Now this is a totally divergent thread-jack, but I'm a little curious. Tonight I read an article stating how our troops were dissatisfied w/ their government issued weapons. (The ammunition, specifically. It just doesn't have enough stopping power, based on the current theater of war and modern armor often used by the enemy.)
Now--remember, we are still limiting ourselves to the Hauge Convention of 1899 (which stated no hollow-pointed bullets) as well as the Geneva Conventions. (All of which, the insurgents are following, I'm sure. Wink wink, nod nod, say no more...) In short, NATO approved rounds are impudent (relatively speaking).
The other issue is barrel length. In close quarters combat, excessive muzzle length is a problem in tight quarters. However, it's also a major factor in bullet velocity--which translates to stopping power. So by limiting muzzle length, we're also impeding our own stopping power. Couple the laws of physics with our self-imposed rules of "humanitarian" war-time killing (i.e., ammunition limitations), we're giving the enemy the upper hand. In short, the M-16 is an antiquated relic. The M-4 is (in many ways) a bad idea, due to it's barrel length. It doesn't follow the simple laws of physics. Why should our guys have to use 3 or 4 rounds, when one should do the job?
Now--I know that S. and I have bantered about this before. But I'm curious... 1) Should we even bother following the Hague and Geneva Conventions, knowing full well that he enemy will not. (Thereby, limiting our ability to effectively wage war and/or protect themselves?) 2) Is following an antiquated policy of state-sponsored-war appropriate, when it risks the lives of our own troops (against a non-state-sponsored threat)? (Kind of a more specific version of #1.)
I think it's pretty apparent where I stand. I'm just wondering if anyone out there has the nuts to suggest that we ought decrease the ability of our troops to defend themselves second to the concept of "nobility during wartime". Stated differently, I'm just wondering if I'm missing something...
Now--remember, we are still limiting ourselves to the Hauge Convention of 1899 (which stated no hollow-pointed bullets) as well as the Geneva Conventions. (All of which, the insurgents are following, I'm sure. Wink wink, nod nod, say no more...) In short, NATO approved rounds are impudent (relatively speaking).
The other issue is barrel length. In close quarters combat, excessive muzzle length is a problem in tight quarters. However, it's also a major factor in bullet velocity--which translates to stopping power. So by limiting muzzle length, we're also impeding our own stopping power. Couple the laws of physics with our self-imposed rules of "humanitarian" war-time killing (i.e., ammunition limitations), we're giving the enemy the upper hand. In short, the M-16 is an antiquated relic. The M-4 is (in many ways) a bad idea, due to it's barrel length. It doesn't follow the simple laws of physics. Why should our guys have to use 3 or 4 rounds, when one should do the job?
Now--I know that S. and I have bantered about this before. But I'm curious... 1) Should we even bother following the Hague and Geneva Conventions, knowing full well that he enemy will not. (Thereby, limiting our ability to effectively wage war and/or protect themselves?) 2) Is following an antiquated policy of state-sponsored-war appropriate, when it risks the lives of our own troops (against a non-state-sponsored threat)? (Kind of a more specific version of #1.)
I think it's pretty apparent where I stand. I'm just wondering if anyone out there has the nuts to suggest that we ought decrease the ability of our troops to defend themselves second to the concept of "nobility during wartime". Stated differently, I'm just wondering if I'm missing something...
posted by Greg | 9:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home