2010-09-24

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...
Buvau vakar vakare "Prie Parlamento" ir vienoje šalutinių gatvelių pastačiau savo motociklą. Pastačiau tvarkingai gatvės pakraštyje tarpe tarp dviejų automobilių. Neįspraudžiau - tarpas buvo nepakankamai didelis normaliam automobiliui, bet koks Smart'as būtų į jį tilpęs (nosim į šaligatvį), tai ir motociklas aišku tilpo ir dar vietos šonuose liko.

Paskui ~ pusę 10 reikia jau važiuot namo, prieinu prie motociklo ir matau kad jis... aplaužytas :(
Nulaužtas pakojis, suskaldytos plastmasės ir posūkis, nulaužta (visiškai pilnai) sankabos rankenėlė.
Pirmu momentu pagalvojau, kad kažkokie debilai vandalai pasidarbavo, bet įdėmiau apžiūrėjus paaiškėjo, kad tiesiog motociklas buvęs nugriautas - įtariu, kad kažkas važiuodamas atbulas (ir nesinaudodamas veidrodėliais, nes stovėjo taip, kad pro juos matytųsi) nugriovė, paskui pastatė atgal ir pabėgo...



Iš viso to dvi mintys:

1. Dabar manau daugiau mažiau aišku, kodėl motociklininkai motociklus paprastai kur nors taip, kad niekam netrukdytų, tačiau dažniausiai ant šaligatvio, o ne ant gatvės? :)

2. Tas žmogus, kuris nugriovė ir pabėgo žinoma negeras žmogus... A-ne?
Bet paskui imi ir pagalvoji, kad ir pats esi panašiai pasielgęs: kažkada prieš kokius 10 metų esu supainiojęs pirma bėgį su atbuliniu ir įvažiavęs į kita mašiną, o paskui pasiplovęs... Žinoma galiu teisintis, kad ta mašina jau seniena buvo ir nemanau, kad tas šeimininkas ten tą sulankstymą išvis betaisęs būtų, bet... bet bet...

Tas matyt kažką sako apie mus, kad sau (už mūsų padarytus negerus darbus) mes gerokai atlaidesni negu kitiems?

2010-09-21

Mistinis CŽV kalėjimas :/

Labiausiai man šiaip keista šitoj visoj tariamo nelegalaus kalėjimo istorijoj yra tai, kad kai kurie žmonės Seimo komisijos tyrimo išvadą "nėra visiškai jokių duomenų, kad CŽV kalėjimas Lietuvoje buvo" kažkokiu man visiškai nesuvokiamu būdu sugeba suprast kaip "CŽV kalėjimas Lietuvoje buvo"... go figure...


Nūdien va vėlgi...

Pasitikrinkim ar aš teisingai viską supratau:
kažkokia neaiški britų nevyriausybinė "organizacija" pareiškė, kad ji galbūt žino galbūt asmenį, kuris galbūt sakė, kad galbūt palestinietis galbūt teroristas galbūt buvo kalinamas galbūt CŽV galbūt nelegaliame kalėjime, kuris galbūt buvo Lietuvoje.

Ir dabar šiuo "pagrindu" prokuratūra turėtų imtis kažkokių veiksmų????? Tikrai???

Nieks apart manęs čia neižiūri jokios problemos? Pvz. tokios nedidelės, kad visame tame "marmale" jokios informacijos nėra išvis išskyrus vieno asmens pavardę, kurio netgi apklaust galimybės nėra ir vargu ar bus. Ko šiuo atveju įmanoma tikėtis iš prokuratūros? :/



V.Laučius matyt teisus, kad mes Lietuvoj mėgstam spardyt patys save. Tik kažkaip man atrodo, kad į galvą, o ne į kepenis...


Tai tiek.