Wow, I am shocked.  We can't shoot a military insurgent with a .50 cal rifle but it is perfectly fine to turn them into hamburger with a 20mm chaingun on a helicopter or an M-2 machine-gun .  Besides, who really follows the geneva convention?


P.S. How many houses are there in the mountains of Afganistan?

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever been a soldier.  So I have never studied the Geneva Conventions.  However, I just tried to quickly look at them on the Web.  There are four Conventions, last amended in 1949.  Then there are two additional Protocols added in 1977.  Then ... they had to cut down a FOREST to make the paper to print all the additional conventions and protocols and specific prohibitions and exceptions.  Like, you can't use a laser specifically to blind someone (if he gets blinded while he's being burned in half, tough luck).  You can't use bullets that expand or flatten on entry, they cause unnecessary injury and suffering.  Likewise any explosive or incendiary munition weighing less than about a pound (400 grams, to be precise).

But I did not see anything specifically prohibiting (or even mentioning) any particular calibre of bullet.  Nor did I find anything prohibiting use of any projectile (except the aforementioned dum-dums) against people (soldiers).

I did find an

article by a former Air Force member

, who says he studied the Conventions, instructed others concerning them, and acted in accord with them as part of his duties as a fire control officer in Iraq.  He states that the idea that the Conventions prohibit use of .50-calibre weapons against people, is a long-standing and widely-spread rumor, and that the Conventions contain no such prohibition.  His article also dispels several other misconceptions about military terms such as "free-fire area" and explains what they actually mean.

So.  That's two sources: my own (admittedly cursory) research, and someone who does know the Conventions in detail.  Standard disclaimer about double-checking anything you find on the Web, applies here of course.  That's why I looked up the Conventions myself.

BTW, I also ran into an anecdote about Marine Corps training, where the soldiers are told that the Geneva Conventions prohibit using a .50 on people, .50's are for equipment, and for those who are wondering, helmets and uniforms are equipment.  This story also appears aprocryphal.

Any attempt to put restraints on war will fail. It is probably a either a misunderstanding about control, or an attempt to construe some kind of authority that lead to the Geneva conventions. Trying to enunciate clearly the fairest way of committing to total chaos and disorder just doesn't make sense in my book.
Everyone knows an atrocity when they see one, no matter from where it was, and leaders that have committed such acts have always been villianized or dealt with by direct influence or history.
What is written won't stop a man from doing awful things when he is put in a situation where he has control over the enemy, or the means to get that control (IE, a .50 BMG sniper round).
Anyway, back onto the technicalities of it. I don't see what is so inhumane. I once read that if you get hit anywhere in the upper body by one of those rounds, your heart is likely to stop due to the shockwave.

smudge your link is broke.


http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-976420.php

actually they definately are

no really they areill see if i can find the article theyve been on top of roof tops

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050828/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestmedialead

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/042503_us_deploys.htm

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/sniper

Sniper versus Sharpshooter or Marksman

Some doctrines distinguish a "sniper" from a "sharpshooter" or "designated marksman". While snipers are intensively trained to master field craft and camouflage, these skills are not required for sharpshooters. Snipers often perform valuable reconnaissance and have a psychological impact on the enemy. A sharpshooter's role is mainly to extend the reach of the squad to which he is attached.

These differences in role and training affect doctrines and equipment.

Snipers rely almost exclusively on stealthy bolt-action rifles while a sharpshooter can effectively utilize a faster-firing, but more conspicuous semi-automatic rifle. In some military doctrines, a two-man sniper team consists of a designated marksman who uses a bolt-action rifle, and a sniper support (usually the spotter) who uses a semiautomatic sniper rifle, or at times an assault rifle or carbine.

A sniper's intensive training, forward placement and surveillance duties make the role more strategic than a squad-level sharpshooter. Thus, sharpshooters are often attached at the squad level while snipers are often attached at higher levels such as battalion.




-I pulled this off of Answers.com