zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
One can also check easily-discoverable recent US military policy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 to discover that those who think these things through don't condone "looting ⊃ shooting".

Bonaparte was a fan of the "whiff of grape" https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_royaliste_du_13_v... but we all know how that ended.

>>082349+W6
Isn't it a long standing thing that the US Military use of force rules in warzones are generally more restrictive than the policies for use on their fellow citizens by police back home?

>>mehele+lJ1
Yes

One obvious example of this is simply ammo. Military bullets don't expand as much as bullets available to cops or civilians. A military bullet is explicitly not allowed to be an expanding hollow point which really messes you up.

There are all sorts of international agreements on not using certain types of things in war - types of bullets are no exception.

>>dmoy+QR1
There's an argument for using hollow point bullets on sidearms in civilian environments. There's a lower probability of "over penetration". For a high power rifle in a military environment, such a thing is less of a concern.

>>russdi+nV1
But for the sorts of conflicts the US is involved in they are often working in situations with a lot of civilians present. There are also frangible rounds other than those also more destructive to humans. And above all the best way not to accidentally shoot civilians isn’t to have ammunition that makes it less likely to penetrate something else if you miss (this is after all a failure of training) but sane rules of engagement about when you can shoot.

>>mehele+9X1
None of what you said was about what he said, which was about high powered rifles.