|
While I find the historical information interesting, I *believe* that it doesn't really factor all that heavily into the topic at hand, as I believe that the ".50 caliber" in question would be the .50 BMG cartridge. My (admittedly minimal) understanding of this topic leads me to believe that the argument against the use of the .50 BMG round in an antipersonnel role stems from it's original designation as an "anti-tank" weapon. This early designation, which was obsolete even at the time of the Battlefield Debut of the M2 HMG, would appear to classify the .50 with the likes of the RPG, M72 LAW, AT4, Dragon, Tow, Javelin, etc. which are generally not likely to be misconstrued as anti-personnel weapons by any reasonably knowledgeable and prudent individual. (Not to say it hasn't/won't happen, but this is not their intended use)
In the big scheme of things, I really don't see these "laws of war" or the violation thereof having any actual bearing on treatment of personnel captured by the savages with whom we are currently at war. The Geneva Convention didnt have a "Don't cut off the heads of noncombatant prisoners in front of a global internet audience" clause, so the only thing these antiquated documents are realistically going to do is provide ammunition to anti-war Journalists and other Miscreants wishing to do harm to the American soldier and his appearance to the global audience.
These are just a few of my Uneducated civilian thoughts on the matter, take em or leave em.
Good times,
blake
|