Of course it is.
USMC to now use open tip 5.56 rounds.
- Thread starter F-15 Eagle
- Start date
Im pretty sure the other side would use what ever ammo/weopens available. Im sure if I was defending my home ground, Id use whatever it took. Flatening type bullets would be a disadvantage if your enemy is wearing body amour.
Agreed. And I'm not sure what the prohibition of certain types of small arms ammunition is supposed to achieve when much more devastating weapons such as artillery and air strikes are permissible for use against the same targets. Nor do I understand why such ammunition would make war any more hazardous and significant than it already is. Surely non-lethal injuries caused by a JDAM or 70mm rocket have enormous potential to cause far more pain and suffering than a hollowpoint small arms round?
In the context of conventional warfare it seems to me that if a weapon is available and addresses the threat most effectively, it should be an option. And how does one define undue pain and suffering in an environment where it is necessary to take human lives? If a state of war is reached, surely all other options are off the table - if an objective is deemed important and an inevitable consequence of achieving that objective is that the people will be killed, how much care should be taken for the well-being of those people? Or is this mode of thinking considered too far a step toward the escalation of war beyond all limits?
I have no practical experience and haven't thought deeply about the subject, but I hope that more well informed posters will explain the distinction between acceptable types/levels of force if I'm barking up the wrong tree with these questions.
For openers, "dum-dum bullets," named for their arsenal of origin in a town near Calcutta, India, are soft-nosed projectiles, not hollow points1. And their deployment under the "Laws of War" is proscribed by a "Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body" adopted at the First Hague Peace Conference of (29 July) 1899 which states:
Although not a party to this accord, as a matter of policy the United States has acknowledged and respected its applicability in conventional combat operations since its adoption more than one century ago.
The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,
Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,
Declare as follows:
"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.
Although not a party to this accord, as a matter of policy the United States has acknowledged and respected its applicability in conventional combat operations since its adoption more than one century ago.
Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:
"…it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;".....
This practice began to change subsequent to a 23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General2, authored3 by W. Hays Parks4, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major General Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:
"…expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."
Expanding point bullet
Although not a party to this accord, as a matter of policy the United States has acknowledged and respected its applicability in conventional combat operations since its adoption more than one century ago.
The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,
Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,
Declare as follows:
"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions."
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.
Although not a party to this accord, as a matter of policy the United States has acknowledged and respected its applicability in conventional combat operations since its adoption more than one century ago.
Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:
"…it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;".....
This practice began to change subsequent to a 23 September 1985 opinion issued by the Judge Advocate General2, authored3 by W. Hays Parks4, Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch, for the signature of Major General Hugh R. Overholt, which stated:
"…expanding point ammunition is legally permissible in counterterrorist operations not involving the engagement of the armed forces of another State."
Expanding point bullet
It begs to be debated whether or not modern expanding bullets are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, or are they created/calculated to cause maxium damage/lethality?
Wtf.
The USA signed the 1899 Hague Convention Concerning Expanding Bullets (Hague II) on 29.07.1899 and ratified it 09.04.1902.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
Open tip rounds are not the same as hollow points. The new open tip SOSTs rounds are designed to fragment much faster and over longer ranges than the regular M855, they do not expand. This new round already has cleared the legal hurdles. There is nothing illegal about using open tip rounds in war.
And then there's the question as to whether the US is even "at war." There's no question that the United States is involved in a shooting conflict, but whether or not fighting guerillas an insurgents technically consitutues a "war" and invokes the same legal restrictions, is up for debate.
I'm inclined to say that the US armed forces should be empowered to use whatever weapons and small arms it sees fit in its efforts to fight guerilla and terrorist forces. While it is important to ensure that the use of these weapons do not result in civilian deaths or excess suffering, they unquestionably have a place in US's arsenal for the War on Terror.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
1. I think its a war, hence the name 'war on terror' and military conflict that last for many years such as this one with all the large military operations deserves to be called a war. I would agree the US has been at war for 9 years now, how can it not be a war? Does that mean the Gulf War of 1991 was really not a war because it was short?
2. I agree civilian deaths have declined in recent years compared to wars of the past however collateral damage is and will always be apart of war, you can't do away with civilian causalities completely.
3. The SOST round is designed to cause rapid death or incapacitation, likely killing the enemy much faster than the M855, I don't know about you but I much rather be killed rather quickly from a SOST round than bleed out on the street and die slowly from a M855. OK so thats a bit of an exaggeration but I don't see how the SOST round will cause unnecessary suffering.
mmmm F15, the korean War was not a "war" either, because there was no formal declaration of war against North Korea, in fact its still going on, we are just under an extended cease fire....
Of course there is a war against terror at the moment, the war was declared against terrorists, no matter where they are, and the U.S has stated, that pre emtive strikes will be taken against terrorists that the the U.S considers a threat to their national security, no matter which country that the terrorists are operating/training in.
because terrorits dont wear a distictive uniform, identifying them from the civillian population that they hide amongst, conventions like hauge or geveva just dont apply to them anyway, use what ever means nessasary to defeat them.
During the Rhodesian conflict, special forces got intell about a an army surpluss store that was going to supply terrorists with uniforms and other equipment, the SF broke into the store, and sprayed the inside of the uniforms with cyanide, and poisend the "terrs". It was a successful operation, and shows how thinking outside the square can achieve great results.
Of course there is a war against terror at the moment, the war was declared against terrorists, no matter where they are, and the U.S has stated, that pre emtive strikes will be taken against terrorists that the the U.S considers a threat to their national security, no matter which country that the terrorists are operating/training in.
because terrorits dont wear a distictive uniform, identifying them from the civillian population that they hide amongst, conventions like hauge or geveva just dont apply to them anyway, use what ever means nessasary to defeat them.
During the Rhodesian conflict, special forces got intell about a an army surpluss store that was going to supply terrorists with uniforms and other equipment, the SF broke into the store, and sprayed the inside of the uniforms with cyanide, and poisend the "terrs". It was a successful operation, and shows how thinking outside the square can achieve great results.
As said before, open-tip rounds per definition fulfill the "pierced with incisions" part of the 1899 declaration. Any round that is pierced with incisions automatically violates the 1899 Declaration.
The US has been using open-tip rounds for decades, and uses a "standard declaration" when it comes to their legality. Said "standard declaration" openly omits any reference to the 1899 declaration, and only defers to the 1907 declaration (outlawing rounds causing superfluous injury). However, the 1907 declaration did not supersede the 1899 declaration legally, both exist in parallel - and the US has signed both, and hence must keep to both. See also earlier posts in this topic.
Considering Iraq signed the 1899 declaration in 1970, one could say that the USA was in blatant violation of the 1899 declaration issuing open-tip rounds for use against another signatory power.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #32
Before the SOST round could be fielded by the Corps, it had to clear a legal hurdle: approval that it met international law of war standards.
The process is standard for new weapons and weapons systems, but it took on added significance because of the bullet’s design. Open-tip bullets have been approved for use by U.S. forces for decades, but are sometimes confused with hollow-point rounds, which expand in human tissue after impact, causing unnecessary suffering, according to widely accepted international treaties signed following the Hague peace conventions held in the Netherlands in 1899 and 1907.
“We need to be very clear in drawing this distinction: This is not a hollow-point round, which is not permitted,” Brogan said. “It has been through law of land warfare review and has passed that review so that it meets the criteria of not causing unnecessary pain and suffering.”
The open-tip/hollow-point dilemma has been addressed several times by the military, including in 1990, when the chief of the Judge Advocate General International Law Branch, now-retired Marine Col. W. Hays Parks, advised that the open-tip M852 Sierra MatchKing round preferred by snipers met international law requirements. The round was kept in the field.
In a 3,000-word memorandum to Army Special Operations Command, Parks said “unnecessary suffering” and “superfluous injury” have not been formally defined, leaving the U.S. with a “balancing test” it must conduct to assess whether the usage of each kind of rifle round is justified.
“The test is not easily applied,” Parks said. “For this reason, the degree of ‘superfluous injury’ must … outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile.”
John Cerone, an expert in the law of armed conflict and professor at the New England School of Law, said the military’s interpretation of international law is widely accepted. It is understood that weapons cause pain in war, and as long as there is a strategic military reason for their employment, they typically meet international guidelines, he said.
“In order to fall within the prohibition, a weapon has to be designed to cause unnecessary suffering,” he said.
Sixteen years after Parks issued his memo, an Army unit in Iraq temporarily banned the open-tip M118 long-range used by snipers after a JAG officer mistook it for hollow-tip ammunition, according to a 2006 Washington Times report. The decision was overturned when other Army officials were alerted.
Yeah, that's exactly the text i talked about on the first page of this thread
That text only refers to superfluous injury - the item of the 1907 declaration - but not to the definition of a expanding bullet (among others as "any pierced with incisions") as per the 1899 declaration.
That text only refers to superfluous injury - the item of the 1907 declaration - but not to the definition of a expanding bullet (among others as "any pierced with incisions") as per the 1899 declaration.
An update on the SOST form the Marine Times:
Firn
...
Don't know how well supported this facts are, but it seems pretty clear that the front part is designed to open up and fragment and mushroom up. The long copper shank means of course that one part of the bullet will also have considerable penetration power.
Firn