|
[Previous entry: "Occupational hazards"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Digging up the Gaza Strip"] 23 September 2003: "The .50-calibre question"
In a recent discussion I engaged in on the rules of warfare, the old saw came up about it being a violation of international humanitarian law to use large-calibre rounds, like the .50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun, 12.7x99mm) and the Soviet 12.7x109mm and 14.5x115mm, against personnel. The history of these rounds is roughly similar: sometime prior to the second world war, all three were developed as rounds for use in anti-tank rifles. The usefulness of the anti-tank rifle was overtaken by developments in tank armour, but the rounds were put to a new purpose by designing heavy machineguns to fire them; in this role, the rounds were highly effective against soft-skinned vehicles and aircraft. This was the rounds' only use until the 1980s, when the concept of the "anti-materiel sniper rifle" was developed, the first being the Barrett M82. The idea behind the anti-materiel sniper rifle was that a piece of sensitive equipment, such as a radar dish or a missile launcher, could be put out of action just as effectively with a few well-placed large-calibre rounds as with a demolition charge, and at considerably less risk to the soldier, who could remain at "stand-off range." Such a weapon might also be employed against soft-skinned or lightly armoured vehicles, and against helicopters.
[...] Crittenden seems more concerned with reporting an exciting action tale than in putting it in any kind of context. A different reporter, for example, might have explored the question of whether shooting of personnel with high-caliber automatic weapons is itself a violation of the Geneva Convention. The argument is that the damage caused to a human body by the force of such rounds makes it an inhumane form of warfare.Maybe a different reporter might have explored that issue, yes, but it would ultimately be an exercise in futility, for the simple fact of the matter is that, contrary to what Swofford's instructor believed, there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions, or the Additional Protocols, regulating the use of large-calibre machinegun ammunition, at least, not that I could discern. But to play it safe, I checked my copy of Dutch army manual VS 2-1351, Handboek voor het kader ("field manual for officers and NCOs"), 1991 edition. Chapter 16 covers the maintenance and operation of the mitrailleur Browning .50 inch M2 HB. Section 4.c has the goods (translated from the Dutch): Types of targetsEmphasis in bold mine. The Netherlands is a state party to damn near every treaty regulating warfare ever made, so when a Dutch army manual says it's legal to fire a .50-cal at personnel, it's a safe bet that this is the case. Frankly, I'm less than impressed with F. Marshall Maher, the author of the FAIR.org article, who apparently could not be bothered himself to do any actual research into the matter himself, even if it was just checking the actual text of the Geneva Conventions. So much for "Accuracy In Reporting." It should be noted, however, that this applies only in the case of non-explosive and non-incendiary ammunition. Most European countries (though not the United States) are states party to the St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight of 1868. Basically, this outlaws the use of "explosive, fulminating and incendiary" rounds in land and naval warfare of a calibre smaller than 37mm. This agreement was subject to some reinterpretation when combat aircraft were introduced, especially by the second world war; it was generally judged that aircraft ammunition required the extra punch provided by explosives or incendiaries, and since the St. Petersburg Declaration omitted mention of aircraft (unsurprisingly, since these would not be invented for another 35 years), this was agreed to be legal. As a result, it was also agreed that surface forces should, for the same reason, be allowed to use explosive/incendiary rounds, but only against aircraft. In his autobiographical book To Hell And Back, Audie Murphy describes a German 20mm Flak gun firing explosive rounds at ground troops, and notes this was against the rules. "But in this kind of situation," he remarks (to the best of my recollection), "someone is always misplacing the rulebook." But incendiary and explosive rounds were—until recently—uncommon in .50 BMG when used in ground roles. The United States, incidentally, is a state party to the The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907; Article 23 (e) of this convention prohibits the use of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." The common misconception is that these regulations exist to prohibit weapons that "cause too much damage," and draws the retort that if you kill a man, he is dead, so what does it matter how you kill him? The thing is, these regulations do not concern killing, they concern injury. In September 1918, Germany lodged a protest with the United States regarding the use of Winchester model 97 pump-action shotguns, loaded with No. 00 buckshot, by American troops. In the American response, Brigadier General Samuel T. Ansell, Acting Judge Advocate General, argued that: [The use of a weapon] is to be condemned only when it wounds, or does not kill immediately, in such a way as to produce suffering that has no reasonable relation to the killing or placing a man out of action for an effective period.Ansell had it exactly right; the underlying notion behind the regulation of permissible battlefield weapons—in particular that class of weapons known as "infantry weapons"—was they should kill outright, or failing that inflict a wound which one might reasonably expect a military hospital to be able to deal with and from which the victim might be expected to recover. Dum-dum bullets, for example, clearly fail this test; they fragment in unpredictable ways, making it impossible for a military surgeon to remove all of the bullet. Edged weapons (bayonets or lances) with jagged edges or barbs would leave a wound which would heal only with great difficulty, and more medical attention than a soldier might reasonably be expected to receive. In both cases, if the weapon failed to kill outright, the victim would probably be condemned to a slow and agonising death. Hence, "unnecessary suffering," or to quote the tranlsation which more closely reflects the original French "superfluous injury." |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
