So called "Rules of Warfare"

[NomAnor15]

I found this out in a conversation recently, and it struck me as pretty ridiculous. Apparently hollowpoint bullets are banned by the Geneva Convention. Why? How is being hit with a hollowpoint worse than being hit by a .50 caliber machine gun bullet? I know they say "because it does more lasting damage" or some such thing, but isn't that kind of the point of a bullet? Anybody else thought about this?

[MagnusTheReD]

How is being hit with a hollowpoint worse than being hit by a .50 caliber machine gun bullet?

It's different because .50cal machine guns aren't supposed to be used on civilians!
Handguns are usually used for self-defense.
The question is why do you have to permanently maim the attacker rather then just stopping him?
A 9mm FMJ bullet is more than enough to stop a person from attacking you, why do you need turn his guts into a bloody mess with a JHP?

[MagnusTheReD]

Excuse me, for some reason I assumed you're talking about JHP rounds used by civilian law enforcements.

But nonetheless, my point stands, you only need to kill the enemy, theres no need to leave him agonizing for hours before he dies from internal bleeding!

[Aaron]

It's different because .50cal machine guns aren't supposed to be used on civilians!

Of course there not. No weapon is supposed to be used on a civvie. I presume instead that you are repeating the often told myth that a .50 cal isn't supposed to be used on troops Which I can assure you is quite false. There's nothing in the Conventions against using the .50 cal against troops.

[Aaron]

Here's a site on the Conventions. Maybe you can find the relevent passage on hollowpoints, I can't seem to find it.

[MagnusTheReD]

Of course there not. No weapon is supposed to be used on a civvie. I presume instead that you are repeating the often told myth that a .50 cal isn't supposed to be used on troops Which I can assure you is quite false. There's nothing in the Conventions against using the .50 cal against troops.

When I said civvies I actually meant civvie criminals.
However, I just found out that JHP rounds are the most common type of ammo used by the police, apparently because it's less likely to over penetrate and/or ricochet. Another reason to to mess with the cops...

Now, the difference between the JHP and a .50cal round is - as I see it - that you don't have much chances to survive when hit by a .50cal in the upper body, while being hit by an JHP will most likely not kill you instantly - it just causes unnecessary suffering instead of killing the target.

[MagnusTheReD]

Here's a site on the Conventions. Maybe you can find the relevent passage on hollowpoints, I can't seem to find it.

As indicated by Wiki, it was prohibited by the Hauge Convention, rather then by the Geneva Convention.

[Aaron]

When I said civvies I actually meant civvie criminals.

By the military or the police? Because if the military is called out to engage large criminal elements IE: the War Powers Act has been enacted in Canada, they can use the .50 cal against criminals. Though I don't see why they would. Usually that would be reserved for a large scale uprising or terrorist threat.

[darthbob88]

It still doesn't give a reason why hollowpoints are banned from use in warfare. So far as I can tell, it's along with the ban on projectiles designed to make a soldier's death inevitable, or to otherwise cause excessive pain.

[MagnusTheReD]

By the military or the police?

By the police. I initially assumed that NomAnor is talking about JHP rounds being used against civilians...

[Setesh]

A lot of weapons are 'banned by the Geneva Convention', that doesn't mean very much. Obeying the Geneva Convention is more or less voluntary. The only real enforcement is the sanctioning of Reprisal. Unless of course its done by a third world country, in which case the US is expected to do it. Isreal just ignores it fairly often and no one cares.

White Phosphorus was banned as a weapon, so the US Army wrote 'for smoke marking' on their 'willy pete' grenades. Every military tends to do this to some degree.

[MagnusTheReD]

It still doesn't give a reason why hollowpoints are banned from use in warfare. So far as I can tell, it's along with the ban on projectiles designed to make a soldier's death inevitable, or to otherwise cause excessive pain.

You don't find it a good enough reason?
Have you seen any footages from the US civil war lately? With guy with lacking lower jaws because they got hit by a hollowpoint/exploding round!

In case you didn't know, the goal in a war is to take over/destroy strategic points, not to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible!

[Stuart]

I found this out in a conversation recently, and it struck me as pretty ridiculous. Apparently hollowpoint bullets are banned by the Geneva Convention. Why? How is being hit with a hollowpoint worse than being hit by a .50 caliber machine gun bullet? I know they say "because it does more lasting damage" or some such thing, but isn't that kind of the point of a bullet? Anybody else thought about this?

The logic behind the prohibition was that using a hollow-point round in a military context doesn not provide any appreciable military advantage (if a person was hit by a rifle round in those days, the presumption was that they were going down either permanently or for a very long time regardless of whether the round was FMJ or JHP. Therefore, since the JHP would cause extra pain and suffering without conferring any military advantage it was prohibited (along with poisoned bullets and exploding bullets et al).

It's something of an obsolete provision now; the truth is that most modern rifle bullets fragment inside the victim anyway. That being the case, I would urgently advise people not to get shot if they can avoid it.

[darthbob88]

It still doesn't give a reason why hollowpoints are banned from use in warfare. So far as I can tell, it's along with the ban on projectiles designed to make a soldier's death inevitable, or to otherwise cause excessive pain.

You don't find it a good enough reason?
Have you seen any footages from the US civil war lately? With guy with lacking lower jaws because they got hit by a hollowpoint/exploding round!

The site I found, this one, does not cite a reason why the use of expanding bullets is prohibited from use in warfare. It does, however, point to the Declaration of St Petersburg, which does cite a reason why.

[Stuart]

White Phosphorus was banned as a weapon, so the US Army wrote 'for smoke marking' on their 'willy pete' grenades. Every military tends to do this to some degree.

Actually, White Phosphorus isn't banned as a weapon. Global Security summarized the position as follows.

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.

More here

[MagnusTheReD]

The site I found, this one, does not cite a reason why the use of expanding bullets is prohibited from use in warfare. It does, however, point to the Declaration of St Petersburg, which does cite a reason why.

Stuart managed to rephrase it better then myself:

The logic behind the prohibition was that using a hollow-point round in a military context does not provide any appreciable military advantage

That's the main reason.

And from what I know, Declaration of St. Petersburg prohibited the use of explosive round smaller then 400 grams. Probably for the same reason.

[NomAnor15]

In case you didn't know, the goal in a war is to take over/destroy strategic points, not to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible!

Umm, minor nitpick, but that's not entirely true. The goal of war is to render the other party incapable of continuing to fight (for the most part, there are certain exceptions). Killing as many of their soldiers as possible is most direct way to do this.

Moving on, what you have all said about JHPs makes sense. Thanks for the info. Quick follow-up question though; wouldn't a hollowpoint be distinctly un-aerodynamic? It seems as if it would be like having a car with a big bowl on the front. Though I guess if you propel it fast enough, that wouldn't really make a difference.

[Batman]

You are aware that you are comparing an entire munitions family-JHP rounds-to one specific calibre FMJ bullet, yes?

Not that the reasoning isn't faulty anyway-the one liable to cause more 'unnecessary pain and suffering' is the FMJ bullet.
JHP will transfer all of its kinetic energy/momentum into the target whithout penetrating overly much, dropping/incapacitating it for the time being while not automatically doing sever organ damage, meaning the bullet does its job (taking out the target ) WITHOUT necessarily killing or doing irreparable harm in the process.
The FMJ will just drill a tunnel through the target and go on its merry way, almost inevitably damaging or destroying a vital organ in the process for a torso hit, WITHOUT incapacitating the target which will be able to fight back until it eventually succumbs to blood loss or organ failure.To actually drop the target you have to hit it several times until you WILL have killed it, or at least done massive amounts of damage (especially with tiny cartridges like .223/5.56NATO which don't have all that much stopping power to begin with).
The reason police use JHP wherever the are legally entitled to is that JHP is MORE likely to drop a target with the minimum number of hits while at the same time being LESS likely to kill/irreversibly damage it.

[MagnusTheReD]

The goal of war is to render the other party incapable of continuing to fight

By taking over strategic objectives. That's what I wanted to say.
What's faster - to kill three million troops or to destroy their supply lines, thus rendering them useless within two weeks?
It is proven that it's faster and easier to destroy strategic objectives rather then trying to kill the entire enemy force.

[Ace Pace]

The goal of war is to render the other party incapable of continuing to fight

By taking over strategic objectives. That's what I wanted to say.
What's faster - to kill three million troops or to destroy their supply lines, thus rendering them useless within two weeks?
It is proven that it's faster and easier to destroy strategic objectives rather then trying to kill the entire enemy force.

To an extent, sometimes to properly suceed, you do have to kill the enemy force, or risk it dispersing into guerilla warfare.
If all you plan is to quickly knock out a military from a fight, then supply hits might be more usful, but a static enemy can still be dangerous.

[MagnusTheReD]

JHP will transfer all of its kinetic energy/momentum into the target whithout penetrating overly much, dropping/incapacitating it for the time being while not automatically doing sever organ damage, meaning the bullet does its job (taking out the target ) WITHOUT necessarily killing or doing irreparable harm in the process.

I am sorry, but I ask you to prove the highlighted parts.

From what I know, upon entrance, the JHP expands and causes sever internal damage. Even worse, those bullets tend to fall apart inside the victim, while the fragments go sideways and basically turn your internal organs into a bloody mess!
But I can't find that damn pic!

Can you please specify your sources?

[MagnusTheReD]

To an extent, sometimes to properly suceed, you do have to kill the enemy force, or risk it dispersing into guerilla warfare.
If all you plan is to quickly knock out a military from a fight, then supply hits might be more usful, but a static enemy can still be dangerous.

The fact is that moder, conventional warfare usually concentrates on taking strategic objectives and not killing as many enemy soldiers as possible.
Of course, it is true to an extent, and there are exceptions, but you can say it about just every thing in the universe!

But we are straying away from the point!

[Sea Skimmer]

I found this out in a conversation recently, and it struck me as pretty ridiculous. Apparently hollowpoint bullets are banned by the Geneva Convention. Why? How is being hit with a hollowpoint worse than being hit by a .50 caliber machine gun bullet? I know they say "because it does more lasting damage" or some such thing, but isn't that kind of the point of a bullet? Anybody else thought about this?

Hollow points aren’t explicitly banned, all expanding bullets are. The hollowpoint hadn’t been invented at the time. The reason this ban became part of the 1899 Hague Convention, was because Britain at the time was using soft point bullets against the Boers in South Africa, which had resulted in humanitarian complaints from the Germans and other European states. Britain didn’t want to risk the war expanding, it had already violated German sovereignty by stopping German ships bound for Portuguese Mozambique, and so it agreed to cease using this ammo. The British had forced the war on the Boers more or less out of greed for Boer gold and diamond mines so it wasn’t the best political situation to begin with.

A .303 caliber softpoint bullet basically tears a six inch wide crater in a human body, and the arguments against using them where more or less ‘give the guy a chance’ to survive a wound. Today we mostly think about using expanding bullets from small caliber, far lower power handguns which actually need that expansion to be effective, but that wasn’t the case at the turn of the laser century. IIRC the British replaced the softpoint bullets with a bullet with a hollow cavity inside the nose, causing tumble on impact. This made the bullet nearly as deadly as a soft point but without any expansion or distortion. The Russian 5.45mm AK-74 uses similar.

1899 was in any case a time of ‘Victorian sensibilities’ when many people seriously thought that no more big wars would ever occur. A detailed examination of the inherent brutality of modern warfare was not part of the equation.

[Ace Pace]

The fact is that moder, conventional warfare usually concentrates on taking strategic objectives and not killing as many enemy soldiers as possible.
Of course, it is true to an extent, and there are exceptions, but you can say it about just every thing in the universe!

But we are straying away from the point!

Yes, but at the same time, we can clearly see the consquences of ignoring the military itself. Iraq 2 is sort of an example, by focusing on taking the Iraqi army out of the fight, the U.S acomplished the takeover quickly, but then due to mismanagement, basically gave away 1.5 million trained soldiers to the insurgency. Therfor, a thought, you can focus on 'strategic goals', but you must have a plan for dealing with the immobile army that you left in your wake.

Iraq 1 has another example, the Iraqi supply train was utterly crushed, the army was easily capable of being destroyed. Except people forgot about destroying it(slow U.S reaction time to one of their divisions advancing quite abit faster then expected) and let most of it get away to fight another day. Another example of suceeding at your strategic goals but losing things by not destroying the enemy.

This is not to say that destroying the enemy is better, but ignoring it entirely is no better then focusing only on it.

[SVPD]

JHP will transfer all of its kinetic energy/momentum into the target whithout penetrating overly much, dropping/incapacitating it for the time being while not automatically doing sever organ damage, meaning the bullet does its job (taking out the target ) WITHOUT necessarily killing or doing irreparable harm in the process.

I am sorry, but I ask you to prove the highlighted parts.

From what I know, upon entrance, the JHP expands and causes sever internal damage. Even worse, those bullets tend to fall apart inside the victim, while the fragments go sideways and basically turn your internal organs into a bloody mess!
But I can't find that damn pic!

Can you please specify your sources?

How big of a bullet are we talking about? There's only so much bullet to fragment, and the fragments don't go ripping throuh the whole body; they slow down quite rapidly. We're talking fractions of milligrams worth of metal; they have very little momentum.

Here is a picture of a .38 hollowpoint after mushrooming.



As you can see, the mass of the bullet is intact; it has not fragmented appreciably.