Your choose of 50 BMG ammo.
What do a "Raufoss Mk221 mod 0" do?
specially designed to hit where the sun don't shine.
it is a multi-purpose anti material round. it has an armor-piercing core and an explosive/incendiary component. its pretty similar to the m8 (silver tip), but packs more explosion. its mostly used on helicopters, aircraft and light armored vehicles because it can ignite jet fuel. its the primary ammo fired from the M82. it banned from using against personnel cause of the incendiary properties, although it would make a real mess of someone!
I was always told that its strictly anti-material... but i just looked it up and and read...
"The current U.S. policy is that the ammunition (MK211) is suitable for use against all targets."
... looks like we're coming around!
isnt that a brand of ass wipe?
We can't use the MK 19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher on anything but gear and vehicles. Thats why I consider a canteen or cloths gear!!
Way back when, I was in the Corp we can't use the 50 BMG on personnel. But they said we could shoot your helmet or the rifle in your hands or the backpack on your back. I see things have not change. LOL
You can use any military issued weapon on an idividual. There is a rule of proportionality in land warfare , but it is designed to reduce collateral damage. If you have the means to take out an enemy combatant without taking down a whole building, then you are obligated to do so, but military necessity takes precedence over all else. If you are a gunner in a humvee and your weapon system is the MK19, then you are allowed to use that to engage an enemy combateant. Unit commanders can place further restrictions, but there is nothing in the law of land warfare that restricts us from using big ass guns on little ass people. The idea of "engaging the button of the bad guy's uniform" with the .50 instead of engaging the bad guy is ridiculous. It's the same thing as saying you cannot fire at enemy paratroopers until the hit the ground. They are combatants and are fair game. An enemy pilot who has ejected is a different story. Prior to deploying, during our law of land warfare brief, I posed a situational question to the JAG lawyer. If I see a group of enemy combatants walking in a file (that's one behind the other), am I allowed to shoot the point guy in the chest with an AT-4 (light anti-armor weapon) to see how many people it takes out? I asked it for a laugh and got one, but the answer was yes.
laws in war are pointless. war is about laying waste to your enemy, crushing their army and the people they protect. the military and the people they protect are one in the same. my view is "does that building (mosque, hospital, school, dairy) oppose me?" kill the building. I don't care who's inside.
war now is too 'clean', too 'neat'. people are quick to forget allied bombing raids on civilian Germany. but you know what? it-got-the-job-done. if you want to win a war, then total war is the only way to do it. none of this pansy footed politically correct tripe. send the military in and let-them-do-their-business!
I suppose this is why I'm not a general.
War against the enemy should be ruthless, quick, and decisive. However, the allied bombing (And the Nazi bombing of GB), was done because technology didn't offer any other way. If the allies had been able o hit the German war machine with Tomahawks or JDAMs and avoided civilian casualties, they would have done so. The problem with waging total war against an enemy and the civilians when the enemy is a totalitarian regime/dictatorship/police state, is that the people don't have the means to convince their government to surrender. In an open society, the political pressure from the citizens can sway the government, but in a society like, say, Iran, the state's secret police will be working overtime during war to crush any dissent, so the citizens become the real casualties, caught in the middle.
Im with you... but, when you bomb all the secret police, they'll be a little too busy dying go go out and hassle bob down the street. Or so I hope :)
Bomb agents of the government, not civilians. I don't agree with holding back if civilians are in the way of a legitimate military target, though. Case in point, the Katyusha rockets being launched at the Israelis from playgrounds and housing areas are still a valid target, and I applaud the Israelis for hitting them and then basically telling the US to fuck off and mind our own business when the liberal politicians got all butt hurt about it. While I don't believe 10,000 Iraqis are equal to one of my fellow servicemembers, I also refuse to specifically target civilians just because they are there.