--- Bob Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> slobbered:
re:.50 cal BMG
> It is also counter to the Geneva Convention to use
Well, you've just hit my absolute #1
pet-freaking-peeve.
You are talking out your asshole. I don't care what barracksroom lawyer told
you that hoary old myth, but this is the worst military 'urban legend' out
there.
There is NO mention in the Geneva Conventions forbidding any round with two
exceptions: Poisoned
rounds, and hollow-point rounds. These rounds are
considered to cause unnecessary suffering. However, the.50 caliber BMG is a
full metal jacket round and hence is legal to use on any target whatsoever. It
was designed to for use against personnel and has been used against personnel
in every conflict the US has been in since 1920.
It is US policy to design all it's weapons with an eye towards legal issues.
All weapons in the US inventory, including combat shotguns,.50 machine guns,
WP rounds, napalm, FAE, and nuclear weapons are completely legal. The only way
a US unit can violate an international treaty in it's choice of weapons
would be if we used chemical weapons first--and the
convention on chemical weapons specifically permits maintaining stockpiles of
chemical weapons to use if the enemy initiates chemical usage. Hell, and those
things are out of the inventory now as well, exception of riot control agents
which aren't covered under those treaties.
So you can't argue with me, let me provide you with some INFORMED references
on international law of armed conflict:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl is the definitive
database, containing 91 treaties and commentary.
Further stupid statements indicating an inability to avail yourself of the
information in there will result in my dumping an HTML file containing the
entire text of the 4 Conventions onto the mailing list.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm
is the US Army's manual on the Law of War.
I quote from FM 27-10
34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material
calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)
b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be
determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a
given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition
certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery
projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established
the illegality of the use of
lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets,
and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that
would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring
of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.
Do you see a mention of.50 caliber rounds in there? No. Do you see anything
differentiating between human targets and pieces of equipment? No.
Now stop passing on myths.
It annoys me. It is untrue. It leads to violations of the laws of land warfare
by encouraging an attitude of general contempt towards the very foundation of
civilized warfare. In short, it's stupid and dangerous. Warfare is a nasty,
messy business and it is not in anyone's interest to make things more barbaric
than necessary.
> At 01:46 PM 3/16/02 -0800, you wrote:
<Whistling>
"He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood, It's a comfort to
know his intentions are good. And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man."
</Whistling>
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND THAT WAS SPOKEN VERY WELL AND VERY FORTHRIGHT TOO!
WITH NO ROOM FOR MISTAKING CONTENT!
> At 01:46 16/03/02 -0800, John wrote:
Actually the 50 cal. round was in it's first incarnation a anti-armour
round developed by the Germans in WWI, I can't remember the exact details of
the round, that book went back to the library. The Americans came along liked
what they saw and borrowed it.
Cheers
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> Well, you've just hit my absolute #1
> There is NO mention in the Geneva Conventions
The original Hague conventions banned the use of explosive rounds less than 1
lb in size, effectively 37mm. This was before the use of nitrated explosives,
ie the filling was black(gun)powder. Actually the Hague conventions just
ratified an earlier protocol, "Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War,
of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg,
29 November / 11 December 1868."
Although the trivial details have changed, the idea "to ban weapons that cause
unneccessary suffering instead of an incapacitating wound or swift death."
hasn't changed.
It could be argued that the.303 Bock & Pomeroy ammunition,
and the .303 Buckingham ammunition of WW1 (incendiary/explosive/
tracer rounds designed to take out Zeppelins) might come under this. It's been
ruled that a 20mm shell doesn't. It has been customary to assume that tracer
rounds don't either, but that's a fine point, and may change in the future.
But it's been customary that all rounds less than 20mm not have an explosive
filling. This includes 15mm, 14.5mm and 12.7mm HMGs.
But as the 0.50 calibre HMG is a full metal jacket round, it is completely
kosher under the laws, and koseher under the spirit of those laws. Few people
have survived a solid hit from a.50 cal.
> So you can't argue with me, let me provide you with
> Now stop passing on myths.
That's one thing I like about you, Mr Atkinson: if I can just ignore the less
than smooth tones of your posts, you give some excellent hard evidence. The
ICRC link was one I didn't know. I have (for my sins) had to wade through the
Australian equivt of FM 27-10 in the past.
We have the equivalent of Chapter 3 Section 1, para 64, but it differs
significantly. We'd count Al Quaida forces as POWs rather than Protected
Persons IMHO. Those committing warcrimnes are of course, after due process by
military tribunal, liable to harsh penalties. But IANAL.
John,
Thank you for taking the time to kindly correct a misconception I had. It
would have been very easy for you to insensitively yell at me but instead you
thought for a second and actually responded in a polite and civil manner.
I have to apologize for making that statement as it has been related to me
many times. I am gladdened in my heart to find a reference that refutes it.
Your learned discussion has increased my knowledge. Now that you have taken
the time out of your busy day to correct my error in a positive and learning
manner I will be sure to check my references for all future statements that
you may be forced to read.
Bob Makowsky
In case you are not sure the above is sarcasm. It would have been simple to
make your statement without telling me that I am talking out my a** and make
other inflammatory statements. Instead you have to make it into a personal
attack. I do not understand the reason for that. Can you explain it?
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 6:36 PM -0500 3/16/02, John Crimmins wrote:
I think I take moderate offense to this. (Likely far less so than John does.)
The.50 Cal BMG myth is not unlike the NASA never went to the moon myth with
people in the space industry. It really pisses them off because it's so based
on really spurious logic and bad data. Just a little looking around and you'd
get a better idea. Frankly I don't blame them. There are a few misconceptions
and idiotic things that set me off related to work.
For example. The US uses AC-130 guns ships. They specifically use
them on infantry targets. They have had 7.62 mini guns, 20mm mini guns (a
cannon type round with explosive properties), 40mm Bofor's cannons (with
explosive rounds), 105mm howitzer (with explosive rounds). Draw your parallels
between the ammo types generally fitted into the.50 BMG (SLAP, HE, HEI, etc)
and you can draw your own conclusions.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:30:56 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> At 6:36 PM -0500 3/16/02, John Crimmins wrote:
Hey, I'm willing to bet that I deal with more ignorance on a daily basis
than the rest of this list combined -- it's the nature of my job. My
favorite was the teenaged girl who refused to believe that Beethoven was a
composer, and not a dog ("I've seen the movie!"), but the guy who insisted
that Indiana Jones was not only real, but had a tobacco pouch made of bits of
his own mother's anatomy ("...and so I wanted to know if you had any books
that could show me how to tan human hide.") runs a close second. And then
there's the folks who accuse us of luring kids to witchcraft...but the less
said about them, the better.
And you can call me a nut, you can me call me a crazy dreamer....
<CROWD: Nut! Crazy dreamer!>
...but I try to be polite to these folks. Yes, it's my job...but it's also the
civilized way to behave. Maybe it's the way I was raised; I try to save my
anger for the people that really deserve it, the ones who are actually
malicious. If someone speaks in ignorance, you correct them. Politely. There's
no shame in not knowing something (With each passing year, I realize how much
I *don't* know. I'll never catch up!), unless they consciously choose to
remain ignorant. In that case, all bets are off...but even then, I try to be
patient. We all have our blind spots, after all.
But to get *that* abusive towards someone who made a mistake? That's
rude, ignorant, and flat-out obnoxious, and I have a difficult time
excusing someone for that kind of behavior because someone "pushed the wrong
button." If you can't carry on an adult conversation, then try shutting the
hell up until you're calm enough to do so.
Of course, what do I know? I gave a kid a Harry Potter book yesterday. One
more Satanist in the world, all because of me.
John C.
Thanks for this reply. I was wondering what Ryan meant and how to best respond
when I saw your reply. Right on the money.
There are alot of things I don't know. I don't need to be slammed because of
that.
Bob Makowsky
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 4:44 PM -0400 3/17/02, Bob Makowsky wrote:
Heh. I guess that sentence was slightly malformed....
> There are alot of things I don't know. I don't need to be slammed
I wasn't slamming. At least I hope I didn't appear to be slamming...:-)