Ammo For Sale

« « I laughed | Home | Voice made for blogging – redux » »

International law and expanding bullets

Interesting read.

2 Responses to “International law and expanding bullets”

  1. Matt Groom Says:

    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. Doing the right thing, however, is another story. Stopping a Genocide may be noble, but what is noble and righteous is not always legal, and doing nothing is not always illegal.

    That being said, the US is a non-signatory of the Geneva and Hague conventions. We abide by their more popular provisions as a courtesy, and we can shoot our enemies with anything we want to, during any time.

  2. Jeff the Baptist Says:

    I can’t get my stuff to post over there, so I’ll put them here instead.

    Unfortunately significant parts of his analysis are wrong.

    “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).”

    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.

    “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.