Deadly new ammo tested on live Iraqis

[Ins0mniac]

"In a brief but intense firefight, [Ben Thomas] hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards. He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly. 'It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,' Thomas said. Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new - and controversial - bullet. The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is 'nonstandard' and hasn't passed the military's approval process... The frangible APLP ammo will bore through steel and other hard targets but will not pass through a human torso, an eight-inch-thick block of artist’s clay or even several layers of drywall. Instead of passing through a body, it shatters, creating 'untreatable wounds.'"

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php

[Pirate]

That is completely fucking horrid.

[Asmodeus]

other than passing through steel, this sn't much different than inverted hollowpoint fll wadcutter rounds, or hollowbase pointed rounds that are in sue for anti personnel use. they go in roughly the size of a pencil, they come out the size of a watermelon.

[locust]

I thought the Geneva convention outlawed the use of rounds such as these, or indeed hollowpoints, in combat.

Or am I just a misguided idiot who's read one too many Tom Clancy novels?

[THO]

Frangible bullets aren't new. Air marshals have been using them for years, but the armor piercing bit is a bit deceiving. Stock Full metal jacket ammunition doesn't fragment when it hits tissue, and usually exits the body mostly intact. Hollow points and boat-tail bullets will expand when they hit tissue, but have been proven less effective than standard FMJ since their creation. The velocity of the bullet and the size of the wound cavity are the primary killers with any shooting. The article stated that these are armor piercing, but many bullets with sufficient velocity will punch through steel, including the 5.56mm. The wound cavity combined with the velocity of this bullet would make it highly effective, if unethical.
I highly doubt that this ammo will ever be used by frontline troops in sanctioned engagements, as it would violate the treaty that regulates ammunition in the first place.

[Pirate]

Originally posted by locust
I thought the Geneva convention outlawed the use of rounds such as these, or indeed hollowpoints, in combat.

Or am I just a misguided idiot who's read one too many Tom Clancy novels? As if GWB is gonna give a rats arse about that... just look at camp xray..

[iaidoka]

well if your going to fire a bullet, might as well make it as damn leathal as possible. thats its purpose after all, to kill.

id rather they ban all guns, but that aint ever happening :(

stupid world.

[Jaz]

Yeah iaidoka has a point. If your going to argue over which bullet type is unethical, then your still a gun lover. The elegant solution is to remove the need for combat entirely.

back to the bullets, I actually see exploding bullets as a more humane weapon. In the old days the tactic was to wound, as the the two men needed to carry the hit from the battleground will tie up a total of 3 grunts, whereas a lethal hit will disable 1 grunt.

[Asmodeus]

Originally posted by iaidoka
id rather they ban all guns, but that aint ever happening :(


yeah, but people will kill other people, thats just the way the world is. would you feel happier if they were thrown out of windows instead?

... or hacked with a sword? ;)

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by Asmodeus
yeah, but people will kill other people, thats just the way the world is. would you feel happier if they were thrown out of windows instead?

... or hacked with a sword? ;)

I will |-|4X0R j00 \/\/1D 4 5\/\/0RD!!!!!!!

|\|00B!!!!!!!!

[tikdoph]

Ask yourself what will happen if this ammo falls into enemy hands.

US/Coalition soldiers get shot with it, most will die horrifically, but some will survive with what will probably be horrendous wounds, and will appear on US/world TV.

I wonder what the US public opinion will be when their own ammo is being used to kill their own sons/brothers/fathers/etc.

I've got a pretty good idea of what the rest of the world's opinion will be.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by tikdoph
Ask yourself what will happen if this ammo falls into enemy hands.

US/Coalition soldiers get shot with it, most will die horrifically, but some will survive with what will probably be horrendous wounds, and will appear on US/world TV.

I wonder what the US public opinion will be when their own ammo is being used to kill their own sons/brothers/fathers/etc.

I've got a pretty good idea of what the rest of the world's opinion will be.


The media wont mention that it was invented by the U.S.

The right wingers will say some commies sold it to them.

Anyone that mentions the truth will be labeled a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist.

[Ins0mniac]

From an alleged American ex-soldier on another forum I visit:

what the fukk are you talking about. of course its not standard; its new and has never been standard issue. a real battle field is the best place to test developmental weapons of many types since it yields accurate results under real performance.

[That Bloke]

Originally posted by Pirate
That is completely fucking horrid.

I imagine the Genieve convention will outlaw this, well atleast they should, Shotguns are outlawed for military use & they aren't as horriffic as this new bullet.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by That_Bloke
I imagine the Genieve convention will outlaw this, well atleast they should, Shotguns are outlawed for military use & they aren't as horriffic as this new bullet.

Probably already is. But like the Bush government is going to care. They'll just mumble something about trying to take away U.S soveriegnty and continue on their merry way.

[tikdoph]

Originally posted by Ins0mniac
The media wont mention that it was invented by the U.S.
Not until some lawyer gets hold of it and files a class action suit against the US government for US soldiers injured by these rounds. The fact that these rounds are probably against the Geneva Convention will only add weight to any legal case undertaken.

Stranger things have happened.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by tikdoph
Not until some lawyer gets hold of it and files a class action suit against the US government for US soldiers injured by these rounds. The fact that these rounds are probably against the Geneva Convention will only add weight to any legal case undertaken.

Stranger things have happened.

See the new ZGeek slogan:

ZGeek,

the news even years before it happens.

[scathing]

Originally posted by THO
I highly doubt that this ammo will ever be used by frontline troops in sanctioned engagements, as it would violate the treaty that regulates ammunition in the first place.

As opposed to the other treaties and conventions that the US government is currently obeying? Oh wait, they do respect national sovereignty...as long as its theirs. They do respect due process of law (you know, the "innocent until proven guilty" thing that requires evidence before you pass sentence)...just so long as its for their own citizens.

If they actually cared about horrific injuries, the man-pack FAE's (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6331) that they used in Afghanistan would be banned well before these.

[scathing]

Originally posted by iaidoka
well if your going to fire a bullet, might as well make it as damn leathal as possible. thats its purpose after all, to kill.

id rather they ban all guns, but that aint ever happening :(

Actually, not anymore. A wounded soldier is far better, from the enemy's point of view, than a dead one.

Dead soldiers do not require the same level of infrastructure that a wounded one does, and hence does not tax the enemy's resources to the same degree. Dead bodies just require a cold room. Live ones need medical supervision, etc.

While most armies from Western nations are not too inclined to even leave their corpses on the field, in general your army will tend to attempt to recover wounded comrades from the field (and hence taking two or three soldiers temporarily out of battle for each wounded), and also exposing them to enemy fire as they recover the wounded. Dead bodies...you can just leave there.

Also, dead soldiers tend to galvanise the will of the army (and the population of country the soldiers are from). Wounded tends to lower morale and public support.


Of course, we could all switch to swords instead and reduce fatalities in war ;). But I'm sure people won't be that impressed with the dismemberment.

[tikdoph]

Here's how it works...

[iaidoka]

Originally posted by Asmodeus
would you feel happier if they were thrown out of windows instead?

... or hacked with a sword? ;)

Why yes.. Yes that WOULD make me happier ^__^ .. no surprises there eh ?

EVERYBODY! Swords swords swords swords swords swords swords YEAH ! swords swords swords swords swords swords !!

(ishin patriot cutting down shinsengumi ! woohoo!)

[utopian]

http://www.zgeek.com/albums/albuw93/amerikkka.gif

[sortius]

this may all be horrid, but it's real, and has been developed from previous armaments.

landmines
plastic bullets
hollowpoints

all are designed to cause max damage... we wont stop till we can fatally wound everyone, and by the look of it, we will be soon.

[Lionel Hand]

Originally posted by scathing
Actually, not anymore. A wounded soldier is far better, from the enemy's point of view, than a dead one.

Dead soldiers do not require the same level of infrastructure that a wounded one does, and hence does not tax the enemy's resources to the same degree. Dead bodies just require a cold room. Live ones need medical supervision, etc.

While most armies from Western nations are not too inclined to even leave their corpses on the field, in general your army will tend to attempt to recover wounded comrades from the field (and hence taking two or three soldiers temporarily out of battle for each wounded), and also exposing them to enemy fire as they recover the wounded. Dead bodies...you can just leave there.

Also, dead soldiers tend to galvanise the will of the army (and the population of country the soldiers are from). Wounded tends to lower morale and public support.


Of course, we could all switch to swords instead and reduce fatalities in war ;). But I'm sure people won't be that impressed with the dismemberment.

As far as the remaining Iraqi resistance is concerned wounded or dead doesn't matter. In the kind of guerilla tactics that are being employed wounded are generally going to be left behind in favor of a hasty getaway.

Infrastructure and medical care are not major concerns of the small Iraqi resistance cells and their moral is already at a fanatical level.

[Fuzzy Dice]

People should go back to fighting with swords. No, wait. Fuck swords. Fuck them in their stupid asses. People should have to fight with giant spoons made of bamboo. With Ringtail monkeys tied to the side of their heads.

I guess maybe they can have catapults too. So long as they only use them to lob livestock at each other.

The leaders of the respective countries at war should have to fight it out with big foam bats. And then see who can make it through an obstacle course the fastest with squirrels in their pants. The loser must submit to being paddled in the ass by the bamboo spoons of the victor's army. There will be doctors on hand to remove any rectal splinters.

War is stupid. I say we make it as stupid as we can. Or at least entertaining for spectators.

[DrDivad]

hrmm,...i didn't think hollowpoint was outlawed, hell we use 'em at work!

.45 Calibre Steyr M40 Pistol, 13round clip with hollowpoint ammunition, and this is being carried by security personnel...

[Asmodeus]

it seems like hollowpoints and shotguns are banned by the GC. the concept seems to be wounding over killing.

seems like a contradiction in philosophy. like fucking without nutting

[DrDivad]

but hollowpoints do a fairly convincing job of killing,

what goes in 1 inch wide and comes out 8 or so, USUALLY doesn't survive

[Asmodeus]

war time conventions and domestic security are two separate entities. and one does not govern teh other. martial law i'm not sure of, but i'm sure we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

this is the same reason that if in self defense, or in certain states, i can shoot a person inside my own home with a medium grade unjacketed lead .45acp round with expansion grooves and the base drilled out for maximum internal expansion and a low power charge so whatever goes in pulps a 9 inch hole coming out and i won't be charged with violating the geneva convention.

besides, ask any person even halfway knowledgeable about firearms and (s)he will tell you the 9mm is a pussy ass little round thats not much better than a .22 short in a fight. claim whatever statistics you want, but the results are the same. while a 22 short wont do much, all a 9mm does is go through someome so fast, they many times don't even know they've been shot at first and keep coming at you. unless you use a round made to fragment and tear things up, etc.

[THO]

The course of this discussion is getting pointless. Regardless of the treaties it may or may not violate, if you remove all the politics from it, it's just a bullet. It is merely a technological improvement on a tool, much like the "unidentified" anti-tank weapon the iraqis used on one of our abrams a few weeks ago. It is not any more unethical to use it than to use the aforementioned man-pack FAE, or a pointy stick.

[Scythe]

Originally posted by THO
The course of this discussion is getting pointless. Regardless of the treaties it may or may not violate, if you remove all the politics from it, it's just a bullet. It is merely a technological improvement on a tool, much like the "unidentified" anti-tank weapon the iraqis used on one of our abrams a few weeks ago. It is not any more unethical to use it than to use the aforementioned man-pack FAE, or a pointy stick.

Then you would be allright with the use of VX gas and other nerve agents, as well as biological weapons? After all, they are mere technological improvements as well.

[THO]

If the situation merited their use to save American lives, then yes I would agree with it. Dropping the bomb on Japan is a prime example of this application.

[Scythe]

So by that logic, Saddam would have been justified in ordering the use of chemical and biological weapons (if he had had any) against advancing American troops, since he would have been attempting to preserve the lives of his men?

[THO]

Yes. In fact it would have been his best option. But everybody knows he didn't have any WMD (and I believe them).

[Fuzzy Dice]

Frankly, I'm surprised that agreements like the geneva convention are even paid lip service anymore, let alone adhered to. If one side doggedly clings to the convention and the other says to hell with it and plasters the enemy with every nasty, dirty and effective weapon at their disposal, they're going to win.

The best indicator (aside from the fact that nothing was found) that Saddam had no WMD is that he didn't use them. The onslaught presented by the United States military was so profoundly beyond his capabilities to deal with that loss was inevitable. In said situation, the best he could have hoped for was to hurt his enemy as badly as he could before himself being eliminated.

[Scythe]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Dice
Frankly, I'm surprised that agreements like the geneva convention are even paid lip service anymore, let alone adhered to. If one side doggedly clings to the convention and the other says to hell with it and plasters the enemy with every nasty, dirty and effective weapon at their disposal, they're going to win.

There's a book by a Prussian General named Carl von Clausewitz called "On War" which basically says the same thing, i.e. war naturally tends to escalate beyond any initial estimates, and that the side willing to act in the most ruthless manner is the most likely to win. The more outnumbered and outgunned you are, the more ruthless you have to be in order to succeed.

On the other hand, it needs to be pointed out that this kind of brinkmanship thinking was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of World War I, the most futile of all the wars fought over the last century, so it may not be the best philosophy to live by.