3 ms·
Read the second paragraph of that section. And sorry, Hague convention not Geneva. Either way, only special circumstances aka special operations from my underst
by cullenking 7y ago
Read the second paragraph of that section. And sorry, Hague convention not Geneva. Either way, only special circumstances aka special operations from my understanding, which is more like international policing than warfare.
- masonic 7y agoThe USA is not a signatory to that Hague convention. I don't know what the effect would be of USA participation in a NATO action using expanding small arms ammunition.
- cullenking 7y agoyeah I am certainly not an expert and I don’t know why the us military hasn’t used them, but they haven’t, and still aren’t going to from what I can read. I found that rabbit hole while researching hunting ammo, not because I am a military scholar or anything. Seems kinda odd to me anyway, though I suppose limiting the damage a combatant receives while fighting isn’t a bad thing. Coming up with a stance makes you have to mentally address the concept of good vs bad guys, and I suppose I don’t see enemy fighters as bad people, just people fighting for differing ideals. That makes me tend to agree with rules that limit fatalities and excessive injury.
- int_19h 7y agoThe US military has authorized the use of hollow point rounds as needed. They just don't believe that it's necessary most of the time in combat. Which is entirely correct - modern FMJ rifle ammo achieves similar and better terminal ballistics via fragmentation, without sacrificing armor penetration or flight ballistics like hollowpoints. But for 9mm, the equation is different - hence why M1153 is a thing, and is issued broadly to military units.