Interesting concept for bullets

[gfrlaser]

http://www.networkworld.com/article/303 ... lives.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The idea behind the new and advanced projectile is that it might help limit the extent of collateral damage (read: innocents dying) during battle or in other operational settings and environments.

[sodbuster95]

The pyrotechnic material ignites the reactive material, and if the projectile reaches a maximum desired range prior to impact with a target, the ignited reactive material transforms the projectile into an aerodynamically unstable object.

...

The transformation into an aerodynamically unstable object renders the projectile incapable of continued flight.

So...unless I'm misinterpreting the explanation, this is essentially a chemically-based time bomb where the clock starts when the projectile is fired. If so, then the chemical reaction wouldn't cease upon impact with the target. Which means that the round would still "ignite". Moreover, I interpret the outcome as a bullet that explodes in some fashion. After all, a bullet is already "aerodynamically unstable". It doesn't fly by virtue of lift (Bernoulli's principle) but rather through sheer kinetic force. The only way I can think of to remove that kinetic force in flight would be to cause the bullet to disintegrate.

If that happened while it was already in a target (or, to be more gruesome, inside the body of a combatant) then the use of this round would very likely be a violation of the laws of war.

Which ignores whether or not something like this is even necessary in the first place. It sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem.

[WY_Not]

Not to derail too terribly...

Even when learning basic ROE and UCMJ in the AF I always found it amusing and silly that we can drop a nuke on someone's head but heaven forbid we use hollow/soft points. Especially when weren't even a signatory of several parts of the Hague Convention.

[calvin56]

With rifle bullets you can simply swage a piece of magnesium into the boattail. Beyond a few hundred yards the slug upsets and tumbles, limiting range. And yes, it would pre cauterize the wound. This is nothing new. It was tried after WWI, if I remember correctly, at a time when there was a push to limit battle damage.

[Bama.45]

Not to derail too terribly...

Even when learning basic ROE and UCMJ in the AF I always found it amusing and silly that we can drop a nuke on someone's head but heaven forbid we use hollow/soft points. Especially when weren't even a signatory of several parts of the Hague Convention.

I think most rules for war are stupid... War isnt supposed to be a clean deal.. As one famous general said "It is good war is horrible, less we come to enjoy it too much."

[sodbuster95]

Not to derail too terribly...

Even when learning basic ROE and UCMJ in the AF I always found it amusing and silly that we can drop a nuke on someone's head but heaven forbid we use hollow/soft points. Especially when weren't even a signatory of several parts of the Hague Convention.

I think most rules for war are stupid... War isnt supposed to be a clean deal.. As one famous general said "It is good war is horrible, less we come to enjoy it too much."

The rules of war (collectively referred to as the Laws of Armed Conflict) exist to address questions that deal with the humane treatment of combatants and non-combatants, treatment of POW's and the sick and wounded, application of force for the achievement of military objectives (I.E, "necessity" and "proportionality"), and recognize the right of sovereign nations to protect territoriality and the rights of their citizens. Although now codified in treaties, many (even most) of these "Laws" can be traced back to ancient times and are referred to as "Common International Law."

The "Proportionality" rules are the ones that tend to lead to the most discourse and disagreement. They are also the most frequently misunderstood. Proportionality is simply an analysis that the application of force is necessary and required for the achievement of a legitimate military objective. In other words, that the force used is proportional to the gain achieved. It's why we cannot carpet bomb civilian areas simply because a sniper might be hiding in a house.

These rules aren't meant to make war "clean", but they are meant to give nation-states (run by civilian politicians, after all) pause to consider the implications of armed conflict.

As to the use of hollow point rounds by U.S. forces...that is a myth that I've debunked on this forum before. There is no treaty or law of war to which the US is a signatory which prohibits the use of hollow-point ammunition. The Hague Convention of 1899 does prohibit the use of "Dum-Dum" rounds (which are, in fact, soft nose bullets developed by the British and not what most people would call hollow-point). Later interpretations included hollow-point rounds into this prohibition. However, the US is not a signatory to The Hague Convention of 1899. In contrast, the US does, in fact, use hollow-point ammunition, though military regulations require specific authority for their use and SOC is the most likely command to employ them. The real reason we do not use them in general combat arms is the practicality, cost, and perceived reliability by combatant commanders.

[Bama.45]

Not to derail too terribly...

Even when learning basic ROE and UCMJ in the AF I always found it amusing and silly that we can drop a nuke on someone's head but heaven forbid we use hollow/soft points. Especially when weren't even a signatory of several parts of the Hague Convention.

I think most rules for war are stupid... War isnt supposed to be a clean deal.. As one famous general said "It is good war is horrible, less we come to enjoy it too much."

The rules of war (collectively referred to as the Laws of Armed Conflict) exist to address questions that deal with the humane treatment of combatants and non-combatants, treatment of POW's and the sick and wounded, application of force for the achievement of military objectives (I.E, "necessity" and "proportionality"), and recognize the right of sovereign nations to protect territoriality and the rights of their citizens. Although now codified in treaties, many (even most) of these "Laws" can be traced back to ancient times and are referred to as "Common International Law."

The "Proportionality" rules are the ones that tend to lead to the most discourse and disagreement. They are also the most frequently misunderstood. Proportionality is simply an analysis that the application of force is necessary and required for the achievement of a legitimate military objective. In other words, that the force used is proportional to the gain achieved. It's why we cannot carpet bomb civilian areas simply because a sniper might be hiding in a house.

These rules aren't meant to make war "clean", but they are meant to give nation-states (run by civilian politicians, after all) pause to consider the implications of armed conflict.

As to the use of hollow point rounds by U.S. forces...that is a myth that I've debunked on this forum before. There is no treaty or law of war to which the US is a signatory which prohibits the use of hollow-point ammunition. The Hague Convention of 1899 does prohibit the use of "Dum-Dum" rounds (which are, in fact, soft nose bullets developed by the British and not what most people would call hollow-point). Later interpretations included hollow-point rounds into this prohibition. However, the US is not a signatory to The Hague Convention of 1899. In contrast, the US does, in fact, use hollow-point ammunition, though military regulations require specific authority for their use and SOC is the most likely command to employ them. The real reason we do not use them in general combat arms is the practicality, cost, and perceived reliability by combatant commanders.

I understand what they are for. I also realize that Isis and other such groups that aren't state uniformed armies are not bound by nor do they follow the rules of war. Hell, most dictators and tyrants don't follow any rules.(Kinda like how criminals don't follow gun control laws). I believe in raising the black flag during war and no quarters for the enemy. I believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach to war.. There will be casualties in war and when you have the crap like what is going on now in the middle east where they hide amongst the civilians and the civilians allow them to live amongst them so I have NO sympathy for them...

So yeah in my opinion rules of war are stupid when one side has their hands tied by them. War should be bloody and cost dearly.

[sodbuster95]

I understand what they are for. I also realize that Isis and other such groups that aren't state uniformed armies are not bound by nor do they follow the rules of war. Hell, most dictators and tyrants don't follow any rules.(Kinda like how criminals don't follow gun control laws). I believe in raising the black flag during war and no quarters for the enemy. I believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach to war.. There will be casualties in war and when you have the crap like what is going on now in the middle east where they hide amongst the civilians and the civilians allow them to live amongst them so I have NO sympathy for them...

So yeah in my opinion rules of war are stupid when one side has their hands tied by them. War should be bloody and cost dearly.

Granted, that is an argument frequently made. But it misses some of the fundamental points of governing conduct during armed conflicts. Not the least of which is maintaining moral superiority through the prosecution of actions in a humane and moral fashion.

Since you bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General MacArthur made the following comment when confirming the death sentence for Japanese General Yamash*ta: (ETA - Ironically, the forum code recognizes this name as inappropriate language.)

"The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason of his being. When he violates this sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the fabric of international society."

Should we set aside our morality or overriding principles on the basis that the enemy lacks either?

[Bama.45]

I understand what they are for. I also realize that Isis and other such groups that aren't state uniformed armies are not bound by nor do they follow the rules of war. Hell, most dictators and tyrants don't follow any rules.(Kinda like how criminals don't follow gun control laws). I believe in raising the black flag during war and no quarters for the enemy. I believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach to war.. There will be casualties in war and when you have the crap like what is going on now in the middle east where they hide amongst the civilians and the civilians allow them to live amongst them so I have NO sympathy for them...

So yeah in my opinion rules of war are stupid when one side has their hands tied by them. War should be bloody and cost dearly.

Granted, that is an argument frequently made. But it misses some of the fundamental points of governing conduct during armed conflicts. Not the least of which is maintaining moral superiority through the prosecution of actions in a humane and moral fashion.

Since you bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General MacArthur made the following comment when confirming the death sentence for Japanese General Yamash*ta: (ETA - Ironically, the forum code recognizes this name as inappropriate language.)

"The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason of his being. When he violates this sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the fabric of international society."

Should we set aside our morality or overriding principles on the basis that the enemy lacks either?

No I don't think we should set aside our morality. But what is morality in war? To me the morality is not raping, robbing or specifically targeting non military targets. And on the last one about targets. I feel if people let the enemy set up a base of operations amongst them unhindered, then they are accomplices and deserve what they get. The only ones I feel sorry for in war are the little children. But most enemies we have faced in the last 50 years even teach their children to kill our soldiers.

I have been in combat, I hate war period. But if we have to fight one, I say we fight it to win. Keep as much morality as we can as soldiers, but make the enemy pay dearly for forcing us to be there in the first place.

[sodbuster95]

No I don't think we should set aside our morality. But what is morality in war? To me the morality is not raping, robbing or specifically targeting non military targets. And on the last one about targets. I feel if people let the enemy set up a base of operations amongst them unhindered, then they are accomplices and deserve what they get. The only ones I feel sorry for in war are the little children. But most enemies we have faced in the last 50 years even teach their children to kill our soldiers.

I have been in combat, I hate war period. But if we have to fight one, I say we fight it to win. Keep as much morality as we can as soldiers, but make the enemy pay dearly for forcing us to be there in the first place.

The points you bring up are exactly the points that the bulk of the field of the Law of Armed Conflict is designed to address. And the issue regarding civilian support of combatants (which I too have personally witnessed) is addressed by the concept of necessity and proportionality. The fact that a combatant hides within the civilian populace does not make that a prohibited target. However, collateral damage and civilian casualties must be taken into account when engaging. Frequently, a decision not to engage in that type of situation has far more to do with public policy and domestic public affairs than the LOAC.

Ultimately, the LOAC exists to legitimize armed conflict while offering a basis to sovereign nations for engaging in war. It also exists to prohibit unlawful warfare and provide a venue for international response through the decisions of the UN Security Council as executed by the member states (among other venues). As with any law, it doesn't prevent criminal conduct, but it does provide for a response when crimes are committed. While I certainly agree with you that conflicts should, as you say, be fought to win, war is not the inception of anarchy but must be conducted "with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry." (Army Field Manual 27-10, para. 3.)

[WY_Not]

That is my basic opinion of war. Make it as ugly and brutal as possible. That tends to end the war quickly and both sides think long and hard before doing it again or before engaging in the first place.

Not to derail too terribly...

Even when learning basic ROE and UCMJ in the AF I always found it amusing and silly that we can drop a nuke on someone's head but heaven forbid we use hollow/soft points. Especially when weren't even a signatory of several parts of the Hague Convention.

I think most rules for war are stupid... War isnt supposed to be a clean deal.. As one famous general said "It is good war is horrible, less we come to enjoy it too much."

[WY_Not]

Those commanders need to go deer hunting a few times. Soft point bullets have always been quite reliable and effective for me.

... and perceived reliability by combatant commanders.