International law and expanding bullets: revisited

SayUncle linked to my post on expanding bullets and international law. There were two replys, to which I would have liked to reply, but it seems I noticed them to late and comment option for that post is already disabled... So I'll adres it here.

Matt Groom wrote:
There is no such thing as “International Law”. People use that phrase out of ignorance or a wistful fancy for a totalitarian one world government. Laws that are obseved in much of the world as “International Law” are those laws which are
enforced, either economically or militarily, by a majority of powerful and influential nations, but they have no legitimate authority to enforce any law that is not passed by an individual state’s legitimate government and it’s people.
Yes and no.
Yes, I agree, that international law for the most part is a fiction and some times it is absolutely unenforceable...

But to say, that people who are using the term wish for totalitarian one world government is nonsense... or would you claim that people who use phrase "national law" are wishing for national totalitarian government???...

Jeff the Baptist wrote:
“5. Bullets (M193 and M855) used in 5.56×45mm NATO caliber guns (which are standart in the NATO countries) do fragment on hiting the target (they are intended to fragment).”

This is not true. They do fragment, but they were not intended to fragment. The M193 lucked into that behavior. The M855’s design is built around penetrating helmets not fragmenting which is why it’s fragmentation is so inconsistent and yaw dependent.

This is important because when you talk to people from the European defense complex, and I have, they get to be big sticklers on this subject. They have to talk around the M855’s fragmentation behavior using euphemisms like spall or core separation to keep their nation’s lawyers off their backs.
"The M193 lucked into that behavior"?
Well, I don't quite believe in such "luck"... You put such a heavy cannelure (which almost pierces the jacket) in the bullet that it will certainly split in two and fragment when going through flesh and then call it "luck"? 7.62x51mm had a cannelure but not as "overemphasized" as 5.56mm M193 and those bullets did not fragment...
Or compare construction of M193* to the 5N7 (5.45x39mm). 5N7 is intended to "agresively" yaw on impact - because of that it has hollow cavity in the nose. M193 (correct me if I'm wrong) has pretty much typical FMJ construction, which would probably somewhat yaw but would not fragment if not for that that canelure.
You consider this "just an accident"? Blind luck?
I really really really doubt it. Yes, obviously, no government would ever publicly declare that bullet fragmentation is intended, but that does not mean it is totally "lucking into"...

But even if you consider fragmentation just "blind luck", still, my analysis remains intact:
Declaration III of Hague 1899 says nothing about bullet design intentions - it deals with effects whether they are intended or not ("abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body").
Anex of Hague IV 1907 talks about intentions ("calculated to cause"), but I still don't think that designing bullet to fragment could be considered "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering"**...

Then again - that's just my (probably somewhat competent as I graduated in international and European Union law) opinion (your's may differ), but if there were absolute answers, there would be no need to "talk around the M855’s fragmentation behavior using euphemisms"...

“7. Declaration is binding only in the time of war – not in the time of peace.”

Yes but in practice no one does this. You don’t equip your army for peacetime, you equip them for wartime. Militaries will rarely want to complicate their logistics by adding additional line items they can’t use in a war.

The Hague Accords are also a very long-standing international agreement. Even though you can equip your troops with better ammo against some opponents, doing so has a barbaric connotation in large parts of the world dedicated to political correctness.
I fully agree. I did not try to imply something other.

But... as I understand you are probably unaware of the fact, that in Europe Hague conventions are quite frequently used as a base for the argument why hollowpoint ammunition should be banned from self defence handguns (along the lines "if it's banned for war it should be banned for peace").
In Lithuania, where I am coming from, you can use hollowpoint handgun ammunition for sport, but NOT for self defence.
I think you would agree with me, that:
1. This is absurd;
2. Hague conventions have nothing to do with that.

* And yes, when you try to improve armor piercing capabilities of the bullet it is just normal that you loose some fragmentation, so there are no surprises with M855.
** That is, bearing in mind the caliber of said bullet which is basically the same as 22lr...

Komentarų nėra:

Rašyti komentarą