ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:28 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Geneva Convention on Banned Weapons
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 9:56 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Okay, since the other .50 debate was a flop:

Geneva Conventions and the Weapons it Bans, and how nobody cares.

Does anyone have any instances of the Geneva convention actually being observed when it would be inconvient to do so?

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 11:08 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
before we go into any big arguments one way or the other and/or writing huge posts, I'll just post a few book quotes on the .50, and we can work from there...

Excerpt from "Jarhead: a Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War" by Anthony Swofford (2003)

Quote:
Sniper Instructor: "I'm here to teach you how to kill people and disable vehicles with your new toy. By the way, you all know you can't hit a human target with a fifty calibre weapon, right? It's in the Geneva Convention. So you hit the gas tank on their vehicle, and they blown the hell up, but you can't target some lonely guard or a couple of towlies in an OP calling in bombs. You'll have to get closer with the forty or call in your own bombs"

Marine Recon Sniper: "We can't shoot people with this thing? Fuck the Geneva Convention"

Sniper Instructor: "You fuck the Geneva Convention and I'll see you in Leavenworth. That's like shooting a nun or doctor. where'd we find this retard?

Marine Recon Sgt: "The Fifth Marines"


Swofford was a Marine scout/sniper in the STA (Surveillance and Target Acquisition) platoon of the Second Battalion, Seventh Marines. Tho normally armed with the M40A1 rifle (the 'forty' mentioned above') they were given the first Barrett .50 semi-autos in theatre with the those express instructions.

this could be due to strict 'by the book' Geneva Convention following so that the Iraqi's have no chance of calling a foul at all, or because it was the first time the weapon was deployed so it was an attempt to see what it could do by following the rules before throwing them out of the window. The snipers carried a standard weapons load in addition to the .50 so it's reasonable to say they were issued as specifically anti-material weapons with no reduction of the snipers anti-personnel efficiency (other than the added weight)

Excerpt from "Ultimate Risk: SAS Contact Al Qaeda" by Mark Nicol (2003)

Quote:
'Phil looked on enviously as someone to his right screamed "Break out the Barretts" - a command for FSB's snipers... The body count rose quickly as the snipers found their range and it was a quick death when the Barrett ripped through a guerrilla's vital organs; slower when it took off an arm or a leg. Then they writhed on the ground in agony, limbs oozing blood. A 'double tap' execution to the head if or when it came from a passing A Squadron soldier would be a blessing for any of the crippled terrorists.'


A slightly tabloid style book from a very tabloid oriented journalist detailing Operation TRENT: a hell of a lot of the SAS going after a fortified drug factory/warehouse and Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan during the war, they killed everyone and blew the place up. 40 Al Qaeda dead and almost $100 of opium burnt for 4 SAS (non fatal) casualties.

note how the Afghans are always referred to as either 'terrorists' or 'guerrillas' as this gets around the Geneva Convention somewhat as you're not dealing with soldiers in a war, but terrorists or criminals. In this way the VC/NVA did in 'nam, by classifying airmen (specifically, but just about anyone else as well) as 'War Criminals' they were also outside of the Geneva Convention, in this case on the treatment of prisoners, so it's a bit of a double edged sword.

Excerpt from "British Vehicles and Army Equipment" by R. E. Smith (1967)

Quote:
"The American Army (make) extensive use of the .50 Browning, Both for a long range support fire and as a multi purpose defence weapon for anti-aircraft and anti-vehicle roles. It is interesting to note that American ground forces still find a multitude of fire tasks for this very efficient weapon"


A 1960's handbook quoted for the little "they shoot people with it" hint at the end. Note the official use of a .50 cal weapon is always specifically for "anti-aircraft and anti-vehicle roles" and more generally "long range support fire" this makes in an indirect fire weapon, almost a form of artillery, thus (just about) sneaking around the Geneva Convention again

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:38 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
When has any international resolution really been observed except when it was convienient to do so? I mean, the U.N., the big momma of all international peace-keeping legislatures, classified the Rwanda slaughters as "acts of genocide" rather than simply "genocide," since they were mandated by their own bylaws to intervene with military force to prevent genocides. But as long as it's a series of unconnected "acts of genocide," it's all good. Etc., etc., etc.

So the fact that the U.S. weasels around certain parts of the Geneva Convention shouldn't come as a surprise to any of us. Most countries wind up violating one part or another when they become actively involved in a war. It's a military necessity. I mean, it's nice to think that as weapons get deadlier and deadlier we get more and more merciful to compensate for, but let's face it--when you're fighting for your life, "fuck Geneva" goes all the way. Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan threw rules of engagement out the window and won just a few years after watching the British get their law-abiding asses kicked yet again, this time in the Crimean War, and since then it's been "anything goes" for the sucessful commander.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:59 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
As we keep getting told, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying, and if you get caught, you weren't trying hard enough."

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 3:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Treespeaker wrote:
When has any international resolution really been observed except when it was convienient to do so?

you weren't in the Fifth Marines by any chance were you?

as I noted above, the Conventions and Protocols tend to have a very limited application and by their nature are able to be sneaked around, the main idea, however, is not to gain any big advantage by cheating, but to make sure that your enemy has no chance of calling a foul and rejecting international law because of it, a "you shot Pvt Cameljocky with a .50, thus I'm allowed to use bio weapons on your medical corps" one bad turn deserves another escalation

note in this article a few historical 'rules' of warfare are mentioned

Quote:
The ancient Hindu laws of Manu prohibited the use of barbed arrows because they exacerbated the injury upon their removal. The Romans considered the use of poisoned weapons to be unlawful. During the Middle Ages, the Pope condemned the crossbow, noting the appalling injuries it caused.


the latter popish rule had more to do with the fact that a barely trained commoner issued with a crossbow could kill a highly trained and armoured noble knight in one shot, not good for the stability of the classes at all, but it was brought into general effect in Europe with excommunication as the punishment for disobeying it

however some Free Companies, often with few if any knights involved couldn't care less about excommunication when the advantages of harsh weapons and unrestricted warfare were, really, their advantage, so they happily celebrated their excommunication by going after churches and bishops, practically relishing their outcaste status

but anyway, on the above article, although it relates to non-lethal weapons, it's a pretty good summary of the current state of international law with regards the physical conduct of war (the Geneva Convention is more a 'how to treat prisoners' after all) including results of the Nuremberg trial

another example is the use of exploding bullets by allied aircraft in WW1. the idea was to equip aircraft with exploding bullets when they went out on anti-spotter balloon and Zeppelin killing missions, both of their targets being highly flammable provided a great target for small explosives

Quote:
while a 50- to 100-round burst of machine-gun fire would cause major structural failure in a contemporary airplane, it had little effect on an airship. Zeppelins were large enough to soak up enormous quantities of the standard .303-in (7.7 mm) ball ammunition without serious damage.

With this fact in mind, the Woolwich arsenal developed a theoretically more lethal anti-airship round: the "flaming" bullet. This contained an incendiary compound sufficient to ignite the hydrogen in a Zeppelin. But the amount required was so large that it would not fit the high-velocity, .303-in service bullet. Instead, the obsolete, .45-in caliber Martini-Henry bullet had to be used. This had been developed for a single shot, lever-actuated, breech-loading rifle that had preceded the .303 Lee-Enfield SMLE as the standard infantry weapon. This used a short-range, low-velocity cartridge designed originally for black powder. The Woolwich flaming bullet was too temperamental for use in machine guns (it was prone to exploding in a hot barrel), even if the only weapon chambered for it, the obsolete, .45-in Navy-pattern Maxim gun, had been light enough for aircraft use. So aircrew were issued with Martini-Henry cavalry carbines. Trying to hit a moving, airborne target at long range with a single-shot carbine while flying an unstable light plane was hardly a promising tactic, even if the Woolwich round had not proved incapable of piercing Zeppelin fabric at combat ranges (British authorities came away convinced that the Zeppelin featured a double hull containing inert engine exhaust as a fire suppressant). Incendiary and explosive bullets were also contrary to the Hague Conventions, which were still being observed in Britain at this time


note this 'failed' due to it not working *and* being against the Hague Conventions, it would not have even been tested had the international law been first in their minds, as you'll note in the article that quote came from they invented crazy weapons to sort out the little problems of lethality and legality in short order, the best being the "unlikely-sounding and worse-looking Farnborough Fiery Grapnel"

but i digress, the 'rules' are there and only really work if both sides observe them, note from my previous linkthat when both sides end up abiding by so many rules and conventions that:
Quote:
According to Niccolo Machiavelli, the battle of Zagonara in 1424 was a "defeat, famous throughout all Italy, [in which] no death occurred except those of Lodovico degli Obizi and two of his people, who, having fallen from their horses, were drowned in the mire." Several reasons have been extended for this low lethality. One of the more plausible reasons was the simple fact that the armor of the day was much superior to most offensive weaponry. A more personal reason is the fact that the surest way for a mercenary to lose his source of livelihood was for the condottieri to obliterate his enemies. As a result, mercenaries rarely sought setpiece battles, choosing instead to fight relatively minor and extended campaigns. Engagements between mounted warriors often resembled jousts and those between infantry often turned into shoving matches.


that is surely the most civilised form of war?

*shoves*

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 3:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
<i>Are</i> .50s illegal when used against personnel?

I admit I don't know much about this, but when I tried to look up exactly why they might be illegal, I couldn't find any first-hand sources. Instead I found lots of conflicting second-hand sources, and this thing: <a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/low-workbook.pdf">JAG Law of War Workshop Deskbook</a>

page 165 wrote:
<u>Sniper rifles, .50 caliber machine guns, and shotguns</u>. Much mythology exists about the lawfulness of these weapon systems. Bottom line: they are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use.


page 274 wrote:
[...]it is illegal to use Dum Dum bullets, yet it is legal to shoot a person with a .50 caliber machine-gun... The use of the .50 caliber machine-gun is perfectly lawful under treaty law and the customary practice of states. Large caliber weapons are in the inventories of almost all nations. Obviously, if a .50 caliber bullet is altered in order to make it an irregularshaped round that would flatten easily in the human body, this would constitute a violation of the Law of War. The fact that, in some situations, the extent of injury from a Dum Dum would be the same or, possibly, even less than that of a .50 caliber round, does not render the .50 caliber illegal.


Anybody care to enlighten me?

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 5:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
note my above comments on it's 100% legal use and deployment, but as i mentioned with the .50 just like with the WW1 .45 "flaming" bullet, the combat use and general deployment takes a little time to be fully supported, often because it comes close to the law or it's just out of favour with a particular nation's armed forces at the time (it's 'unsporting' etc)

as for DumDums, they're an Imperal British design, manufactured in the Indian DumDum armoury (where they got their name) as a specific variation on the standard Empire rifle round. these rounds were found to be very effective, with stopping power increased with little impact of accuracy etc, especially at normal combat ranges. these were internationaly outlawed, however, and the British Empire never officially took them into their inventory

anyway, a (so called) dumdum round, really today they are usually hollowpoints, are more effective against unarmoured (flesh and bone) targets in 'stopping power' but can be seen to cause suffering outside of that 'needed' to put them out of action, anyway the more common use of body armour and the lack of a serious anti-vehicle capability makes them rather less useful in modern warfare

comparing a generic dumdum round to a .50cal isn't a real comparison, you can make specific types of any bullet, be it generic FMJ, hollow point, explosive, armour peircing, incendary etc. All are legal in certain situations and types of conflict and illegal in others, some are specific laws and others are informal 'conventions' ie not doing it to them and hoping they dont' do it to you

technically you could make a 120mm tank shell into a DumDum, but if you mix a little HE in with that you get a HESH round, very nice piece of kit

question answered at all?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
I just find it funny that they won't allow the .50's to be used against personnel. What exactly is the reasoning behind this? "Oh, the guy you shoot in the middle of a war zone might actually die? Well screw that, you can use the dinky-ass little .223's and peck them to death. No, don't use expanding bullets to rip them apart, just use solid bullets that punch holes in them. It's too inhumane to kill them with that method, as opposed to the other one. Yes, I'm aware that the end result is the same for both: maiming and death. Yes, I'm aware that you can do just as much damage by walking over and stabbing them with a pencil. Now shut up and go get gassed already."

I like how it's now not nice to use napalm against personnel. How do we get around it? Shoot WP rounds to "create smoke screens and distract the enemy". Conveniently, anyone unlucky enough to be near that stuff when it ignites is SOL.

How 'bout chemical weapons? Gas weapons kicked ass in WWI, wiping out almost as many people as tetanus, gangrene, and trench rot! The Germans got a kick out of them in WWII. They're great area-denial weapons. Heck, the cops love having an excuse to gas large quantities of unruly people, smack them with clubs, and drag their crying asses off to prison! So why exactly is it a big deal that we not use gas weapons? Are we afraid that somebody else will use them if we do too? If a country wants to use chemical warfare, they'll use chemical warfare regardless of whether or not you're too pussy to stock up on the shit too. Grow up.

Biological weapons, I can see being outlawed. They're more indiscriminate than chemical weapons even, they spread terribly, they mutate into new versions that you can't cure/vaccinate against, etc. Too dangerous to mess around with, and your neighbors will definitely have something to say about it if you unleash the next plague on humanity.

So... what about nukes? You'd think that in this age of "humane" warfare, we'd outlaw the use of those too. Maybe they already have. Not that it would stop anyone from having an impression collection of them in the national arsenal. After all, you have to have some in case the enemy uses them, right? You'd think weapons capable of annihilating entire armies or cities (or at least good chunks of them) and irradiating the countryside for centuries to come would be at the top of the no-no list. So would a nation, say, the US, be in trouble if it nuked a city off the map like we did twice in WWII?

[/i]

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group