Geneva Convention "Humane" Ammunition Requirements.

[ngcsugrad09]

Your thought process is almost correct. The restriction against frangible ammunition was meant to make war more "humane" by making rounds that either 1) killed the combatant out right OR 2) Allowed for wounded to be cared for.

The main goal of war from "modern" times up to mid-20th century is to distroy the enemies ability to make war, not to necessarily kill or to punish the enemy combatants. Repairing someone who has been hit with fragmenting ammo is a difficult job. In the 20th century few armies were up to the task. This meant that combatants with non-fatal hits with fragmenting ammo ended up suffering slow painful deaths. It was felt that there was no reason to "torture" the enemy, just get them out of combat -- so if they do not die, let them be patched up and send home. If you are shot clean through the body with an FMJ your not going to be coming back to battle soon anyway.

In big game, wounding and repairing is not an option, a clean hole through is more torture for an animal who cannot get treatment, and a frangible round has a greater potential of killing outright.

That was definitely the theory at the time against a modern, conventional army that has a value on human life. Look at us, we have dedicated medevac helicopters, field hospitals, advanced trauma kits at the squad level, etc all to save a man.

Extremists hold little to no value on human life and won't stop to try to save their wounded like we do. Hell, they strap bombs to their own guys to try to wound or maim. Anymore, we need something that stops the threat as soon as possible, not wound and let their buddies stop to take care of them.

 

[RunNGun28]

I'm sorry. But when a country is at war, obviously the objective is to kill the enemy. War is war. An enemy is an enemy. Take care of your comrades and to hell with the opposing force. They feel the same towards us. So like I said...war is war. Don't try to change it because it never changes.

 

[04 rocko taco]

Just so we are all on the same age it seems like a lot of folks think these are recent developments. The Hague Conventions were in 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Convention was in 1949.

This FMJ ammo requirement for the military is NOT a new thing.

 

[FredAlert]

Yes all of the nato spec ammo conforms to this. It's why handguns only use ball ammo no hollow points.

The only reason that we can use SMK bullets because they are HP is because the hp is just for the aerodynamic profile and the bullets are non-expanding ....

Match bullets like the SMK are actually terrible for this intended function (killing a single target) specifically because they don't really expand
so even in the event of a headshot the bullet is very likely to travel through the target and hit something behind it.

Okay, as long as the smoke grenades don't go Bang real loud. Seriously, does our military only use this Geneva ammo?

 

[Sagan]

Maybe in the next big war we will just use tasers or stun guns.....but wait, if they fall down their uniforms will get dirty and this could offend their mothers. Did Iran sign on
to these requirements?

I don't remember who said it but, "World War III will be fought with nuclear weapons. The next one will be fought with sticks.". Or something along those lines.

 

[FredAlert]

Who said that it was?

Just so we are all on the same age it seems like a lot of folks think these are recent developments. The Hague Conventions were in 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Convention was in 1949.

This FMJ ammo requirement for the military is NOT a new thing.

 

[FredAlert]

I would say that were true if we weren't fighting people that strap bombs to themselves to kill you .... You can't fight that kind of enemy that way. If they believe that they are doing the greater good and a service to their god by being blown to bits trying to kill you I doubt they are as worried about rounding up their wounded as we are.

It's more efficient in battle to would a man and tie up 3-4 other guys in the process than to kill one.

 

[Ballplayer]

If you read the treaty it states that the United States retains the right to use lead ( expanding) bullets for sniper use and special ops. The jacketed bullets were designed for "unnessary suffering " and if used in regular ground combat it's considered a war crime. The overall treaty on types of weapons allowed is for non combatants and prisoners of war and civilians.

 

[Rush_Fan]

Are field artillery shells FMJ or hollow point?

 

[TaxPhd]

Because the object isn't to kill, hence the 5.56 round. It was only designed to wound.

Got a source for that information? Because it simply isn't true. . .