Not quite....that is arguably main purpose of this .50 cal weapon when you really want to reach out and touch someone although it does do nice work on vehicle engines at ranges significantly greater than 7.62mm
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Law of War/Law of Armed Conflict Discussion
- Thread starter statesman
- Start date
Not quite....that is arguably main purpose of this .50 cal weapon when you really want to reach out and touch someone although it does do nice work on vehicle engines at ranges significantly greater than 7.62mm
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
My guess where the myth comes from is that the laws of war dictate that you use reasonable force. i.e. - if you're holding an M-16 and some guy is shooting at you, and you decide not to use the M-16, but instead step over to the .50 cal to watch him turn into a pink mist, then no - it would not be legal. If you only have a .50 cal, then it's legal.
Phrog, having hashed this out in International Law for the NWC, this is not true. I am pretty sure that if someone is shooting at me, I am not putting down my weapon anyway. Rather than me go and find a law that says I can, why don't you cite the law that says you can't. (I feel silly calling a Marine out on this)
Ill remember that whenever I end up being shot at by an enemy intermixed among civilians from an area designated as a non-combat zone (church, hospital, mosque). Maybe we could put a placard on all the .50 Cals. Something along the lines of "Do not use if enemy is only shooting at you with small arms from the window of a mosque."
F Hadji, and Tojo, and Charlie, and Ivan, and for that matter anybody else that points a gun/rocket/missile/mortor in my direction.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
OK, I had to do a little digging because it's been a while since I looked at it. It's called proportionality:
In this case the M-16 (which I wouldn't put down either) is proportional to the threat. If you decide NOT to use the M-16, but decide to use the .50 Cal, and the threat is in a group of people, his body sure as shit isn't going to stop a .50 cal round, so I would say that:
1. Dude shooting at you is a legitimate military target
2. The round from a .50 cal is going to continue past said target into the crowd.
3. The .50 cal is not a proportional use of force.
We've war gamed this ad-naseum with the JAGs before every deployment. Yes, you can use a .50 cal, but if something is more proportional - you are supposed to use that.
I guess I didn't word it correctly. What my point is that you're supposed to use proportional force, so if you've got small arms available to respond to a small arm threat that's what you're supposed to use. If you've only got a .50 cal available to respond to a small arms threat, than that's what you're supposed to use. If you make a conscious decision NOT to engage with small arms when they're available to you, and engage with something that's not proportional for whatever reason, then you're violating the laws of war.
Here's what I'm trying to allude to:
1. You're dismounted from your gun truck, carrying your M-16 and M-9. You start taking small arms fire from a group of mixed civilians/insurgents and take cover behind your HMMWV. You look up at the turret gunner and say "take him out." Legal.
2. You're dismounted from your gun truck, carrying your M-16 and M-9. You start taking small arms fire from a group of mixed civilians/insurgents and take cover behind your HMMWV. You look up at the turret and notice that no-one's manning it. You put down the M-16 thinking "I'm gonna waste this motherfucker", get in the truck and climb into the turret and open fire with the .50 cal. Murky, but possibly not legal (you already had something proportional to address the threat with).
3. You're dismounted from your non-gun truck, running a CAS mission with some skids. You start taking fire from small arms in the open - fastest response is to bring the skids in on a 6 line and let loose with their 20mm. Legal.
EDIT: I'm not saying that using any caliber of weapon is legal or illegal. I'm merely saying that proportionality is misunderstood by a lot of people, and that's what could lead to the myth that the .50 cal is not legal for use against personnel.
1. Agree.phrogpilot73 said:
2. You did not mention the group of people in your first post. The presence of a group of people may in fact be cause to not even fire at all. These people are called "collateral damage" if you decide that their loss of life is worth killing the target. "Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage."
3. With this arguement, which is not actually or legitimately argued in "proportionality", the use of your sidearm would be a good idea....depending on the proximity to the target. "Proportionality compares the military advantage gained to the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target." The harm inflicted is death......it doesn't get any more harmful to the enemy than death.
So whether you shoot them with a 50 cal, a .22, or a M-16, and the end result is death, this is the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage.I think you sidestepped your original arguement that if you wanted to turn the enemy into pink mist, that you could not. The end result and inflicted harm on the enemy is death which there is no distinction in how dead the enemy is. Proportional use of force is to prevent damage/death to civilians and their property.
Collateral damage is the purpose for "proportionality".
1. Agree, if he can precisely hit the target and mitigate civi casualties.
2. "I'm gonna waste this motherfunker."
(I actually laughed for about 5 minutes straight envisioning you doing this) I would say that this is probably illegal if you have the ability to disengage/retreat. Let's face it, noone wants to be a pu$$y and retreat but this might be the ebst option here. I am pretty sure a crowd that is not in the fight is going to disperse pretty quickly when the shots start flying. But I will caveot it with this, if the platoon leader tells me that engaging was his only choice, LEGAL.3. Agree, in the open, no civilians around.......overkill is the only way to Kill! OohRah!
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I agree that I sidestepped my original argument - which was merely to explain that a lot of people misunderstand proportionality, thereby leading to the myth that a .50 cal is not legal for use against personnel.
I agree there is no distinction that the enemy is dead. However, it's the people around the enemy that leads to the use of proportionality. A .50 Cal may not be proportional to the threat in certain situations. Sometimes it may be. It's a fine line, and it's all clear as a sandstorm in Iraq...
I would never grill a Marine for making a decision he thought was right at the time. (I said I wouldn't, that does not mean someone higher ranking than me won't.....and further more, as a Navy O, I highly doubt I will be in that position...unless we are doing IA's in 7 years and I suck up another one)
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I think that you and I are essentially agreeing, just saying it different ways...
And I don't know that I'd be able to second guess a Platoon Commander's decision while under fire, 'cause he's got a tough enough job that I don't know that I'd want to do. Same here, it'd have to be someone WAY higher than me...
True, I have had a friend die under fire and while never having been in a situation like that, I can say that a split-second life and death decision is not one to second guess....unless of course it was Tom Brady or Bill Belichick making it
Go Giants!
Oh dont get me wrong Phrog, I wasnt trying to be snarky with you. more disgusted by the whole idea of "Rules" in something as chaotic as Combat. Especially since these "rules" sound more and more like something cooked up by somebody that wont be facing the pointy end of a spear.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snarkyYes you were!!!
So used in context it would sound like this:
Jacksonville Beach police say they've heard rumors of a second high school student beach snarkiness that’s in the works for Friday. Wurd.
http://www.fox30online.com/content/...d=2f90fa9d-4ffb-4ec1-9dfe-0ce1df2123d4&rss=10 story on Friday's fight if anyone wants to go.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=105031&ref=rss Story from Tuesday's fight.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Look, you always have the right to defend yourself. You're just supposed to respond with the most proportionate weapon available.
If you're taking effective fire from a mosque fired by a 13 year old kid, and the only thing you have is a jet on station with a 2000# bomb, you could use it. No questions asked. What you are supposed to refrain from is just sport-fucking somebody because you can.
There was a story from Panama about a guy who hit a dude on a bike with a TOW. He was an enemy combatant, was armed, and had somehow got himself engaged with some US forces. They could have just shot him, but basically just thought "When am I going to get another chance to schwack sombody with a TOW again? This will be cool". That was inappropriate, not in accordance with the LOAC, and just a stupid waste of a TOW.
It probably was cool though.
If you're taking effective fire from a mosque fired by a 13 year old kid, and the only thing you have is a jet on station with a 2000# bomb, you could use it. No questions asked. What you are supposed to refrain from is just sport-fucking somebody because you can.
There was a story from Panama about a guy who hit a dude on a bike with a TOW. He was an enemy combatant, was armed, and had somehow got himself engaged with some US forces. They could have just shot him, but basically just thought "When am I going to get another chance to schwack sombody with a TOW again? This will be cool". That was inappropriate, not in accordance with the LOAC, and just a stupid waste of a TOW.
It probably was cool though.