Let us be clear, if you carry a knife our objective and determination is that you will be caught; you will be prosecuted; you will be punished. 
But we want to do all in our power also to prevent anyone carrying a knife in the first place.

- Gordon Brown, 2008; Prime Minister of (formerly) Great Britain.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

- Robert J. Hanlon

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future.
If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.
That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

- Thomas Sowell, The Fallacy...

Aliens Cause Global Warming - but Science IS Science

All in all I like Michael Crichton. Probably every person of my age in the post-soviet area has read "The Andromeda Strain" (well, there was not a lot of sciende fiction in USSR - although there were some extremely good authors... but I digress :).

Anyway, back to the subject - Caltech lecture by M.Crichton called 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'. Interesting lecture where M.Crichton analyses Drake equation, nuclear winter and global warming and how those ideas fit into the narrative of the science. And although I for the most part agree with the lecture I think that at least one of the points made by M.Crichton is plainly wrong!


I'm talking about the Drake equation. I'm not an expert of SETI and do not purport to be one, but I think M.Crichton is wrong by declaring that it has "nothing to do with science". Lets have a look:

In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N=N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
[where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.]

Yep, it is. So far so good :) 

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

And here already M.Crichton makes a mistake (or should I say "expresses his prejudices" ;).
There is a difference between "can't be known", "can't be estimated" and "can't be known now", "can't be estimated now".
The fact that science is unable to answer some questions NOW!, does not mean, that it will not be able to answer those questions in the future.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.

Yes and no. We can not estimate the result with any measure of certainty, but for one, we can at least suppose, that the number is higher than zero (the history of science teaches us that - humanity likes to think of itself as exceptional, but science again and again shows us that it is not so).
Upper limit can also be estimated - although, sure, with a lot of uncertainty.

Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

Wrong!
Yes, the science is all about testable hypotheses, but that does not mean, that it should be possible to test all of the scientific hypotheses right now - today or tomorrow. Maybe in some cases we just need some more scientific progress before we can test this particular hypothesis.
There is a difference between hypotheses which are untestable, like the god hypothesis, and those which are untested - temporarily "untestable" if you want, like early atomic theories, because the science / scientists at the moment lack the necessary ability / knowledge / skills.

What is funny, is that M.Crichton is calling SETI a religion, but in fact he is using the same argument which is used by a lot of religious fanatics - "if you can't explain something it means god exists". Yes, the good old god of the gaps.
M.Crichtons adaptation of this "argument" sounds more or less the same "if you can't explain something now, if you can't test the hypothesis this very moment - it's not science".
But the history of the science shows, that in fact it is quite the opposite - this exactly is what the science is all about: science formulates a lot of hypotheses which are way ahead of their time and can not be tested at the moment when they are formulated. And in 1903 Wright Flyer tested some of the hypotheses which when formulated a few hundred years ago were "meaningless" and "untestable".

Science is science... even if today it does not know all the answers to all the questions in universe...

Outwardly, we hated communist Russia; inwardly, it's what 95 per cent of the country wants.

 Jeremy Clarkson

If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

George Orwell.

Politically popular speech has always been protected: even the Jews were free to say Heil Hitler.

- Isaac Asimov

Preach It, Sister

Well, as P.J. O'Rourke so aptly phrased it "There's no such thing as 'we'; there's only you and me. And sometimes I'm not too sure about me." It's important to not confuse the first person plural pronoun with an actual physical entity.

"We" are not a wealthy "society". You and I live in a place that has some rich people and some poor people and some in-between people. "We" don't "just have to" do anything. There may be things you need to do or things I want to do, but we aren't part of some borg-like collective with collective responsibilities, wants and needs.

If you want to be compassionate, go be compassionate. I know that's usually what I do when I'm feeling compassionate, not expect some entity called "the government" to go be compassionate for me. Mailing a check to the government to help the poor because you're feeling compassionate is like handing the local crackhead a twenty to fetch you a pizza because you're feeling hungry.

If you think something needs to be done, you should do it. You should not assume everybody else thinks the same way or that somebody else will take care of it for you. You and I are not sticks in a fasces or cells in a jellyfish; we are individuals with the right to live our own individual lives without someone else telling us what we have to do.

- Tamara (view from the porch)

Scars are just tattoos with better stories.

- James Yeager

...the great lesson of the Yugoslav wars, a lesson the Serbs demonstrated in the days of their military supremacy: that in the post-Cold-War world there is no collective security, no international will to protect the weak against the strong; the lesson that to win freedom and security for one's people requires neither a sound argument nor a good cause but a big army.

- L.Silber & A.Little 'Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation'

The object isn’t to live as long as you can, but as well as you can.

- Mike Celizic

Virtual wildcating: carpenoctem calibers

NOTE: This post is long. And about very pecular topic... so for the most people this text probably will not be interesting.

For some lighter blogging (after all the ruminations about politics, human rights, values etc) let's do some virtual wildcating*.

Smallest of the (commonly used) centerfire pistol calibers: 6,35mm Browning and 7,65mm Browning (as they are originally known, or .25ACP and .32ACP as they are known in USA) are usually denigrated as not-even-marginal and totally unsuitable for any real self-defence use (although any gun might work as psychological threat).
But... guns of these calibers are still used for self defence around the world. And that should come as no surprise. First and foremost, there are a lot of them in circulation (because there were lots and lots of them made by lots and lots of firms throughout the XX century). Plus, when we compare smallest and lightest of modern 9mm Short (= .380 ACP - which is considered smallest caliber barely adequate for self defence) pistols, Kel-tec P3AT, to its "older brother" in caliber 7,65mm - Kel-tec P32, we see that P32 (smaller caliber gun) is slightly smaller in size and is somewhat lighter AND holds one more round. Yes, differences are small, but they still are there. And when talking about 6,35mm... Baby Browning, production of which began in year 1931 (and which is still produced under the name PSA) is still smaller than even the Kel-tec P32 (although it is heavier than the polymer framed Kel-Tec). There is one other factor too - small guns in somewhat bigger calibers (as the already mentioned Kel-tec P3AT) have really snapy recoil - which might not be to suitable for somebody with weak hands and/or wrists.

But, as was already said, these two calibers (.25ACP and .32ACP) are not what you would call "effective". There are two "main" causes why it is so:
First - small diameter of the bullet (which obviously means small wound channel);
Second - very low muzzle energy (around ~90J for 6,35 and ~170J for 7,65) which means low penetration capability (which only slightly exceeds "required" 12 inches of ballistic gelatine).
So it is obvious, that if you want to improve effectiveness of these calibers, you have to "improve" muzzle energy and bullet diameter.

Answer to the energy question is known for a long time - increasing the chamber pressure increases the muzzle energy. That is, as long as the firearm is able to handle it, but, bearing in mind that standard operating chamber pressures for 6,35 and 7,65 are really low (acording to accurate powder 18000CUP for .25ACP and 20500psi for .32ACP (which is basically the same) - compare that to, say, 23200psi for 9mm Makarov or 35000psi for .40S&W), slightly increased pressures in good quality (steel) guns pose no problems.
Bufallo Bore is currently loading .32ACP to +P pressure levels for 300J of muzzle energy. Magsafe has .25ACP +P load which delivers 200J of muzzle energy. These loads probably should not be shot in low quality (zinc casting) guns, but they do show what is possible within the provided envelope.


It is somewhat more complicated with the second part of the equation: wound channel diameter.
Usually this problem is solved by the use of expanding bullets - bullets which drastically increase their diameter on penetration of living tissue (or ballistic gelatine, or wet newspapers :) ).
Because of low inherent energy levels expanding bullet technology is not quite applicable to these small calibers: when using expanding bullets, penetration, which already is marginal, decreases even further. According to brassfetcher:
"[When using .25ACP] It is generally advisable to utilize FMJ ammunition for both practice and carry with this caliber, as the penetration depths typical with the expanding types of ammunition usually do not exceed 8", while FMJ bullets can usually be counted on to reach FBI minimum penetration depths" and; ".32ACP cartridge typically demonstrates outstanding expansion, but penetration depths less than 12" or greater than 16" penetration and no expansion. It is very difficult to find a balance of penetration and expansion with this caliber, when fired from a short barreled pistol".
There are more problems - because of the limited muzzle energy you can not expect expansion every time. At best you could hope that 2/3 of bullets will expand (and when dealing with heavily clothed person - probably even less). Compare that to 9x19mm Parabellum where most hollowpoints do actually expand with almost 100% reliability.
So, summing it up, bullets of these small calibers expand pretty erratically, and even if they were reliable "expanders" - that would decrease penetration to unacceptable levels.

In such a case probably best bet would the use of big(ger) diameter non expanding bullet.
That sounds weird because bullet diameter IS actuall caliber and it IS (as per definition) fixed. You can't have bigger (or smaller) diameter bullets in the same caliber. But...



As the name says, this is virtual wildcating article, so I present you :) with Carpenoctem calibers: 7mm Carpenoctem and 8.5mm Carpenoctem (or .27 Carpenoctem and .34 Carpenoctem if you wish).

Ammo of these wildcat calibers could be used in guns intended for 6,35 and 7,65 cartridges and would provide reasonable (although small) increase in effectiveness. And: modified guns could even safely shoot standard 6,35 and 7,65 ammo (accordingly) although with horrible accuracy and (very big) loss of muzzle energy :). But I am getting ahead of myself...



Some time (a few years) ago stumbled upon .480 Achilles (you should probably go there and read the whole thing). In short: .480 Achilles is a caliber which uses heeled bullet in shortened .45 Colt cartridge cases to shoot .475 diameter bullets. As I said - you should probably go read the whole thing - there is explanation of what a heeled bullet is, and what sort of problems can be expected (Aaron Bittner: At first I thought the of the presence of the heel as a real handicap. Heeled bullets require outside lubrication which tends to attract dust and dirt. A heel also reduces bearing surface on the bullet for a given weight. Heeled bullets require special tooling to crimp. Nevertheless heeled bullets have been used successfully for over a century; witness the humble (and hugely successful) .22 Long Rifle.**).

After I read the article(-s) it dawned on me, that actually most useful application for this sort of cartridge would probably be in smallest calibers - because you would get increased bullet diameter (which is "at premium" in these small calibers), but keep overall size of the cartridge the same and that means also the size of the gun remains the same - because the diameter of the cartridge body does not increase, barrel chamber size will not increase, chamber wall thickness remains the same and allows the same chamber pressures etc etc etc...

Actual diameter of the bullet of the 6.35mm caliber is 6.38mm (.251''). Diameter of the case is 7.06mm (.278'') - this means that using heeled bullet this would be the diameter of the bullet. Although increase in the diameter of 0.71mm (.027'') might not sound to impressive (although it's still bigger by almost 10 percent) that's a full 20 percent increase in cross-sectional area of the bullet.
Looking at 7.65mm caliber, actual bullet diameter is 7.85mm (.309''), case (= heeled bullet) diameter 8.58mm (.338'') - increase of 9 percent in diameter and 18 percent in cross-sectional area.

Increases are not ground braking, but, we have to bear in mind, that we are dealing with very small calibers - and every little bit helps :). And, it should be mentioned, that going from 8.5mm carpenoctem to 9mm Short (.380 ACP) would give increase of less than 6 percent in diameter and only slightly more than 11 percent in cross-sectional area...

Best part of it - only needed change to the pistol is a rebored barrel (well, and there might be a need to recut the chamber in the barrel (which in this case is really simple, considering that the whole cartridge, including the bullet, is pretty much straight) and recrown the muzzle - which is usually normal part of barrel reboring). .277 and .338 are pretty common bore diameters so rebore to these calibers is not a problem. Btw., aforementioned Baby Browning has removable barrel and therefore is prime candidate for such conversion (ok, so Kel-tec P32 could be converted too... like some other handguns).

There are no real problems with headspace either - differently from most other pistol calibers, 6.35mm and 7.65mm were designed by J.M.Browning to headspace not on the case mouth, but on the semi-rim (which is of slightly bigger diameter than the case body).


Getting back to the "shorcomings" of heeled bullets... well it's XXI century and the problems with bullet lubrication which were very important in the end of XIX century can nowadays be solved without to much of a problem.
For one, most bullets today are jacketed bullets which do not pose any leading*** problems (that means they don't have to be lubricated). Even cast bullets today could be coated with dry film lubricants (an example) which are not sticky (do not gather dirt) and solve the leading problems.
Home tinkerer could copper electroplate the lead bullets or just use Lee Liquid Alox and powdered mica (as was originally done with .480 Achilles).

Another thing which does pose some concerns is bullet bearing (surface) length of the heeled bullet.
Some playing with Mountain Molds online bullet mold design software let me create a 7mm carpenoctem 61gr naked weight .415 long bullet with .130 long heel which should have ~.240 of the bearing length. Would that be enough? Well, we are talking here about low powered pistol caliber - so probably yes (then maybe not - that would be known only after some real life testing)...
Because 6,35mm has excess case capacity****, heel could be lengthened at least by another .04 in and maybe more (with commensurate increase in bullet weight), but to long a heel would be undesirable from the bullet stability point - long heel could easily kink to one side when traveling down the bore which would lead to deterioration of accuracy (not that accuracy for such calibers would be main priority).


So, summa sumarum:
Slightly bigger and slightly heavier bullet at the same (or slightly increased) velocity (in standard unmodified cartridge cases only loaded to slightly higher pressures), which provides slight (slightly less than 30% when judging by TKO factor) increase in "stopping power"*****. And it would require only slight modifications to the pistol - reboring the barrel.

Is it worth it?
Well, actually... sanely thinking about it - not at all :) - 7mm and 8.5mm carpenoctem are only slightly less un-effective than their parent cartridges 6,35mm and 7,65mm Browning - and for self defence even ubiquitous 9mm Short would still be far more recommended.
But wildcatters are like car hot-rodders - they are always trying to improve things... just because they can... :DDD




And the last thing: about the name of the caliber.

Carpe noctem from latin means "pluck the night" (= seize the night).
For one this name is a respectfull nod to the Horace's "carpe diem".
For two - this is another respectfull nod. This time to Georg Luger who designed the pistol (and corresponding cartridge) named Parabellum, which comes form latin adage "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you wish for peace, prepare for war).
And for three... well it just points to intended use - seizing the situation on those nights when a small gun in a pocket just might be needed.


Carpe noctem...



_____________
* For those who do not know it - wildcating is process of desinging new wildcat cartridges. Why this (my) exercise is virtual? Well, because actual wildcating in Europe (unlike the USA) it is "not quite" possible ... purely theoretically you could do that, but you would have to jump through a such a lot of financial and bureaucratical hurdles, that it is not worth it :/
** 22lr - most common caliber in the world.
*** (Undesirable) coating of the barrel interior with molten lead, which occurs when shooting cast bullets and which leads to all sorts of problems with the gun.
**** Which means, that normally cartridge case under the seated bullet is never full of gunpowder, see here.
***** And yes, I know there is no such thing as "stopping power", Taylor KO factor is "science fiction" and there is no replacement for (hit) placement :). But here we are trying to compare calibers (one of which does not exist) - not shooters, - and for basic (preliminary) comparison of effectiveness TKOF is usefull. Here is a Table of "empirically derived" (i.e. speculative :) ) "typical" data (bullet diameter in inches; weight in grains; velocity in feets per second; energy in foot-pounds.):

In societies where they tried to impose their will on the free market, or push it aside, the free market became known as the “Black Market.” The market is like water…it’ll seep in, despite your best efforts.

You can’t rally people around doing nothing. Something beats nothing.
<...>
It’s hard to motivate people to join together in not spending tax money and not building big government programs. It’s often true that the best thing the government can do is nothing, but people expect the government to do something.

- Les Jones

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

- C.S. Lewis

Who goes Nazi?

Article is from 1941... but the ideas are timeless. RTWT.

It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times–in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

It is preposterous to think that they are divided by any racial characteristics. Germans may be more susceptible to Nazism than most people, but I doubt it. Jews are barred out, but it is an arbitrary ruling. I know lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance. There are Jews who have repudiated their own ancestors in order to become “Honorary Aryans and Nazis”; there are full-blooded Jews who have enthusiastically entered Hitler’s secret service. Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind.

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...

International law and expanding bullets

Anytime there is talk about hollowpoint (expanding) bullets everybody and his grandma is starting to mention "Geneva convention" which supposedly forbids the use of such bullets...
Let's put some things straight:

1. Geneva conventions are important part of humanitarian law, but they are not dealing with the use of bullets.
It's Hague convention of 1899 Declaration III.

2. First and foremost, it should be noted that said Declaration was adopted based on political conjecture (stemming from the development of the so (wrongly) called "dum-dum" bullets) and not on humanitarian grounds.

3. Declaration says: "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".

4. Stricto sensu declaration does not cover use of fragmenting bullets, although (imho) it could be argued, that use of such bullets falls into the scope of the Declaration (at least in spirit) because:
4.1. Declaration makes an appeal to the Declaration of St.Petersburg of 1868 which deems unwanted "employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable".
4.2. Fragmenting bullets before they fragment must deform ("expand or flaten") - there is no other way.

5. Bullets (M193 and M855) used in 5.56x45mm NATO caliber guns (which are standart in the NATO countries) do fragment on hiting the target (they are intended to fragment).

6. Because of that (points 4 and 5), imho, the rules set forth in the Declaration can not be considered part of customary international law (or customs of war) - you can not talk about the existence of the customs when nobody cares for them or acts according to them.

7. Declaration is binding only in the time of war - not in the time of peace.

8. Declaration is binding only for states which are contracting parties of declaration in the armed conflict between them.

9. Points 6 and 7 mean that Declaration has no effect what-so-ever on bullets used for self defence (and counter terrorism or peacekeeping operations).

10. It should be noted, that there is another Hague convention - Hague Convention of 1907. This convention did expand upon original Hague convention. Convention (Hague IV, Anex) inter alia states: "it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" (please note, that the wording here is different from the wording used in abovementioned Declaration of St.Petersburg).

11. This rule is considered customary rule of international law.

12. Hague convention of 1907 does not include (verbatim or otherwise) text of the Declarations of the Hague convention of 1899.

13. "Unnecessary suffering" is a term which can not be satisfactory defined. Although from the look at the current state of affairs it seems that aforementioned NATO bullets, i.e. fragmenting bullets and bullets which wound by yawing (rotation) are not considered to be causing "unnecessary suffering"*.

14. Again, as was mentioned when talking about Convention of 1899, all of this is only apliccable to the war. Not peacetime. Not self defence.



[edit 20100924] Welcome, visitors from SayUncle :)
Further discussion on this topic can be found here.

__________________
* And I would agree with this assessment:
imho "unnecessary" in this context means "going beyond the sufering which is unavoidable when striving to achieve the goals". Bullets (when used in the war) should be at least effective enough to cause wounds which would remove wounded soldier from the action for a considerable time - 5.56mm diameter bullet which did not expand, fragment or yaw (rotate) would be totally unable to do that. Yes, such bullets would not cause "unnecessary suffering", but would be totally ineffective as a means of war (would not achieve the goals).

Speed... I am Speed... :)

There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist; the fashionable non-conformist.

- Ayn Rand