Ummm, hmmm. Wait, what?

UnklFungus · October 23rd, 2009, 05:36 PM

I know that this has been in place for a really long time, but I have never heard it put this way before. This is taken from Bullet Glossary

Quote:

FMJ: full-metal jacket

Military round specified by Geneva Convention. Metal surrounds lead or steel core to prevent additional mushrooming of bullet, which may cause inhumane wounding. Usually has lead-exposed base.

Umm, isn't war about killing? I personally think war is insane, but this just seems quite odd, to be concerned about hurting someone you are trying to kill?

JD · October 23rd, 2009, 05:38 PM

It's actually from the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention.... but yeah, it's silly.

Quote:

The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.[4] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention.

Gunnutty · October 23rd, 2009, 05:46 PM

The point wasn't about humane or inhumane. Not really. That is just a smokescreen. If a man is killed in battle so be it, wound a man and it ties up many more of his comrads.
Think of all the resources necessary behind the lines. There is more than one way to win a war. Also when the wounded start returning home think of the damage to moral.

Katana · October 23rd, 2009, 05:47 PM

Makes as much sense as sterilizing the needle before giving an inmate a lethal injection, don't it?

Nova · October 23rd, 2009, 05:56 PM

My father suggested that the FMJ can actually be more beneficial in war.

When you get shot with the FMJ, it's less lethal than the JHP. Consequently, treating you ends up taking more time and resources than if you were simply killed by a JHP.

Anything that slows down your enemy is supposedly beneficial in war...

so is this true?

JD · October 23rd, 2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova

My father suggested that the FMJ can actually be more beneficial in war.

When you get shot with the FMJ, it's less lethal than the JHP. Consequently, treating you ends up taking more time and resources than if you were simply killed by a JHP.

Anything that slows down your enemy is supposedly beneficial in war...

so is this true?

It used to be, but Haji don't have medics and his buds don't care that he's hit.

Nova · October 23rd, 2009, 06:23 PM

So basically we're shooting terrorists who are only incapacitated long enough that when our soldiers walk up to them, they are alive enough to detonate a grenade for their "last hurrah."

CJ810 · October 23rd, 2009, 06:28 PM

Is this why the special rounds the private operators were testing in Iraq, that killed the guy shot in the butt, stirred up so much trouble?

gottabkiddin · October 23rd, 2009, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnutty

The point wasn't about humane or inhumane. Not really. That is just a smokescreen. If a man is killed in battle so be it, wound a man and it ties up many more of his comrads.
Think of all the resources necessary behind the lines. There is more than one way to win a war. Also when the wounded start returning home think of the damage to moral.

Excellent points.

JD · October 23rd, 2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ810

Is this why the special rounds the private operators were testing in Iraq, that killed the guy shot in the butt, stirred up so much trouble?

Say what?

Never mind, I just looked it up....Personally I think that one shot the butt is BS, but yeah that's why they were PO'd. Too bad for them.

October 23rd, 2009, 05:46 PM	#3
Gunnutty Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,176	The point wasn't about humane or inhumane. Not really. That is just a smokescreen. If a man is killed in battle so be it, wound a man and it ties up many more of his comrads. Think of all the resources necessary behind the lines. There is more than one way to win a war. Also when the wounded start returning home think of the damage to moral. __________________ We will be much better off when we learn to deal with things as they really are, instead of how we wish them to be! Last edited by Gunnutty; October 23rd, 2009 at 06:07 PM.. Reason: spelling

October 23rd, 2009, 05:47 PM	#4
Katana Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Clarksville,TN Posts: 469	Makes as much sense as sterilizing the needle before giving an inmate a lethal injection, don't it? __________________ "Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" - John Parker April 19th, 1775 Lexington, MA

October 23rd, 2009, 05:56 PM	#5
Nova Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 190	My father suggested that the FMJ can actually be more beneficial in war. When you get shot with the FMJ, it's less lethal than the JHP. Consequently, treating you ends up taking more time and resources than if you were simply killed by a JHP. Anything that slows down your enemy is supposedly beneficial in war... so is this true? __________________ Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

October 23rd, 2009, 06:23 PM	#7
Nova Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 190	So basically we're shooting terrorists who are only incapacitated long enough that when our soldiers walk up to them, they are alive enough to detonate a grenade for their "last hurrah." __________________ Springfield XD45 4" 13+1

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 23rd, 2009, 06:28 PM	#8
CJ810 Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 200	Is this why the special rounds the private operators were testing in Iraq, that killed the guy shot in the butt, stirred up so much trouble?