RE: BULLSHIT, was RE: [SG] HAMR

John,

Thank you for taking the time to kindly correct a misconception I had. 
It
would have been very easy for you to insensitively yell at me but
instead
you thought for a second and actually responded in a polite and civil
manner.

I have to apologize for making that statement as it has been related to
me
many times.  I am gladdened in my heart to find a reference that refutes
it.
Your learned discussion has increased my knowledge.  Now that you have
taken
the time out of your busy day to correct my error in a positive and
learning
manner I will be sure to check my references for all future statements
that
you may be forced to read.

Bob Makowsky

In case you are not sure the above is sarcasm.	It would have been
simple to
make your statement without telling me that I am talking out my a** and
make
other inflammatory statements.	Instead you have to make it into a
personal
attack.  I do not understand the reason for that.  Can you explain it?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of John Atkinson
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 5:46 PM
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: BULLSHIT, was RE: [SG] HAMR

Well, you've just hit my absolute #1
pet-freaking-peeve.

You are talking out your asshole.  I don't care what
barracksroom lawyer told you that hoary old myth, but
this is the worst military 'urban legend' out there.

There is NO mention in the Geneva Conventions
forbidding any round with two exceptions:  Poisoned
rounds, and hollow-point rounds.  These rounds are
considered to cause unnecessary suffering.  However,
the .50 caliber BMG is a full metal jacket round and
hence is legal to use on any target whatsoever.  It
was designed to for use against personnel and has been
used against personnel in every conflict the US has
been in since 1920.

It is US policy to design all it's weapons with an eye
towards legal issues.  All weapons in the US
inventory, including combat shotguns, .50 machine
guns, WP rounds, napalm, FAE, and nuclear weapons are
completely legal.  The only way a US unit can violate
an international treaty in it's choice of weapons
would be if we used chemical weapons first--and the
convention on chemical weapons specifically permits
maintaining stockpiles of chemical weapons to use if
the enemy initiates chemical usage.  Hell, and those
things are out of the inventory now as well, exception
of riot control agents which aren't covered under
those treaties.

So you can't argue with me, let me provide you with
some INFORMED references on international law of armed
conflict:

http://www.icrc.org/eng/ihl is the definitive
database, containing 91 treaties and commentary.

Further stupid statements indicating an inability to
avail yourself of the information in there will result
in my dumping an HTML file containing the entire text
of the 4 Conventions onto the mailing list.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm
is the US Army's manual on the Law of War.

I quote from FM 27-10

34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.

It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms,
projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)

b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary
injury" can only be determined in light of the
practice of States in refraining from the use of a
given weapon because it is believed to have that
effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to
the use of explosives contained in artillery
projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage
has, however, established the illegality of the use of
lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets,
and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any
substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to
inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of
the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard
cases of bullets.

Do you see a mention of .50 caliber rounds in there?
No.  Do you see anything differentiating between human
targets and pieces of equipment?  No.

Now stop passing on myths.

It annoys me.  It is untrue.  It leads to violations
of the laws of land warfare by encouraging an attitude
of general contempt towards the very foundation of
civilized warfare.  In short, it's stupid and
dangerous.  Warfare is a nasty, messy business and it
is not in anyone's interest to make things more
barbaric than necessary.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?