4 ms·

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citi

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

oneplane 6y ago
Doesn't that mostly have to do with the amount of training, responsibility, leadership etc. that comes with military hierarchy? It can still get pretty bad (coverup and/or violence wise), but it seems that at least they have some sense of the relationship between violent actions and their consequences.
- trhway 6y ago
  >sense of the relationship between violent actions and their consequences exactly. Whatever you use in warzone you're risking that the same can be used against you, thus all the conventions on warzone weapons usage and prisoner treatment. Thus all the training, so that your soldiers wouldn't cross [too frequently] the redline to trigger the response. I remember reading for example that in WWI new young soldiers, i think in Russia, were sometimes issued old style non-flat 3-edged rifle attached combat knives. Whether the knife is flat or 3-edged wouldn't make any difference during the actual stabbing and the immediate time after that. Where it makes all the difference is outside of the immediate combat situation - those non-flat knives would make for unnecessary horrible very hard to heal wounds, and thus if you were found with such a knife on a battlefield you'd be killed right there instead of taken POW. So the older soldiers would make sure that the newbies would promptly lose the knives. The situation is similar to hollow-point bullets - they create those horrible wounds without any tactical benefit on actual battlefield.
  - hackissimo123 6y ago
    I'm struggling to picture what a "non-flat 3-edged" knife (bayonet?) looks like. Do you have a link to a picture?
    - trhway 6y ago
      thanks, i forgot the word "bayonet". It is triangular or higher edged bayonet. Like this one (that seems to be 4 edged) https://www.icollector.com/Austrian-Model-1849-Agustin-Jager-sword-bayonet_i9277595 https://www.icollector.com/Austrian-Model-1849-Agustin-Jager...
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    So the police should be able to inflict horrible wounds without tactical benefit?
    - trhway 6y ago
      Coming to US from USSR/Russia where history is full of wars, i was initially stunned to learn that the barbaric hollow-points are ok in US. After some time here, i think one reason for that is that police here aren't really subject to the "relationship between violent actions and their consequences", plus the "dominant force" doctrine which has fear as a significant component, and the possibility of hollow-point dovetails to that like icing on the cake. In some sense that fear is the main tactical benefit.
      - meheleventyone 6y ago
        I’m pretty sure the US has been involved in a fair number of wars in it’s short existence but it’s by far not alone in using hollow point ammunition domestically. The UK has notably been involved in wars near continuously and uses it domestically. What about the Russian police? Basically if the argument is that it’s too dangerous to shoot at your enemies in war you probably shouldn’t be shooting it at your own citizens. Which I think is our point of agreement?
        trhway 6y ago
        >What about the Russian police? it definitely wasn't using it back then in USSR and nor in the 199x. I don't know about the last decade - quick googling shows that the hollow point have been introduced for police use during the last 10-20 years in several European countries. In this context it makes sense to mention the USSR AK-74 5N7 "tumbling" bullet which was called "poison" bullet by Afganistan mujahideen for its bad quickly infection developing wounds. It is a jacketed lead with steel core inside bullet with few millimeters of air pocket in front. That air pocket made it kind of "a bit" of hollow point without fully triggering that classification. Due to that air pocket it would also easily tumble upon entry into the body thus creating disproportionally massive damage to the surrounding tissues which resulted in very hard to treat and easily gangrene developing wounds and thus it was called the "poison" bullet.
dmoy 6y ago
Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.
- russdill 6y ago
  There's an argument for using hollow point bullets on sidearms in civilian environments. There's a lower probability of "over penetration". For a high power rifle in a military environment, such a thing is less of a concern.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    But for the sorts of conflicts the US is involved in they are often working in situations with a lot of civilians present. There are also frangible rounds other than those also more destructive to humans. And above all the best way not to accidentally shoot civilians isn’t to have ammunition that makes it less likely to penetrate something else if you miss (this is after all a failure of training) but sane rules of engagement about when you can shoot.
    - BubRoss 6y ago
      None of what you said was about what he said, which was about high powered rifles.
      - meheleventyone 6y ago
        Do the police not use high powered rifles? I’ve seen a lot of pictures of them with short barrelled carbines which I assume are firing 5.56? Do the military not use pistol calibre weapons? There are frangible pistol rounds as well.
- nowandlater 6y ago
  Correct, hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. This has always baffled me since large caliber and high explosive munitions (120mm HEAT rounds from an Abrams) are regularly used against soft targets in combat, not to mention things like hellfire missles or JDAMs. That's the rules of war for you.
walkingolof 6y ago
This is a very confusing post if you have followed American wars over the last 50 years. Do you have any idea of the level of misery inflected abroad? How can that even be compared?
Animats 6y ago
Not really. See FM-3-19.15, "Civil Disturbance Operations"[1] [1] https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  This isn’t very helpful which part would you like me to look at and how does that compare to actual rules of engagement in modern conflicts versus those used by the police?

Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

oneplane 6y ago

Doesn't that mostly have to do with the amount of training, responsibility, leadership etc. that comes with military hierarchy? It can still get pretty bad (coverup and/or violence wise), but it seems that at least they have some sense of the relationship between violent actions and their consequences.

trhway 6y ago
>sense of the relationship between violent actions and their consequences exactly. Whatever you use in warzone you're risking that the same can be used against you, thus all the conventions on warzone weapons usage and prisoner treatment. Thus all the training, so that your soldiers wouldn't cross [too frequently] the redline to trigger the response. I remember reading for example that in WWI new young soldiers, i think in Russia, were sometimes issued old style non-flat 3-edged rifle attached combat knives. Whether the knife is flat or 3-edged wouldn't make any difference during the actual stabbing and the immediate time after that. Where it makes all the difference is outside of the immediate combat situation - those non-flat knives would make for unnecessary horrible very hard to heal wounds, and thus if you were found with such a knife on a battlefield you'd be killed right there instead of taken POW. So the older soldiers would make sure that the newbies would promptly lose the knives. The situation is similar to hollow-point bullets - they create those horrible wounds without any tactical benefit on actual battlefield.
- hackissimo123 6y ago
  I'm struggling to picture what a "non-flat 3-edged" knife (bayonet?) looks like. Do you have a link to a picture?
  - trhway 6y ago
    thanks, i forgot the word "bayonet". It is triangular or higher edged bayonet. Like this one (that seems to be 4 edged) https://www.icollector.com/Austrian-Model-1849-Agustin-Jager-sword-bayonet_i9277595 https://www.icollector.com/Austrian-Model-1849-Agustin-Jager...
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  So the police should be able to inflict horrible wounds without tactical benefit?
  - trhway 6y ago
    Coming to US from USSR/Russia where history is full of wars, i was initially stunned to learn that the barbaric hollow-points are ok in US. After some time here, i think one reason for that is that police here aren't really subject to the "relationship between violent actions and their consequences", plus the "dominant force" doctrine which has fear as a significant component, and the possibility of hollow-point dovetails to that like icing on the cake. In some sense that fear is the main tactical benefit.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      I’m pretty sure the US has been involved in a fair number of wars in it’s short existence but it’s by far not alone in using hollow point ammunition domestically. The UK has notably been involved in wars near continuously and uses it domestically. What about the Russian police? Basically if the argument is that it’s too dangerous to shoot at your enemies in war you probably shouldn’t be shooting it at your own citizens. Which I think is our point of agreement?
      - trhway 6y ago
        >What about the Russian police? it definitely wasn't using it back then in USSR and nor in the 199x. I don't know about the last decade - quick googling shows that the hollow point have been introduced for police use during the last 10-20 years in several European countries. In this context it makes sense to mention the USSR AK-74 5N7 "tumbling" bullet which was called "poison" bullet by Afganistan mujahideen for its bad quickly infection developing wounds. It is a jacketed lead with steel core inside bullet with few millimeters of air pocket in front. That air pocket made it kind of "a bit" of hollow point without fully triggering that classification. Due to that air pocket it would also easily tumble upon entry into the body thus creating disproportionally massive damage to the surrounding tissues which resulted in very hard to treat and easily gangrene developing wounds and thus it was called the "poison" bullet.

dmoy 6y ago

Yes One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up. There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

russdill 6y ago
There's an argument for using hollow point bullets on sidearms in civilian environments. There's a lower probability of "over penetration". For a high power rifle in a military environment, such a thing is less of a concern.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  But for the sorts of conflicts the US is involved in they are often working in situations with a lot of civilians present. There are also frangible rounds other than those also more destructive to humans. And above all the best way not to accidentally shoot civilians isn’t to have ammunition that makes it less likely to penetrate something else if you miss (this is after all a failure of training) but sane rules of engagement about when you can shoot.
  - BubRoss 6y ago
    None of what you said was about what he said, which was about high powered rifles.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      Do the police not use high powered rifles? I’ve seen a lot of pictures of them with short barrelled carbines which I assume are firing 5.56? Do the military not use pistol calibre weapons? There are frangible pistol rounds as well.
nowandlater 6y ago
Correct, hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. This has always baffled me since large caliber and high explosive munitions (120mm HEAT rounds from an Abrams) are regularly used against soft targets in combat, not to mention things like hellfire missles or JDAMs. That's the rules of war for you.

walkingolof 6y ago

This is a very confusing post if you have followed American wars over the last 50 years. Do you have any idea of the level of misery inflected abroad? How can that even be compared?

Animats 6y ago

Not really. See FM-3-19.15, "Civil Disturbance Operations"[1] [1] https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf

meheleventyone 6y ago
This isn’t very helpful which part would you like me to look at and how does that compare to actual rules of engagement in modern conflicts versus those used by the police?