zlacker

[return to "The business of tear gas"]
1. splitr+f5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:25:02
>>hhs+(OP)
Tear gas is a chemical weapon and as such is banned in war according to the Geneva Conventions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/1...

◧◩
2. oicu81+A5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:27:03
>>splitr+f5
The article states, "It also lives in a legal gray zone, due to international treaties that allow it to be used in domestic law enforcement but not in war."
◧◩◪
3. geogra+S5[view] [source] 2020-06-02 15:28:07
>>oicu81+A5
Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either.
◧◩◪◨
4. smiley+od[view] [source] 2020-06-02 16:01:43
>>geogra+S5
Bullets are the same way though;

Full metal jackets are required for war, while law enforcement use bullets for stopping power.

One way the U.S. could reduce gun deaths would be to require full metal jacket ammunition; It decreases the likelihood of death for any given hit; (though increases ricochets and likelihood of stray bullets)(also increases price of every bullet sold)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jandre+jl[view] [source] 2020-06-02 16:39:55
>>smiley+od
This is a misunderstanding of why different bullets are used in different situations.

Law enforcement and other self-defense applications use hollow-point (HP) bullets to minimize penetration for the safety of innocent bystanders. The idea is that the bullet is designed to not fully penetrate the first material object it comes in contact with, though over-penetration can still happen. A full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet will frequently go through multiple walls and bodies until it depletes its energy, which is desirable in military applications; the design of military bullets enhances this.

The prohibition on HP bullets from the Hague Convention is a 19th century anachronism based on the capabilities of firearms from that period, modern rifle bullets have significantly different design requirements in any case. Modern high-velocity FMJ cartridges, such as the ubiquitous 5.56mm NATO, can undergo explosive fragmentation which causes much more damage than the low-velocity use cases for HP.

FMJ is typically cheaper and feeds more reliably than HP bullets, particularly in dirty firearms, which is a major consideration for the military since the advent of semi-automatic and automatic weapons a century ago.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. trhway+sf1[view] [source] 2020-06-02 21:23:26
>>jandre+jl
>Modern high-velocity FMJ cartridges, such as the ubiquitous 5.56mm NATO, can undergo explosive fragmentation

that is how modern military workarounds the ban on such cruel things like HP. The small caliber very fast round (i.e. it is usually should be less than 200-300 yards for M16, AK74) would yaw/tumble upon entering the body, and either fragments as a result or just do a lot of damage by tumbling.

Historically, US introduced that trick into mass warfare in Vietnam war with 5.56 M-16 where it was noticed by USSR which in turn produced 5.45 AK-74 which was actively used in Afghanistan. The AK-74 round was called "poison" bullet by the Afghanistan mujahideen because of those horrible quickly gangrening wounds as if the bullet was really poisoned while it was a result from that yawing/tumbling behavior of those small and fast rounds. (Such behavior was somewhat amplified by that first generation bullet design, and since then that bullet seems to have been replaced in service - though not on humanitarian grounds, it just that it did have issues in some situations due to that overly tumbling behavior, and it was fixed in the next gen, and additionally the next gen bullet has much higher, 2X+, armor penetrating capability)

The way the world stands right now, i don't see any chances for Hague convention to be updated to include modern unnecessary cruel military innovations.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. jandre+Hz1[view] [source] 2020-06-02 23:22:05
>>trhway+sf1
This is inaccurate in several regards.

All bullets yaw and tumble when they hit a person, that is a matter of physics. The idea that they are somehow specially designed to do that is an urban myth. Bullet orientation is inherently unstable, spin-stabilization is an engineering tradeoff. Too little spin and the bullet starts tumbling before it hits the target. Too much spin and the bullet erodes the barrel and may disintegrate in flight.

Explosive fragmentation, an effect the US accidentally discovered in some early versions of the M16, occurs when a bullet that is near maximum stabilization undergoes sudden structural stress. That is literally the opposite of trying to make a bullet tumble. Explosive fragmentation actually does do significant additional damage but it wasn't a design objective; US weapon and cartridge re-designs have incidentally eliminated it in pursuit of other priorities.

The reasons militaries moved to high-velocity 5.56/5.45mm cartridges had nothing to do with lethality and everything to do with logistics and ergonomics. It dramatically reduces weight, volume, and cost of ammunition relative to the 7.62mm cartridges widely used prior. Soldiers can carry twice as much ammunition with minimal loss of performance for most purposes, which is useful in the age of automatic weapons. It greatly improves accuracy under automatic and rapid fire, and the much flatter trajectory makes it easier to aim at intermediate ranges.

In other words, the move to high-velocity small-caliber cartridges can be easily explained by its many clear and obvious advantages. They aren't any more or less cruel than the cartridges they replaced.

[go to top]