WAR RULES

[strahd71]

what do you guys think about all the NATO rules and Hague Convention stuff where they outline what type of bullets and pressure levels etc. seems silly to me to be fighting with rules?

what say you guys?

jake

 

[Tydeeh22]

if a hollow point is too "inhumane" then someone needs to take their head out of their butt to get some fresh air.

 

[strahd71]

if a hollow point is too "inhumane" then someone needs to take their head out of their butt to get some fresh air.

i agree!

isnt the point to kill the enemy?

jake

 

[Tydeeh22]

of course. but you cannot kill them in a painful manner. might as well give me a few of hitlers gas chambers. Hippocratic asses

 

[strahd71]

poke holes in them.... just dont tear the flesh

jake

 

[cobber]

What advantage would anyone gain by having troops use hollow points instead of ball?

I think the idea was to try to prevent wounds that were difficult to treat given the medical technology at the time.

What percentage of wounds come from small arms fire, anyway?

of course. but you cannot kill them in a painful manner. might as well give me a few of hitlers gas chambers. Hippocratic asses

You're not under the impression that these, unlike hollow points, are allowed under the Geneva Conventions?

 

[Tydeeh22]

would i rather have my medic working on the enemy, or myself?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Challenge Accepted!

I would contend that the rules of war are good thing, justified, and in the best interest of all parties involved. This, of course, assumes that the intent of this war is not the total annihilation of the enemy; man, woman, and child.

The reasoning behind this is that there is always a post-war period. How much more grief can an aggressor nation expect, post war, if it didn't observe some universally agreed upon conduct during the battle? I'm not talking about the type of bullets used, but the conduct of the army.

For instance, it is unacceptable to kill members medical organizations rendering aid on the battlefield. It is unacceptable to kill soldiers that are surrendering or wishing to negotiate "under a white flag." It is unacceptable to abuse civilian non-combatants under occupation or prisoners.

The observance of these basic rules, make sense for the aggressor, does it not? To an army that does not abide by these, the war they wage will more protracted. Why would a soldier be taken prisoner or a populace surrender if they believed that, once captured, they would be murdered, raped, and their city put to the torch?

A good example of this, was the Japanese during World War 2. Everybody knows that they were fanatical, and fought to the last man; per the code of the Bushido however what many people do not know, was that the Japanese were reluctant to surrender also due to the fact that the believed that the Americans would abuse them if they did. The Japanese populace believed that all American citizens of Japanese descent were systematically rounded up and murdered at the outbreak of the war. They also believe that if captured, they would be tortured and eaten. Call me crazy, but if someone believes that stuff, surely their resolve to fight to the bitter end is justified.

Now, from the defenders' point of view, it gets a bit hazy. In my opinion, the way to wage a war would depend on the odds of being able to successfully repel an invader. If a nation believes that they can win, then waging a "win at all costs" conflict makes sense. I would not expect them to be compelled to wage an honorable conflict if success is legitimately viable. However, this brings up the question of "what if they lose?". That is certainly a terrifying notion, and was reaped over and over again by the Germans as the Russians invaded towards the end of WW2.

A pretty recent example of this, was the wars in Iraq. For all the "saber rattlin'" Saddam did, he wasn't an idiot. He knew he was never going to win either conflict. We all knew that he was in possession of chemical weapons, but he never used them against American or Coalition forces. He had no qualms about using them against the Iranians, but then again, the Iranians didn't have the firepower to topple his regime.

So in theory the rules of war aren't universally bad, and certainly have some thought behind the reasonings. But yeah, I don't get the "no hollow points" thing either.

 

[miguel]

Blame it on Francis Lieber and "Honest" Abe: Avalon Project - General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code

 

[halfmileharry]

I certainly don't get a limitation on bullet types to kill your enemy and silly rules such as this are beyong my thought rational.
Let's say that some country invaded the U.S.
Do you think we'd play fair and by someone else's rules?
I have no idea but I wonder how many BTHPs are stocked up in personal stashes? I know a lot of very good long range shooters that use them.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Rules work as long as both sides agree to abide by them...but then we get into wars fought not by nations but by ideologue zealots (or the CIA depending on your point of view). What about rules then? And, who 'enforces' these rules?

 

[RockofStrength]

Rules work as long as both sides agree to abide by them...but then we get into wars fought not by nations but by ideologue zealots (or the CIA depending on your point of view). What about rules then? And, who 'enforces' these rules?

Precisely. Rules against Chem and Bio warfare, for example, are just as much for the benefit of our soldiers/civilian population as the enemy's.

 

[Birds Away]

The object isn't necessarily to kill the enemy. If you kill an enemy combatant you subtract one from his total force. If you incapacitate him you subtract him and the two guys needed to get him off the battlefield and to an aid station. So, in the short term, a significant wound would be preferable over an instant kill.

 

[Pocketman]

The object isn't necessarily to kill the enemy. If you kill an enemy combatant you subtract one from his total force. If you incapacitate him you subtract him and the two guys needed to get him off the battlefield and to an aid station. So, in the short term, a significant wound would be preferable over an instant kill.

Beat me to it.

A military operation is much different that self-defense. Disable one enemy and someone has to take care of him, effectively taking two out of action.

Another difference from self-defense, is thousands of rounds often get expended in a battle. Ball is typically more reliable. Enemy combatants are often behind cover and/or wear heavier clothing. Penetration is important. This isn't to say that during a particular operation, specific ammo may be advantageous. Special ops and sniping come to mind.

Rules of war, not just ammunition standards, are important for both sides.

EDIT: This is assuming we have professional soldiers on both sides.

 

[halfmileharry]

The object isn't necessarily to kill the enemy. If you kill an enemy combatant you subtract one from his total force. If you incapacitate him you subtract him and the two guys needed to get him off the battlefield and to an aid station. So, in the short term, a significant wound would be preferable over an instant kill.

That's not always the case. Many times a wounded combatant will be killed or left to die rather than drag him away.

 

[Birds Away]

That's not always the case. Many times a wounded combatant will be killed or left to die rather than drag him away.

It is rare to find anything that is always true.

 

[CarmelHP]

I certainly don't get a limitation on bullet types to kill your enemy and silly rules such as this are beyong my thought rational.

Because first the German press, then during the Boer War South Africa's Om Paul Kruger, screamed that it was barbarism to use Dum-Dum bullets on white Christian combatants.

 

[Dirty Steve]

I don't have a real issue with Rules of War. They are intended for professional soldiers fighting professional soldiers to maintain some form of civility, if there can be such. I do have an issue with "Rules of Engagement" that our soldiers are limited by now. Lets see,...Bad guy shoots at us, puts down his weapon behind a wall and then walks out dressed like everyone else and tries to blend back into the crowd. You beyond a doubt that he was the guy shooting, but he is now unarmed and not shooting at you so you can't shoot him. I say smoke him anyway....and take the camera from the embedded photo journalist with your unit after you do.

Dirty Steve

 

[IndyDave1776]

The object isn't necessarily to kill the enemy. If you kill an enemy combatant you subtract one from his total force. If you incapacitate him you subtract him and the two guys needed to get him off the battlefield and to an aid station. So, in the short term, a significant wound would be preferable over an instant kill.

In a battle with a similarly civilized national army, this is true. In all other situations (meaning Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few lesser adventures) less so, perhaps not at all.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

In a battle with a similarly civilized national army, this is true. In all other situations (meaning Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few lesser adventures) less so, perhaps not at all.

Any campaign is at its core a war of resources; the best use of and conservation of resources generally wins the military campaign. Minimizing your casualties (e.g. the number of troops who can contribute to the combat effort) while maximizing the enemy's casualties has as a small component of strategy, maximizing disabling injuries.

Many of the Laws of Warfare concern the treatment of prisoners as well; enemies who are disregarding of such POW treatment conventions while we follow them ourselves truly allow us to refer to them as "uncivilized barbarians".