uranium in their tank armor. You could feasibly use depleted Uranium in your ammunition and it might kill them if they survive, albeit over the course of many years. Really though, why would you give a shit about poison when you're already using one of the most lethal weapons available?
(waste of dubs)
Depleted uranium isn't even poisonous. The DOD did studies after the gulf war and tankers that were hit by friendly fire and got covered in DU dust had almost no increase in their cancer rates over the next decade.
Iraqi government statistics on cancer and military treatment of depleted uranium suggest otherwise, USAF. When are you gonna pay for poisoning my fucking water supply while claiming your fire fighting chemicals are "perfectly harmless," USAF. It's not poisonous because alpha particles aren't fucking poison. That's nit picking details.
That's a soft point hunting round. Legally classified as a dum-dum round and expressly forbidden by the Hague.
mp4 related is still legal though
Because the Hague Conventions are so strictly adhered to.
People think that, but it's mostly incompetence. I met an army sniper that served in Iraq. They must have not even trained the guy. He would try to shoot the steering wheels of vehicles to disable them, but the guy was such a bad shot he would miss, and the bullet would go through the drivers heart everytime.
Depleted Uranium has the same chemically toxicity as Uranium you fucking moron, that is well established by DoD, OSHA, NIOSH, NRC, NTSB. It's also pyrophoric and leeches when in contact with liquids. What Depleted Uranium is not is the radioactive monster that scare monger anti-nuke groups make it out to be.
ibilabs.com
Was he a "sniper" or just someone that made marksman on the range and they handed him a DMR? Anyone that is a qual'ed "sniper" would have attended a legit school, like MCSSC, USASC, ADMC, SOTIC, USANGSC, or USNSS.
While it was probably just the latter, I think you missed the point of that story.
Nah, I got your point. Trust me, I understand the kind of gross incompetence that is wielding a portion of the firepower and manpower on the battlefield, but I think Hanlon's Razor applies here quite nicely.
Nothing should.
War is war.
Everything ought to be fair game.
Depleted uranium may not be as radioactive as non-depleted uranium, but it is still very radioactive.
The only thing that changes is that where regular uranium will give you cancer after 10 minutes contact, depleted uranium will give you cancer after 10 years contact.
Not it is not, it's 60% less radioactive than U-238.
Depleted Uranium isn't even radioactive enough to cause cancer if it's ingested, you'd die from chemical toxicity before any appreciable biological damage was cause by it's minute decay.
But the total radioactivity isn't really an issue. It's an alpha emitter so being around a solid hunk of it is not a worry. However, ingesting or inhaling it are a problem as the alphas are going to dump a lot more radiation into your tissue. I'd say the people mainly affected would be those who live in the area and are going to have chronic exposure. You could spend all day in a building full of DU munitions and not worry as there's little gamma being emitted. Internal alpha exposure is bad shit though due to the dense ionization pattern. Little penetration, lots of damage when it does.
Of course, as we've established DU isn't all that radioactive even as far as alpha emissions go so short-term exposure damage is likely going to be repaired by the body no problem. It's the chronic exposure where you'd be seeing problems. Hence why there isn't a huge amount of evidence showing harmful effects on US troops but plenty of evidence of harm to the local populace.
Right, no equivalence, except the radioactivity is so minute it has no discernible biological affect, even as an alpha.
Not as large a problem as the effects caused by it's chemical toxicity.
Right, but that would mean an individual would have to either inhale particularized DU or ingest water-ladened with DU from leeching, but the real question is are those effects brought on by the ionizing patterns of alpha or the toxicity of DU in general?
Are those harmful effects to local populaces caused by ionic decay or chemical toxicity?
Arguing DU is dangerous because it can cause biological damage if inhaled or ingested, when it creates just as much damage in being chemically toxic is arguing the point of diminishing returns.
No, it's 60% as radioactive, or 40% less radioactive. Re-read whatever data you have your mitts on. And by the way… that's still very radioactive.
It's a source of alpha and beta radiation, it can definitely cause cancer, radium causes cancer just with alpha radiation. Alpha is highly ionizing radiation, the only reason it has a short range is because it ionizes anything it touches, so a piece of cardboard can shield it because it will ionize the molecules in the cardboard and use its energy up. But if you're close enough to actually be getting a dose into your cells…
While it's true that if you ingest a ton of it, the toxicity will kill you before the radioactivity, that isn't the point. It's possible to swallow 10mg per week and not die of the toxicity, but it WILL give you cancer. Which means chronic undetected exposure is definitely a problem no one wants to look at.
The military doesn't want this widely known because there have been cases of soldiers refusing to extract buddies from damaged vehicles containing DU in the armor, which is a major and far reaching problem.
You're acting like this is impossible. Every piece of DU munitions that hits anything will explode into dust, which then ignites on contact with oxygen. That's part of why we use DU munitions. Same things happen to DU armor that gets hit. And it leeches VERY READILY into groundwater where it stays for decades, causing cancer.
news.bbc.co.uk
First of all it's not just alpha, it's also beta. Second of all, there is even gamma in it. It is about 50% less dangerous than yellowcake, meaning you only need to inhale 2x more of it than yellowcake to get the same damn effect. We're talking micrograms, not miligrams, of inhalation exposure.
Hague Conventions don't apply to the US, as we weren't party to it. We could technically arm soldiers with depleted uranium for projectiles and we would only be morally in the wrong rather than legally.