i think it is stupid that hollow points are illegal in war. Really? we have rules for war?
It's true that we don't want to kill them in war. The tactic of choice is to wound so that 3 men are removed from the battlefield. It takes 2 to carry one off the field to a hospital.
That is very true Sandy as a practical matter. The original tumbling round of the M16 (with slow barrel rifling twist) was a way to achieve this goal with lawful ball ammo.
But the original Hague and Geneva rules are really about unnecessary/excessive harm and injury on the battlefield (including hollow point prohibition). Like those long bayonets you see in movies where the owner notched the blade from top to bottom (so when pulled out, all the guts came out) (in actuality, they probably couldn't be pulled out at all) (and if the enemy caught you with one, they used it on you)
The original idea was certainly a noble one, to not end wars, but to try to keep them within some minimum level of decency. Like not bombing hospitals or schools, not firing on medical personnel (who cannot carry weapons), not using a white flag as a subterfuge for ambush (perfidy), and to treat POWs with some level of benevolence (so the enemy does this with our guys too). But they are only good rules when everybody agrees and follows them.
And there is certainly a good argument that when an enemy violates them all, we should no longer feel compelled to follow them ourselves. But we do, and should, so long as they don't hamper our ability to wage war effectively. Thus, we need not lower ourselves to burning our captives alive or beheading them (on video) with a paring knife because it does not really get us anything. Allowing or even encouraging such behavior by your own men quickly results in severe morale problems and loss of good order and discipline. But when we can push the envelope with painful and aggressive interrogation (short of permanent disability), against an enemy who has abandoned any pretense of following the rules, and gain good usable intelligence, shorten the war, and save our own men's lives, then we should do so, and full speed ahead.
But the greatest sin of all, is when our political leadership uses our fighting men as pawns in a PC game of long attrition, with no real plan or policy to WIN any war, but to mostly win all the battles, lose thousands of men (and great piles of national treasure) over long and protracted periods, trying to buy the local populations, but lose every war. Micromanaging our military this way, for the stated reason of limiting loss of life (ours and the enemy's and innocents), is simply another big lie. The use of Special Forces, Delta, Seals, Recon Marines, and PJs for surgical missions will always have great
tactical small mission value. But when you enter a
strategic war, you give it to the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs, and you go to war and win as fast as you can, and get out. Otherwise, no war should be even attempted.
If we were to arm up our President and VP, all Cabinet secretaries, all of our intelligence chiefs, and all our diplomats and top State Dept people from the region, and all members of the House and Senate and place them at the head of our legions in the field, does anyone think there might be a change in our National war fighting policy? We should not be the Earth's policeman, but if and when it is in our national interest to pursue war, then we should be all in. There is no substitute for (quick) victory. And if we actually had this as our committed National policy, who in this world would ever stand up against us?
OK, rant over. Apologies.
