Reactive Armor for Strykers in 2010:

[Apocalypse 31]

It is the convention against certain conventional weapons that prohibits the use of incendiary weapons within an urban area. The US and Israel are not signatories.

Yeah...neither is hezbolla or Al Quida . whats your point?

[Clavicula_Nox]

It is the convention against certain conventional weapons that prohibits the use of incendiary weapons within an urban area. The US and Israel are not signatories.

And thank God, too. I would hate to be a combat leader who has a need for WP, but can't use it because someone, many years and miles away, said it's bad; meanwhile, while he sits around wishing he could use it, his enemy is already shelling his position with the stuff.

[JonS]

his enemy is already shelling his position with the stuff.

Oh for gawds sake. Your enemy flies jumbos into buildings - do you want to do that too?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Oh for gawds sake. Your enemy flies jumbos into buildings - do you want to do that too?

Not really, but I haven't run into anything which would require flying a plane into a building. Seriously, why would I have to do that?

[JonS]

Your line of argument bears a very strong esemblance to "Waa! He can do [thing], why can't I?"

Bad People do all sorts of things because they are, ta da, Bad People. Good People are much more limited for the same reason.

Also, something about "under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country"

[Clavicula_Nox]

Your line of argument bears a very strong esemblance to "Waa! He can do [thing], why can't I?"

Bad People do all sorts of things because they are, ta da, Bad People. Good People are much more limited for the same reason.

Also, something about "under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country"

I don't think using WP to flush an enemy out of a fortified position is embarrassing; I think losing soldiers and endangering the mission, however, is.

[Flanker15]

I don't like where this is going....

[JonS]

I don't think using WP to flush an enemy out of a fortified position is embarrassing;

Sure. I didn't expect you would.

On the other hand, what would your commanders, or their commanders, or their commanders think about being responsible for headlines like these?

The way I read that line in your credo, it's not about whether you are embarassed. It's about whether your country is embarrased of you.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Sure. I didn't expect you would.

On the other hand, what would your commanders, or their commanders, or their commanders think about being responsible for headlines like these?

The way I read that line in your credo, it's not about whether you are embarassed. It's about whether your country is embarrased of you.

When the US military decides to limit it's employment of WP, they will filter it down the chain of command at which point, the directives put in place by higher will be followed and it will no longer be used.

I know my creed, and I know what it means, thanks.

[Lethaface]

Using wp in an urban dense populated area while there are several other smoke screening options available is simply [...] sick. In my opinion it was just done for shock and awe purposes, which makes it even more despictable.

Now a Stalingrad like battle where it is about winning or losing a big ******* war and civilian casualties are not really an issue anymore, thats something different. Firebombing a city is not an issue either in such a situation.

Now to get back to the world without an ongoing world war; If you say its good to use wp on an enemy fortified position, why not use napalm instead? Or Sarin, even more efficient. Perhaps a combination of all three might prove most efficient? Again, when things are are like 40-45 every side will use everything at its disposal. However it is not 40-45 now.

The point of these (naive) treaties is that banning these things from usage will hopefully result in these horrible (effective) munitions only being used when they are really, REALLY, needed (WWIII or the like). OFC many countries will keep stacks of cluster bombs even if they signed the treaty against it. However when REAL **** hits the fan, do you think anyone is even going to mention a treaty? What it might help doing is that minor conflicts will see a lot less civilian loss of life and some honour to soldiers fighting in the field: I would rather die or be limbed by an HE shell then by WP burning through my flesh.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Using wp in an urban dense populated area while there are several other smoke screening options available is simply [...] sick. In my opinion it was just done for shock and awe purposes, which makes it even more despictable.

Now a Stalingrad like battle where it is about winning or losing a big ******* war and civilian casualties are not really an issue anymore, thats something different. Firebombing a city is not an issue either in such a situation.

Now to get back to the world without an ongoing world war; If you say its good to use wp on an enemy fortified position, why not use napalm instead? Or Sarin, even more efficient. Perhaps a combination of all three might prove most efficient? Again, when things are are like 40-45 every side will use everything at its disposal. However it is not 40-45 now.

The point of these (naive) treaties is that banning these things from usage will hopefully result in these horrible (effective) munitions only being used when they are really, REALLY, needed (WWIII or the like). OFC many countries will keep stacks of cluster bombs even if they signed the treaty against it. However when REAL **** hits the fan, do you think anyone is even going to mention a treaty? What it might help doing is that minor conflicts will see a lot less civilian loss of life and some honour to soldiers fighting in the field: I would rather die or be limbed by an HE shell then by WP burning through my flesh.

I'm not talking about using WP in densely populated urban centers, and pretty much agree with your post.

Besides, the use of WP in this context isn't for smoke, it's for convincing an enemy to leave his fortified position so that he is receptive to the HE rounds that are already on their way.

[JonS]

Yes, you were. Go back and read FKs post again.

At best you were horribly unclear over what you were talking about.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yes, you were. Go back and read FKs post again.

At best you were horribly unclear over what you were talking about.

That's my fault, I skimmed and skipped the "urban area" part. Thanks for pointing it out, now I understand your reaction a lot better.

Now, for urban areas, I don't have a problem with it if the area is clear and is populated by combatants only. In that case, creative methods are required to get opfor to vacate, and not everyone has on-site large caliber weapons to make use of. I would be terribly uncomfortable with the idea of using something like WP when it can harm someone other than "bad guys".

[JonS]

Concur.

I hates the 10 char minimum. Hates it I do.

[flamingknives]

Yeah...neither is hezbolla or Al Quida . whats your point?

My point is that all the people complaining about the US and Israel using banned weapons are not aware of the correct details. These weapons are not illegal, only specific usage, and even that doesn't apply to the US or Israel as they are not signatory to that convention.

[Apocalypse 31]

My point is that all the people complaining about the US and Israel using banned weapons are not aware of the correct details. These weapons are not illegal, only specific usage, and even that doesn't apply to the US or Israel as they are not signatory to that convention.

Correct,

and technically the M2HB 50cal isnt authorized to be used on personnel but it is. Whomever makes these rules has obviously never been in a combat zone.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, we've had the WP debate here many times. It's clear that the use of such a weapon indiscriminately against civilians, purposefully, is at the very best immoral. Or at the very least counter productive. There is no justifiable reason for this. Selective tactical use of WP against a military target... whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Correct,

and technically the M2HB 50cal isnt authorized to be used on personnel but it is. Whomever makes these rules has obviously never been in a combat zone.

I think that's debatable.This discussion about laws of war is essentially about the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

We should remember, those eight years were was not a peaceful period in history. It wasn't like there was no shooting. Just the conventional wars between major nations included, off-hand, the Spanish-American War, the Sino-Japanese War, and the Russo-Japanese War. I'm probably forgetting some wars in South America. Oh yeah, and of course the Italians got their clocks cleaned by the Ethiopians.

The UNconventional wars during this decade included, again just going from memory, Britain's war in Sudan, a British campaign in Afghanistan, German supression of Herero tribes in Namibia, and of course the Boer War, concentration camps and all. Not to mention civil war in Russia, Mexico, and raiders/bandits like warlords in the Chinese north, or Pancho Villa on the US south.

That's alot of very recent violence, war, and dead people, for a bunch of diplomats supposedly to have no idea about. If nothing else, since in many cases during this period army officers and diplomats came from the same very small slice of society, I think ignorance of weapon use in war on the part of the signees is pretty improbable.

If you look at the documents (bottom of this post) I think it's pretty clear what was going on was that there was a consensus in the international community that wars all of a sudden were getting very technical very fast, and very big very fast, and that if the scale wasn't controlled then the next war would be even worse.

Remember, these treaties were thought out and signed before the World Wars. Once the Napoleonic Wars had ended, the entire 19th century was for the European powers remarkably peaceful on the continent, and remarkably easy and light in casualties and cost when it was European armies vs. natives.

Yet after about 1895, from the perspective of the people of the time, the world must have seemed like it was going nuts. There's this huge arms race in Europe, nasty wars are breaking out all over the world and for the first time the Europeans are sometimes getting beaten, badly, with their own weapons, and these non-Europeans don't play by the rules we Europeans know and respect. Plus technology is getting out of control, no longer is European military discipline a guarantee to victory.

Given that, and given what came next (WWI) I'd say those people who

put together the Hague conventions deserve some credit. They saw disaster coming, humanity was getting too good too fast at fighting wars efficienly, and as I see it the diplomats tried to deal with that problem ahead of time. I call that government employees earning their salaries, which is something you don't always see in this age, or that one.

As to specifics, for instance, the articles of the Hague convention for instance outlaw use of soft-point bullets in war, and by and large, that codicil has held for more than century. Another makes use of bombs and so forth from balloons illegal. The balloon rule worked, but of course who knew in 1898 and 1907 that airplanes would become weapons of war. Same deal for the article about naval laws of war, which codified cruisers intercepting merchantmen a la Horatio Hornblower, but of course never mentioned anything about submarines, because they for practical purposes hadn't been invented either. So no it wasn't a perfect document.

But then again the world isn't perfect either. The Hague convention did of course ban poison gas, and of course the Germans blew off paying attention to that article in WWI, which meant so did the Allies. But then after the experience of WWI, for practical purposes and with some exceptions, the article has held right up through the present.

It is popular in modern militaries to laugh at the Hague conventions, har har, we can't shoot people with the .50 so we aim at their web gear, stupid diplomats, what do they know about war, etc.

But that attitude ignores a whole lot of things the Hague conventions managed to do, again some examples off the top of my head:

- Decent treatment terms for POWs

- Codified military behavior on conquered territory

- Codified rights and obligations of neutrals

- Codified rights of civilians in a conflict zone

- Pretty much did away with dum dum bullets as a war weapon, including in the Ma Deuce, har har.

And every one of those article terms, if anything, probably have more real-life application in wars today, than when the Hague Conventions were signed in the first place.

I'd say that's pretty good for a document it is fashionable in some circles to describe as obsolete.

Here's a linkie courtesy of a modest educational institution up east, they have been busy making it easy to know what was agreed to, way back when:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

[Clavicula_Nox]

When do you think it would be appropriate for these documents to be updated? How big of a circus do you think that would be?

[akd]

I think that's debatable.This discussion about laws of war is essentially about the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

We should remember, those eight years were was not a peaceful period in history. It wasn't like there was no shooting. Just the conventional wars between major nations included, off-hand, the Spanish-American War, the Sino-Japanese War, and the Russo-Japanese War. I'm probably forgetting some wars in South America. Oh yeah, and of course the Italians got their clocks cleaned by the Ethiopians.

The UNconventional wars during this decade included, again just going from memory, Britain's war in Sudan, a British campaign in Afghanistan, German supression of Herero tribes in Namibia, and of course the Boer War, concentration camps and all. Not to mention civil war in Russia, Mexico, and raiders/bandits like warlords in the Chinese north, or Pancho Villa on the US south.

That's alot of very recent violence, war, and dead people, for a bunch of diplomats supposedly to have no idea about. If nothing else, since in many cases during this period army officers and diplomats came from the same very small slice of society, I think ignorance of weapon use in war on the part of the signees is pretty improbable.

If you look at the documents (bottom of this post) I think it's pretty clear what was going on was that there was a consensus in the international community that wars all of a sudden were getting very technical very fast, and very big very fast, and that if the scale wasn't controlled then the next war would be even worse.

Remember, these treaties were thought out and signed before the World Wars. Once the Napoleonic Wars had ended, the entire 19th century was for the European powers remarkably peaceful on the continent, and remarkably easy and light in casualties and cost when it was European armies vs. natives.

Yet after about 1895, from the perspective of the people of the time, the world must have seemed like it was going nuts. There's this huge arms race in Europe, nasty wars are breaking out all over the world and for the first time the Europeans are sometimes getting beaten, badly, with their own weapons, and these non-Europeans don't play by the rules we Europeans know and respect. Plus technology is getting out of control, no longer is European military discipline a guarantee to victory.

Given that, and given what came next (WWI) I'd say those people who

put together the Hague conventions deserve some credit. They saw disaster coming, humanity was getting too good too fast at fighting wars efficienly, and as I see it the diplomats tried to deal with that problem ahead of time. I call that government employees earning their salaries, which is something you don't always see in this age, or that one.

As to specifics, for instance, the articles of the Hague convention for instance outlaw use of soft-point bullets in war, and by and large, that codicil has held for more than century. Another makes use of bombs and so forth from balloons illegal. The balloon rule worked, but of course who knew in 1898 and 1907 that airplanes would become weapons of war. Same deal for the article about naval laws of war, which codified cruisers intercepting merchantmen a la Horatio Hornblower, but of course never mentioned anything about submarines, because they for practical purposes hadn't been invented either. So no it wasn't a perfect document.

But then again the world isn't perfect either. The Hague convention did of course ban poison gas, and of course the Germans blew off paying attention to that article in WWI, which meant so did the Allies. But then after the experience of WWI, for practical purposes and with some exceptions, the article has held right up through the present.

But, as you noted, the abstention from use of gas during WWII had little to do with the Hague Conventions, it being a practical decision independent of international law. (How could we possibly reconcile the notion of the Germans not using gas against the Russians out of respect for international law, but then going about merrily slaughtering millions of Russian POWs and civilians?)

It is popular in modern militaries to laugh at the Hague conventions, har har, we can't shoot people with the .50 so we aim at their web gear, stupid diplomats, what do they know about war, etc.

But that attitude ignores a whole lot of things the Hague conventions managed to do, again some examples off the top of my head:

- Decent treatment terms for POWs

- Codified military behavior on conquered territory

- Codified rights and obligations of neutrals

- Codified rights of civilians in a conflict zone

- Pretty much did away with dum dum bullets as a war weapon, including in the Ma Deuce, har har.

And every one of those article terms, if anything, probably have more real-life application in wars today, than when the Hague Conventions were signed in the first place.

I'd say that's pretty good for a document it is fashionable in some circles to describe as obsolete.

Here's a linkie courtesy of a modest educational institution up east, they have been busy making it easy to know what was agreed to, way back when:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

Isn't it ironic then that perhaps the only article to be followed by all major powers since the signing of the conventions is the ban on expanding ammunition? Why is that?

Because pointed "spitzer" bullets made the article obsolete within a few years of adoption. The whole rationale behind the article was flawed in the first place, with the Germans going after the Brits (arguably for political as much as humanitarian reasons) for an innovation that attempted to restore the wound channel of their new .303s to what they had achieved before with their old .450 Martini-Henry's (which probably had more wounding potential than the early .303s).

Bombing people form the air, unrestricted naval warfare, burning cities, slaughtering POWs all the norm for a century of warfare, but look how humane and civilized we are with our full metal jacket bullets (perhaps the most discrete and inherently limited-in-effect arm possible).

(Please note I do believe the Conventions' articles regarding treatment of noncombatants are entirely honorable and have probably done the world immense good, despite the enormous extent to which they have been ignored by every signatory. Even the non-expanding bullets thing has probably worked out (for unintended reasons) in favor of the US, since our opponents shoot us with "humane" FMJ and then we drop JDAMs on their heads and blow them into itty-bitty pieces. I'm simply taking issue here with the mockery of logic inherent to the concept of there being a "humane" way to shoot somebody with the intent to kill them.)

[MikeyD]

Isn't it ironic then that perhaps the only article to be followed by all major powers since...

I believe the U.S. actively blocked several attempts to ban certain weapons. Combat shotguns, napalm, they fought like demons to keep submunitions and scatterable mines. They fought equally hard against the landmine ban. The last two cases they said they were too frightened of N. Korean hordes to give those weapons up.

[Bigduke6]

When do you think it would be appropriate for these documents to be updated? How big of a circus do you think that would be?

Well they try, as the guys noted there have been discussions and even treaties on land mines, submuntions, child soldiers etc., and some nations have signed up and some have not. But it's a much bigger world these days than the turn of the 20th century, getting every one involved in the discussion would be as efficient as, er, the U.N., and we know how efficient those guys are.