The Origin of the "Shuriken Gun" ?
- Thread starter rust
- Start date
DFW said:
Unless they are in a possition to still harm your own troops, which if they are in small-arms range they can still do. Therefore your own small-arms weapons need to be killers, not wounders.
DFW said:simonh said:
Yes, they are. Deciding what an army uses and how is strat, not tactics however. Dum dum bullets are a tactical weapon, the decision to NOT use them was strategic ...
Strategicaly, you want to win your tactical engagements, with the fewest of your own casualties.
Dum dums are a bit of an edge case. They're banned by the Hague Convention anyway so it's moot.
It is certainly not for humanitarian reasons that many nations developedDFW said:
non-lethal tactical laser weapons that could make enemy soldiers perma-
nently blind (like China's ZM-87), and now that such weapons are banned
continue to work on tactical sonic weapons that are designed to make ene-
my soldiers permanently deaf - the idea to cause seriously disabling inju-
ries instead of killing is obviously just too tempting from a strategic point
of view. :roll:
By the way, the fact that such weapons are outlawed for military use does
of course not mean that they have disappeared and really are never used
- at least the intelligence guys still have them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Juan_de_Fuca_laser_incident
I think a lot of the "wounding is better" hype came out of the studies that led to the development of the assault rifle.
However, as I understand it, that was really more about designing a smaller round because the studies showed that a traditional full size rifle round was overpowered for automatic fire at the ranges it was effective at. Pistol rounds (submachine guns) were underpowered, so intermediate rounds were developed. More rounds per unit weight and less recoil while still being lethal enough was the idea.
But anyone saying that a 5.56 NATO round is designed to wound rather than kill, is very much mistaken.
The "best"* wound-instead-of-kill weapon is probably something like a nerve agent that results in permanent paraplegia or brain damage.
(* "best" in effectiveness terms. Not in moral ones).
However, as I understand it, that was really more about designing a smaller round because the studies showed that a traditional full size rifle round was overpowered for automatic fire at the ranges it was effective at. Pistol rounds (submachine guns) were underpowered, so intermediate rounds were developed. More rounds per unit weight and less recoil while still being lethal enough was the idea.
But anyone saying that a 5.56 NATO round is designed to wound rather than kill, is very much mistaken.
The "best"* wound-instead-of-kill weapon is probably something like a nerve agent that results in permanent paraplegia or brain damage.
(* "best" in effectiveness terms. Not in moral ones).
Infojunky said:
Good luck with that. Most weapons that can do that assuredly will most likely take you out as well...
Me as a Combat Vet I'll settle for mission kill.[/quote]
Settling for mission kill if that's the way it works out is fine. However the point in contention is, given a choice between a weapons designed principally to wound the target, and a weapon designed principally to kill the target, which would you rather be firing in close combat?
All I'm saying is, anyone choosing the wounding weapons, or forcing it on the soldiery for 'strategic' purposes, is confused as to the mission and intentions of your average infantryman.
Don't Know.
Best guesses:
Specifically identified as a combatant (rather than, for example, a clearly identified medic), ergo a legal target except under specific circumstances.
But has not specifically indicated he is surrendering. For all I know his weapon has jammed and he's going for an armoury to get another one. Nor - unless he stops and lets me search him - do I know he is now unarmed (sidearm, knife, grenades).
Irrelevant. Illegal orders are no legal protection from committing an illegal act - fundamental principle enforced at Nuremberg and since.
I wouldn't think they are illegal in this case, though.
not a terror weapon used by terrorists, but a terror weapon used by governments, or any group controlling territory.simonh said:
Governments that kill off a lot of their own people tend to get overthrown because eventually people figure out they've got nothing left to lose. What's the worst that could happen - you try and fail, you die. You don't try, and you still might die. You succeed, and you're better off. OTOH, if the price of failure isn't death, you may not be inclined to push it - especially once you've been cut up a few times.
AwesomeFrancis
Mongoose
I really like to use shuriken blades first it's handy and reliable.
_________________
The Hell I care with them
ninja hand claws
_________________
The Hell I care with them
ninja hand claws
