Osama is gone.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Well, maybe. But which ones, actually?

I think the Sunni Shiyai wars could fit this criteria, the difference, from what I gathered, is that one sect believes in talking directly with god while the other believes in talking to god through saints and martyrs which the first finds as sacrilege (because they find it equal to worshiping men instead of god or as god (the whole one god commandment and no idol commandment), which I'm a bit inclined to agree with them. Though I wouldn't kill someone for it, just scoff at him a bit). So the one sect, which was the dominant at the time, decided to kill all the people from the other as the good book commands (or maybe convert them).

I can never remember which sect is which.

Welllll maybe it doesn't meet the criteria, as I don't know if any martyr actually asked to be worshiped after his death. But still a nice bit of information.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Having two dear Islamic friends, one Shi'a and one Sunni, I can tell you that the reason for the split that they tell you in history class is pretty much only valid in history class. Think of it like evolution: a condition causes one part of a population to change, and, over time, while the condition that initially caused the evolution may no longer be relevant, the evolution isn't going to undo itself.

 

And I'm not going any further on that topic, because I don't know nearly enough and I don't want to offend anyone who knows/cares more than I do.

[Shaper Tristan]

from what i have gathered it was a disagreement about the line of successions of the caliphates from mohammed, but i could be wasy of base.

[Student of Trinity]

People steeped in one religion (whether they practice or believe it or not) tend to assume that other religions are basically the same kind of thing as the one they know, just different, in the sense of offering different answers to the same questions. In fact, even fairly closely related religions can be quite radically different things.

 

Christianity has a heck of a lot of theology. Christians have argued fiercely, from the beginning, over alternative theories about God, salvation, etc. But Christianity spent its first couple of centuries as an underground religion, its all-important founder had been executed as some kind of criminal, and its scriptures include very few concrete directives on how to run a society. Jesus was the victim, not the architect, of a state. So there never was any such discipline as 'Christian law'. Even the church's canon law was based on Roman civil law, not Christian doctrine.

 

In contrast, Muslim theology is a very brief subject, with none of the paradoxes and mysteries over which Christians wrangle. But from the Hegira on, Muhammed was absolute ruler of a growing theocratic state, and his first four successors as ruler — the only ones later regarded as 'rightly guided' — expanded this into an empire. So Islam is much more about law and politics than Christianity is or ever was. The great Islamic schism, into Sunni and Shi'a branches, was not over any point that Christians would even recognize as religious. It was over which person ought to have ruled next. Not indirectly or underlyingly about that, but explicitly just about that.

 

As Master1 points out, this original dispute has generated a deep cascade of diverging customs and traditions. Reducing the Sunni-Shi'a divide simply to the succession of Muhammed's blood relatives is like saying that the only difference between western and eastern Christians is over whether or not the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Son as well as from the Father. In fact, you could spend a long time exploring the two very different cultures before stumbling upon that particular detail of divergence.

 

But it's still worth bearing in mind that arguments among Muslims are not just like arguments among Christians. The basic subjects of discussion are not the same.

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

The great Islamic schism, into Sunni and Shi'a branches, was not over any point that Christians would even recognize as religious. It was over which person ought to have ruled next. Not indirectly or underlyingly about that, but explicitly just about that.

Define "religious." Christians probably wouldn't call that theological, but I think the various papal schisms, particularly the Western Schism with the Antipopes of Avignon and Pisa, would get labelled as religious. This, of course, was back when the Pope did actual ruling. So... why not the fight over Fatima?

[Student of Trinity]

Fair enough, that those are religious disputes, in a sense, too. My point is that in Christianity you have to add, 'in a sense'. How many other such episodes can you point to, in the twenty centuries of Christendom? The brief episodes of multiple papal claimants have never been considered in the same category as the many, many Christian disputes over doctrine. Most Christian disputes over ecclesiastical power have framed themselves as disputes over doctrine: so-and-so cannot be the true pontiff, or the True Church, or whatever, because they teach such-and-such.

[Artemis~]

Osama dead, no troops lost, quick burial at sea according to Islamic tradition...

 

Something's a bit fishy here if you ask me. I'm usually the very last one to shout "conspiracy!" but I have a feeling that Obama's leaving something out here.

 

Imo he's probably not actually dead. The U.S. probably has him in custody somewhere.

[Alex]

One could argue that the Great Schism of 1054 was largely due to the old rivalries between the Eastern Roman Empire and the West - Rome, Charlemagne and, later, the Holy Roman Empire.

 

The Protestant Reformation was also used by kings wanting to challenge the worldly power and wealth of the Catholic Church.

[Alex]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Imo he's probably not actually dead. The U.S. probably has him in custody somewhere.

Or, perhaps, they could have captured him alive (I just read that he was supposedly unarmed), but didn't want him to testify in a court.

Or, they didn't capture him at all, but still needed a propaganda victory to compensate for the retreat from Afghanistan.

There were supposedly casualties on the ground from the crashed (and bombed) helicopter. Not much in the news about that.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Alex

One could argue that the Great Schism of 1054 was largely due to the old rivalries between the Eastern Roman Empire and the West - Rome, Charlemagne and, later, the Holy Roman Empire.

The Protestant Reformation was also used by kings wanting to challenge the worldly power and wealth of the Catholic Church.

Absolutely. But the theological issues were also there. To be fair, the filioque controversy was probably more about ecclesiastical authority than about trinitarian theology per se. The easterners were offended that the westerners had seen fit to change such a basic text as the Nicene Creed unilaterially. Still, it became a purely theological discussion, as well as a political one. To a great extent the two arguments used each other as camouflage, as political and theological arguments would continue to do throughout Christendom. But the political and the theological did both exist as distinct disputes, even if intertwined.

The distinctively Christian thing is the importance that eventually accrued to such arcane theological issues as the procession of the Holy Spirit, or in the Lutheran case, trans- versus consubstantiation in the Eucharist. If you grow up in a Christian culture you may come to imagine that all religions are like that, getting all het up about otherworldly things. No; some religions get het up about more worldly things instead.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

I'm usually the very last one to shout "conspiracy!"...

Well, you can't say that anymore.

[Erebus the Black]

From what I remember about Christianity from school (and it wasn't a very big subject there) we only learned about a specific time in history when the papal church decided to charge money (tithes?) for absolution and such things, and so a group of Germans got mad about the church's obvious avarice and decided to found the Lutheran church. Was there any kingly or popish (as in a hegemon or arch-bishop was not elected pope so he decided to start his own church) politics involved in that?

(We didn't even cover Protestantism, other than maybe we were told it was started in France for a similar reason).

[Alorael at Large]

That is Protestantism. Martin Luther objected to the Church (that would be the Catholic Church today, but it was just the Church then) on the grounds of its rampant selling of indulgences. Upon reflection, the difference became more theological: The doctrine of indulgences stemmed from the theological argument that faith alone was not sufficient for salvation and that good works and charity (like paying the Church!) was necessary. Luther disagreed, and his protest against Church orthodoxy became Lutheranism, after his name, the first of the Protestant denominations.

 

Were there politics involved? Not really. Luther initially had misgivings about the practical manifestations of doctrinal practices that became full-blown doctrinal differences. John Calvin (Jean Cauvin in France) started his branch of Protestantism soon after on similarly theological grounds. The success of Protestant rejection of Catholic orthodoxy no doubt gave Henry VIII of England firmer ground on which to reject papal authority and create the Church of England, which was explicitly motivated by political concerns, and some of the German and Scandinavian rulers who adopted and promulgated Protestantism probably had practical as well as theological motivations, but Lutheranism and Protestantism more generally were created on theological grounds.

 

—Alorael, who suspects Christianity's lack of rigid formulations of how states must be organized and run helped its spread. It's much easier for the aristocracy to adopt a religion if it doesn't shake up the current power or class structure, and not having onerous ritual requirements helps as well.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

Was there any kingly or popish (as in a hegemon or arch-bishop was not elected pope so he decided to start his own church) politics involved in that?

There wasn't necessarily politics involving who would rise in the hierarchy of the church as Pope or any of that such, but there was a lot of politics behind the Reformation. The various principalities and fiefdoms of Germany under the Holy Roman Empire (which was not holy, Roman, or an empire) used the Reformation as a pretext for establishing separate dominion from the Catholics in charge of the Holy Roman Empire and becoming more powerful themselves.

As the Reformation spread, the Huguenots (French protestants) tried to take over France. The Anabaptists were essentially the equivalent to Christian anarchists, at the time. Ulrich Zwingli created a specific separation from the greater German nation of the time with his Protestant nation of Switzerland. John Calvin was influential as well.

The most clearly political case is that of King Henry VIII, who separated from the Catholics and started the Anglican church due to the Pope's refusal to annul his marriage.

[Dintiradan]

Note that the 95 theses didn't just deal with indulgences; other concerns raised were the infallibility of the pope and the worship of relics. But yes, indulgences were probably the biggest issue that caught the laity's attention.

 

Politics wasn't the root of the Reformation, but the political climate did allow it to begin. The reason reformers like Luther and Calvin were able to start the movement was because they were granted asylum (Wartburg, Geneva, etc.). People like Hus and Tyndale weren't so fortunate.

 

EDIT: Goldenking beat me to it; note that I'm talking about the earlier stages of the Reformation while he's talking about the later stages. There was certainly a lot of discontentment with the Holy Roman Empire at the time, and the rise of Protestantism played a role in the power struggles.

[Alorael at Large]

There was a lot of discontentment within the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, and some other modern countries mashed together into one semi-unified set of principalities and dukedoms), and that discontentment was directed at Rome. Henry VIII's objection to the pope put it most bluntly, but other rulers no doubt had similar problems.

 

The pope is the highest Catholic ecclesiastical authority and always has been, but for a very long time he was also the ruler of the Papal States, making him additionally effectively an Italian ruler. Other rulers, particularly non-Italians, understandably became more and more upset about ceding large amounts of authority to a foreign head of state as he became more and more head of state in addition to head of the Church.

 

Differences with the Church based in Rome had come up before. Arianism had substantial support among Germanic kingdoms against various Catholic authorities' demands. The Cathars of the 12th and 13th centuries made substantial inroads in France, and had support among nobles until they were put down by a crusade, and the Cathars in fact shared a disgust at the Catholic Church's worldliness and corruption with the later Protestants.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't know what made the Protestants successful where previous schismatics generally either were subsumed back into the mainstream Church or were suppressed as heresy. Sheer force of numbers helped, of course, but lucky conditions also must have played a role in getting the critical mass of noble and popular backing before the papal authorities could crack down.

[Student of Trinity]

I'm not sure how much the Reformation was really politically driven. Some, I'm sure. But it's not as though the many, many minor rulers of the Holy Roman Empire were enabled to break free of the empire by switching religion. In fact they didn't, even after being allowed to become Protestant. Being subject to the Emperor was not very burdensome. It generally meant not being subject to some lesser but nearer and more meddlesome despot. And while the Pope was a secular power in Italy, his political reach didn't extend much further. So I have a hard time seeing the nationalistic motivations for adopting the Reformation. I think that's anachronistic.

 

I've never read much about the Reformation or the 30 Years' War, but in my ignorance I wonder whether maybe people were mainly acting out of fear about what might happen with the breakdown of religious unity, rather than deliberately using religion as a front for political schemes. On the other hand, I'd be on the lookout for any hint that adopting Protestantism lowered anyone's taxes. That might do it.

 

Back on the first hand, though: the Cathars didn't have printing presses. The fact that this made such a difference would seem to show that ideology as such was a major factor in the Reformation. People do think as well as eat.

[Artemis~]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

I'm usually the very last one to shout "conspiracy!"...

Well, you can't say that anymore.

Guess not. Now I have to dress up as a hippie, wear colorful clothing and be surrounded by a cloud of weed smoke 24/7.

[Jerakeen]

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Originally Posted By: Artemis~

I'm usually the very last one to shout "conspiracy!"...

Well, you can't say that anymore.

Guess not. Now I have to dress up as a hippie, wear colorful clothing and be surrounded by a cloud of weed smoke 24/7.

Or you could get a show on Fox News.

[Alex]

I'm not sure the CIA or their superiors are a trustworthy source regarding their assassinations. Just consider their track record.

 

My first reaction was that he got what he deserved, in some sense, but a few days after the deed, I think that even mass murderers deserve a fair trial, even if it's not a realistic demand for someone who was Public Enemy No. 1 for several countries.

 

The eyewitness accounts of an execution of an unarmed person, and of civilian casualties from the destruction of the top secret helicopter, worsen my opinion of the assassination. I doubt we have been given the full truth.

[Student of Trinity]

Osama bin Laden had pretty clearly similar status to an enemy soldier fighting against the USA in a war. There are laws even for war, at least as major countries today claim to wage it; but war is still war, and its laws are narrow. Lethal force is not the last resort for the military in war, the way it is for the police. It's the default.

 

If bin Laden had flung his arms in the air, hands bare and empty, and shouted loudly and continuously, "Don't shoot! I surrender!", then the American troops would have been supposed to take him prisoner alive. Short of that, they would have been entitled by all the rules to shoot him dead, even if he didn't have a gun in his hand at that moment. Any enemy who is not clearly surrendering is choosing to remain a lethal threat. Soldiers (and SEALs) aren't supposed to react to that with shouts and warning shots.

 

If you don't like those rules, don't get involved in a war. Osama bin Laden knew those rules, and I'm pretty sure that, before surrendering to Americans, Osama bin Laden would much rather have died. Who are we to complain that that's what happened?

[Trenton.]

Originally Posted By: Impudent Strumpet!

Originally Posted By: loyal servile of sasuke uchiha

...Wow. not a single troop lost? Didnt he have any deffenders?

good guys always win. not a single good-aligned main cast member* was killed in Star Wars, and they brought down an entire evil empire, not just one guy in a house.

(*i'm counting leia, han, luke, chewbacca, R2 and C3P0)

Actually, i think obi-wan kanobi was a main character for about the first 4 movies. Then he got killed by Darth vader AKA Anakin. so tecnically, your output does not compute.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: loyal servile of sasuke uchiha

Actually, i think obi-wan kanobi was a main character for about the first 4 movies. Then he got killed by Darth vader AKA Anakin. so tecnically, your output does not compute.

What are you talking about? There are only three Star Wars films...

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Osama bin Laden had pretty clearly similar status to an enemy soldier fighting against the USA in a war.

I'd have more sympathy for that sort of argument if the USA wasn't deliberately muddying the issue to try to make their treatment of their enemies fall through the gaps in international law.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Impudent Strumpet!

Originally Posted By: loyal servile of sasuke uchiha

Actually, i think obi-wan kanobi was a main character for about the first 4 movies. Then he got killed by Darth vader AKA Anakin. so tecnically, your output does not compute.

What are you talking about? There are only three Star Wars films...

FYT

[Student of Trinity]

The argument about bin Laden being an enemy in war is good. The prison for 'unlawful combatants' in Guantanamo Bay is abominable, and it's a crying evil that Obama has reneged on his promise to shut the place down.

[msazad]

And what war would that be?

People who talk about the "war on drugs" are using an analogy. Such analogies are not admissible in a legal argument.

 

Even if you grant the US government the authority to decree arbitrary states of war (which would in effect abolish international law, the bill of rights and so on), OBL was not a soldier and he was not involved in a military operation. It's not even clear he had any military role whatsoever. In real wars, civilian and military leaders get arrested and tried. There were tribunals set up for that purpose in Germany and Japan after WWII.

[Trenton.]

Dude unless your joking you need to look the movies up. There are sevon movies.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: loyal servile of sasuke uchiha

Dude unless your joking you need to look the movies up. There are three movies.

FYT

[*i]

I primarily agree with SoT here. Part of the problem with a lot of these high ideals of warfare is they arose post World War I, designed to try and "civilize" mass conflict between global superpowers. With the advent of nuclear weaponry, such type of warfare really has become obsolete. Indeed, I suspect rules of warfare and international law will need to evolve to encompass and accept these new threats.

 

Then again, these threats are largely like how our ancestors dealt with "barbarians". For centuries, the state had an almost insurmountable advantage over non-national groups. Unfortunately, with the proliferation of things such as nuclear weapons, we're back to the point where such groups pose a real existential threat.

 

Leaders of such organizations that both pose an existential threat and have declared an intent to do so should be treated more as members of the armed forces than civilian leaders. The primary difference is that a leader of recognized nation state bares responsibility for a fairly large number of civilian interests. The likes of Osama Bin Laden are not constrained by these; no one really considers him their sovereign and he does not have a nation to run with people to feed.

[Niemand]

Originally Posted By: *i

Part of the problem with a lot of these high ideals of warfare is they arose post World War I, designed to try and "civilize" mass conflict between global superpowers. With the advent of nuclear weaponry, such type of warfare really has become obsolete.

To the extent that major powers are virtually unable to attack each other, and so at least one side in any conflict must be a minor power. In fact, it isn't clear, then, why the conduct of war and the laws governing it would need to change, given that the threat of nuclear weapons is, in some sense, decoupled from that of conventional war, which is the only type of war which has actually occurred (with the exception of the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan by the U.S. at the end of WWII) since nuclear weapons have become a threat.

[Dantius]

Mmmm, nuclear peace theory. Brilliant, really. It's even kept the crazy, crazy man running North Korea from nuking Seoul- retaliation is inevitable.

 

Of course, problems could emerge with nonstate actors getting nukes, in which case the highly advanced "shipping container" or "white van" methods of delivery will render just about every defense and retaliation method impossible. Ah well, if all problems could be solved by random people on the Internet, all those nice people with public policy majors would be out of a job, and that would be such a shame.

[Niemand]

I certainly wasn't claiming that mutually assured destruction makes us all totally safe, merely that rules for non-nuclear weapons could retain old forms since empirically there isn't much overlap between nuclear (and more generally weapons of mass destruction) and non-nuclear weapons.

[msazad]

First it was an imaginary war.

 

Now it's imaginary existential threats constituted by nukes in the hands of imaginary organizations.

 

So far as we know, the closest nukes ever got to nonstate actors is the Pakistani military whose rogue elements have been protected by OBL's summary execution.

[*i]

Niemand, my point is that war has taken a new form than the paradigms that shaped the current rules of engagement. As you said, direct attacks between major powers is insane these days and has been since 1945. Not saying we need to abolish the rules of engagement for conventional warfare, but that warfare is evolving in ways long dead leaders never anticipated and will need to be modified accordingly.

 

Granted, this is entirely a side discussion. Back on track, the threat is when non-state entities acquire a nuclear weapon whether stolen or, more likely, provided by a (typically rogue) state. Right now, we don't really have formalized rules of war to deal with such entities, yet, under that circumstance, they provide perhaps the gravest threat to the established powers.

 

Here's the scenario we now face with Al Qaeda: suppose a nation state has strong reason to believe based on both intelligence and public statements that an established non-state group wishes (and arguably has the means) to acquire a nuclear weapon and detonate it on its soil. What is the appropriate response said state should take when dealing with members and leaders of that organization?

 

My personal feeling is in that scenario, the non-state organization poses an existential threat to the nation and military, rather than civil/criminal, methods are appropriate.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: msazad

if you grant the US government the authority to decree arbitrary states of war

Governments all have that authority, I'm afraid. We are not yet at one world government. And the Axis leaders who were tried for war crimes had surrendered, after their nations had also surrendered. The Allies in World War II were willing to bomb civilian populations indiscriminately. They would not have blinked at assassinating an enemy leader, if the chance had come up.

[corallus]

I doubt the Navy Seals used M16's for the osama mission..they could've however gone for incapacitating shot's rather than the kill zone...It seems to me like the mission was all about the kill, and the capture was never even an option from the moment they left for his compound.

 

And the whole buried at sea within 12 hours of death...Hmmmm, sorry but seem's like its a bit suspect to me.

I understand the need for not informing Pakistan before the mission(in case of a tip off), and I understand Osama not wanting to end up like saddam, paraded round and hung on TV, and would probably want to go out in a gun fight as a martyr. Then again, maybe his money/connections could have bought his escape/freedom.

I think most people would have liked to have seen more evidence of his death though, the way its been played out will certainly fuel the conspiracy theorists imo.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: corallus

I doubt the Navy Seals used M16's for the osama mission..they could've however gone for incapacitating shot's rather than the kill zone...

this isn't actually a thing that people do in real life. shooting a dude in the arm or leg is more likely to miss than shooting a dude in the torso, still has a pretty good chance of killing him, and gives him more of a chance to shoot back if he survives. if you are at the point where you are shooting at a dude at all it is because you are okay with him dying

[Enraged Slith]

Getting hit in the arm or leg isn't really that much safer than the alternatives either. There are plenty of important blood vessels in your extremities, and there is no accounting for what the bullet will do once it enters your body.

[Student of Trinity]

Right. The incapacitating shot is a movie fiction. Wound ballistics is a gruesome subject, but fascinating from a scientific point of view. It's different from what you might think. The opportunities to incapacitate without killing, with a supersonic lump of lead, turn out to be very few.

 

Somewhat gruesome detail follows.

Click to reveal..

A high velocity bullet splashes the body, turning everything within several inches of entry into goo. Even if no major organ is touched by this splash, there's usually no way to stop that much bleeding in time to save the victim's life. Subsonic munitions, like handgun bullets, do not really do this; they basically just drill holes, and if the hole doesn't hit anything vital, you can live. But by the same token, it's much harder to fully incapacitate a determined enemy with a handgun. Plus handgun bullets are stopped by brick walls and body armor, while high-powered rifle bullets go through those like Kleenex. So armies use rifles.

 

[Soul of Wit]

Does anyone doubt that this was a kill mission? Authorized by Obama? Carried out by trained assassins?

 

Of course, it was. I fully support the mission. On an unrelated note, get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Trenton.]

Well duh. They found the location of osama and a group of seals were deployed to kill him. obviusly it was a kill mission, or were the usa army seals just strolling through the contry touring with there guns and armor? dont awnser that.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

*snip*

Click to reveal..

Don't forget hollow point bullets, which are bullets that are specifically designed to expand upon impact with the body from a projectile millimeters in diameter to three or four times its original size, to maximize the size of the exit wound and amount of tissue impacted. IIRC, since my wound ballistics is somewhat rusty, HP bullets are actually designed to be fired at lower velocity than regular slugs, to give them more time to expand and fragment while within the body, again to increase lethality and ensure that most of the bullets momentum is transferred to the target instead of simply penetrating through.

They're so nasty even NATO doesn't use them, and I believe they're banned by at least one international convention. But, of course, it's perfectly fine for civilians and police to have them. Even as pro-gun as I am, that seems stupid.

[Lord Safey]

The reason I hear for making hollow point is that they are used for hunting large game. Not sure how that claim holds up under examination.

[Lilith]

i was under the impression the reason for the ban on expanding bullets in military applications is that they'd basically only be useful for gunning down civilians, as they're relatively ineffective against body armour

[Student of Trinity]

Hollow point bullets are more lethal if they hit, but they don't even go through wood or brush very well. Soldiers want to be able to shoot through all kinds of little obstacles, since their enemies are frequently hiding behind visual cover. Military bullets these days are normally steel tipped, in fact, for better penetration ('semi-armor-piercing'), even though that makes them expand less than copper-jacketed lead on impact. They're still quite lethal enough that way, so hollow point brings nothing and loses a lot. That's why armies don't use them. Not because they're too nasty. They're not banned, just ineffective.

 

Animals don't hide, and they don't shoot back, so you can just wait for a clear shot.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Hollow point bullets are more lethal if they hit, but they don't even go through wood or brush very well. Soldiers want to be able to shoot through all kinds of little obstacles, since their enemies are frequently hiding behind visual cover. Military bullets these days are normally steel tipped, in fact, for better penetration ('semi-armor-piercing'), even though that makes them expand less than copper-jacketed lead on impact. They're still quite lethal enough that way, so hollow point brings nothing and loses a lot. That's why armies don't use them. Not because they're too nasty. They're not banned, just ineffective.

Animals don't hide, and they don't shoot back, so you can just wait for a clear shot.

From the Hague Convention of 1899:

Quote:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The United States is a signatory to the Hague Conventions, as are most other states. I don't know offhand whether the Conventions have yet achieved the status of customary international law (binding on all states, not just signatories), or even if their status as customary law has been established or not. Given their age, their widespread acceptance, and their humanitarian nature, I would guess that they have.

You may be right that hollow point bullets are ineffective in a military context, but they are also most definitely illegal.

[Student of Trinity]

Huh; I guess I was wrong, and they are actually banned for military use.

 

According to Wikipedia, there was quite a controversy in the late 19th century, with British authorities arguing a 'military necessity' for expanding bullets, to stop charging savages, and German representatives insisting that such weapons were inhumane. Normally the German government of that era was favorably impressed by 'military necessity' arguments, but it had hardly any overseas colonies, and this was a sore point.

 

I suppose the 'charging savages' line may have had some truth at that time. British imperial troops did periodically face primitively armed mobs in the open. What I doubt is that 'Dum Dum' bullets would really have made much difference; much of the discussion at the time seems to have been based on understandings of wound ballistics that were outdated even then. Although superstitions in the ranks may have lingered, no armies have seriously wanted to use any type of expanding bullets since WWI. And I strongly suspect that even the original controversy, that led to the Hague convention, was more about political grandstanding than either humanitarianism or military necessity.

[Enraged Slith]

Ugh, maybe I'm just being naive but there are few things more disgusting than listening to governments arguing over the intricacies of how their people should kill each other.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Ugh, maybe I'm just being naive but there are few things more disgusting than listening to governments arguing over the intricacies of how their people should kill each other.

weren't you in the army or something