7 ms·

Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of ch

Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan. Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan. Why single out germany and japan? Are you really pretending the US, Britain, Soviet Union, etc didn't freely violate the "rules of war" also? Also, the nazis aren't a nation. Edit: I guess some here think nuking hiroshima/nagasaki, firebombing and burning millions of civilians to death, mass rape of women, etc are within the "rules of war". Interesting.
- fuckface123 7y ago
  "Nazis" in the context of WWII is commonly understood to mean the nation of Germany under control of the Nazi party.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  It isn't singling out, dude. It's just an example. Obviously from the guys avoiding signing anti-cluster-munitions and anti-landmines you can tell that they're all concerned about their military effectiveness. Fine, go ahead and say that Admiral Donitz only got away because we used Unrestricted Submarine Warfare just as much as he did. Okay. There we go. Now we're all even.
  - FillardMillmore 7y ago
    Give the man his due. That's Führer Donitz to you. Even if it was for a shorter period of time than William Henry Harrison fighting a cold after a a chilly wind.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  >Are you really pretending the US, Britain, Soviet Union, etc didn't freely violate the "rules of war" also No but The US and UK are far less notorious and so are not as good examples. > Also, the nazis aren't a nation Given the foulness of the topic but limited space, I wanted to emphasize the enormous difference between the Germans and Japanese of today vs 80 years ago. In retrospect, I should have written Tojo instead of Japan even though he is not a country either.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > No but The US and UK are far less notorious and so are not as good examples. In what way is the US or even the UK less notorious? In terms of conquest and genocide, either easily outdoes germany or japan. > I wanted to emphasize the enormous difference between the Germans and Japanese of today vs 80 years ago. What's the difference? People are people. The Germans and Japanese of today are pretty much the same as the Germans and Japanese of 80 years ago. Did they evolve? > In retrospect, I should have written Tojo instead of Japan even though he is not a country either. In retrospect you shouldn't have tried to push propaganda.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We ban accounts that do that, and you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines in other places too. If you wouldn't mind reviewing them and using HN in the intended spirit only, we'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- viklove 7y ago
  I think people just generally have a lot less sympathy for literal Nazis, who the Germans voted into power, and any aggressors in a military campaign. America didn't just nuke Japan out of nowhere, the Japanese opened the door to that when they bombed pearl harbor and attempted to conquer the Pacific. When the bad guys get what's coming to them, people don't feel so bad about it. And don't pretend civilians are completely innocent in these cases. You blame Americans for voting Trump into power, right? Then you also have to blame Germans for putting Hitler into power, and the Japanese for supporting their leaders' violent colonialism. The conflict was hugely popular on the home front in Japan. Until they started losing, of course. Japan and Germany were not the victims of WWII.
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    Who ever identifies themselves as the bad guys? Even an aggressor has an excuse for why he believes he's morally right. The US invading Afghanistan for instance was obviously the aggressor but blamed the victim for deserving it. The Nazis blamed their victims too and their victims did do things to deserve it, in some sense. Your simple goodies vs baddies view is wrong. I agree with your point about blaming voters though. In a democracy, politicians are only a reflection of what voters demand. They don't have much independent power themselves. Even in a non-democratic country, the populace is tacitly supporting their leaders and placing their immediate personal safety ahead of the enemies of their leaders.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > who the Germans voted into power Most germans didn't vote for the nazis. Certainly the hundreds of thousands of non-voting young people and children who perished during the firebombings certainly didn't. > You blame Americans for voting Trump into power, right? No. Why would I? Not sure if you are trolling or not. > and the Japanese for supporting their leaders' violent colonialism. You do realize that was the era of colonialism right? Certainly there weren't a greater colonial power than the US, Britain and the Soviet Union. > Japan and Germany were not the victims of WWII. By definition they are. Victor and victim have a common root for a reason. And certainly all the innocent civilians ( men, women and children ) who were killed in the firebombings and nukings are certainly victims. I feel like you are trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyways, the topic was "rules of war" and everybody violated it during ww2.
nordsieck 7y ago
> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. 1. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recently - M1153. 2. Hollow point bullets are very effective compared to ball ammo. There is plenty of research that's been done on this (see Martin Fackler). However, pistols are much less effective than rifles. > Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this. 1. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill them. 2. The reason calibers have dropped over time has nothing to do with making them less lethal. It's because they're lighter and smaller (easier to carry more of them), and they shoot flatter and faster (easier to hit targets).
- leetcrew 7y ago
  regarding 2), it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor, and also that they are indeed prohibited outside of situations where overpenetration of structures is a concern. seems to fit the pattern.
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor While that's true, the hollow point doesn't make a difference. Essentially all pistol ammo is bad at penetrating armor. What does make a (small) difference is velocity; you can see this by looking at ratings for NIJ level IIa and IIIa armor. This is why pistol ammo that's designed to penetrate soft armor like 5.7mm is so small and light weight - it needs to be really fast. I'm sure the pointed shape helps a bit, but it's the speed that really does the job. That's also why it's garbage compared to normal ammo against unarmored targets.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      interesting, I always thought it was less effective than other pistol ammo because it would begin expanding against the vest. TIL.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Tuna-Fish 7y ago
> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. They work just fine in inducing fragmentation and thus producing greater terminal effects. It's just that armies found out that they can induce fragmentation just fine using a different mechanism that does not have a Hague convention rule against it, and so are using that instead. Almost all modern military rounds make use of yaw-induced fragmentation, where they are designed to fly stable in air but not in flesh, and so very rapidly yaw in tissue until they are going sideways, in which direction the bullet does not have sufficient structural strength to stay intact, and so fragments. This has essentially the same effect on the target as using hollow points. > The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this. This is false. Because of better yaw characteristics, the 5.56 as adopted had similar lethality as the rounds it replaced, at the expected combat ranges. The problems with 5.56 lethality that have been reported were that the M4 carbines adopted later had too short barrels for the rounds the military was using, and the lower muzzle velocity achieved resulted in impacts where the bullets failed to fragment properly.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan. Why single out germany and japan? Are you really pretending the US, Britain, Soviet Union, etc didn't freely violate the "rules of war" also? Also, the nazis aren't a nation. Edit: I guess some here think nuking hiroshima/nagasaki, firebombing and burning millions of civilians to death, mass rape of women, etc are within the "rules of war". Interesting.

fuckface123 7y ago
"Nazis" in the context of WWII is commonly understood to mean the nation of Germany under control of the Nazi party.
scarejunba 7y ago
It isn't singling out, dude. It's just an example. Obviously from the guys avoiding signing anti-cluster-munitions and anti-landmines you can tell that they're all concerned about their military effectiveness. Fine, go ahead and say that Admiral Donitz only got away because we used Unrestricted Submarine Warfare just as much as he did. Okay. There we go. Now we're all even.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  Give the man his due. That's Führer Donitz to you. Even if it was for a shorter period of time than William Henry Harrison fighting a cold after a a chilly wind.
TomMckenny 7y ago
>Are you really pretending the US, Britain, Soviet Union, etc didn't freely violate the "rules of war" also No but The US and UK are far less notorious and so are not as good examples. > Also, the nazis aren't a nation Given the foulness of the topic but limited space, I wanted to emphasize the enormous difference between the Germans and Japanese of today vs 80 years ago. In retrospect, I should have written Tojo instead of Japan even though he is not a country either.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > No but The US and UK are far less notorious and so are not as good examples. In what way is the US or even the UK less notorious? In terms of conquest and genocide, either easily outdoes germany or japan. > I wanted to emphasize the enormous difference between the Germans and Japanese of today vs 80 years ago. What's the difference? People are people. The Germans and Japanese of today are pretty much the same as the Germans and Japanese of 80 years ago. Did they evolve? > In retrospect, I should have written Tojo instead of Japan even though he is not a country either. In retrospect you shouldn't have tried to push propaganda.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We ban accounts that do that, and you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines in other places too. If you wouldn't mind reviewing them and using HN in the intended spirit only, we'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
viklove 7y ago
I think people just generally have a lot less sympathy for literal Nazis, who the Germans voted into power, and any aggressors in a military campaign. America didn't just nuke Japan out of nowhere, the Japanese opened the door to that when they bombed pearl harbor and attempted to conquer the Pacific. When the bad guys get what's coming to them, people don't feel so bad about it. And don't pretend civilians are completely innocent in these cases. You blame Americans for voting Trump into power, right? Then you also have to blame Germans for putting Hitler into power, and the Japanese for supporting their leaders' violent colonialism. The conflict was hugely popular on the home front in Japan. Until they started losing, of course. Japan and Germany were not the victims of WWII.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  Who ever identifies themselves as the bad guys? Even an aggressor has an excuse for why he believes he's morally right. The US invading Afghanistan for instance was obviously the aggressor but blamed the victim for deserving it. The Nazis blamed their victims too and their victims did do things to deserve it, in some sense. Your simple goodies vs baddies view is wrong. I agree with your point about blaming voters though. In a democracy, politicians are only a reflection of what voters demand. They don't have much independent power themselves. Even in a non-democratic country, the populace is tacitly supporting their leaders and placing their immediate personal safety ahead of the enemies of their leaders.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > who the Germans voted into power Most germans didn't vote for the nazis. Certainly the hundreds of thousands of non-voting young people and children who perished during the firebombings certainly didn't. > You blame Americans for voting Trump into power, right? No. Why would I? Not sure if you are trolling or not. > and the Japanese for supporting their leaders' violent colonialism. You do realize that was the era of colonialism right? Certainly there weren't a greater colonial power than the US, Britain and the Soviet Union. > Japan and Germany were not the victims of WWII. By definition they are. Victor and victim have a common root for a reason. And certainly all the innocent civilians ( men, women and children ) who were killed in the firebombings and nukings are certainly victims. I feel like you are trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyways, the topic was "rules of war" and everybody violated it during ww2.

nordsieck 7y ago

> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. 1. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recently - M1153. 2. Hollow point bullets are very effective compared to ball ammo. There is plenty of research that's been done on this (see Martin Fackler). However, pistols are much less effective than rifles. > Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this. 1. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill them. 2. The reason calibers have dropped over time has nothing to do with making them less lethal. It's because they're lighter and smaller (easier to carry more of them), and they shoot flatter and faster (easier to hit targets).

leetcrew 7y ago
regarding 2), it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor, and also that they are indeed prohibited outside of situations where overpenetration of structures is a concern. seems to fit the pattern.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor While that's true, the hollow point doesn't make a difference. Essentially all pistol ammo is bad at penetrating armor. What does make a (small) difference is velocity; you can see this by looking at ratings for NIJ level IIa and IIIa armor. This is why pistol ammo that's designed to penetrate soft armor like 5.7mm is so small and light weight - it needs to be really fast. I'm sure the pointed shape helps a bit, but it's the speed that really does the job. That's also why it's garbage compared to normal ammo against unarmored targets.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    interesting, I always thought it was less effective than other pistol ammo because it would begin expanding against the vest. TIL.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Tuna-Fish 7y ago

> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. They work just fine in inducing fragmentation and thus producing greater terminal effects. It's just that armies found out that they can induce fragmentation just fine using a different mechanism that does not have a Hague convention rule against it, and so are using that instead. Almost all modern military rounds make use of yaw-induced fragmentation, where they are designed to fly stable in air but not in flesh, and so very rapidly yaw in tissue until they are going sideways, in which direction the bullet does not have sufficient structural strength to stay intact, and so fragments. This has essentially the same effect on the target as using hollow points. > The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this. This is false. Because of better yaw characteristics, the 5.56 as adopted had similar lethality as the rounds it replaced, at the expected combat ranges. The problems with 5.56 lethality that have been reported were that the M4 carbines adopted later had too short barrels for the rounds the military was using, and the lower muzzle velocity achieved resulted in impacts where the bullets failed to fragment properly.