Will anything ever supplant the 9mm cartridge?

[Starscream]

I don't understand the Hague Convention limit on the use of only jacketed hardball (no hollow points) on handguns and rifles, when they allow artillery shells that blow people to bits...which by the way kills them instantly. Is it because it takes more soldiers to find a thousand body pieces than one wounded soldier? IMO, all's fair in love and war.

Anyway, I think war is stupid really. I don't understand why countries have to invade other countries.

The Germans argued that the use of expanding bullets was inhuman and caused disproportionately large wounds.

...yeah I'm still trying to figure that one out too but meh.

 

[BCP]

A little off topic, but...

The better to wound than quickly kill in battle argument doesn't make sense in terms of why they signed the Hague convention. This is not to say it isn't better to wound than kill, just that argument for having the Hague convention doesn't make sense. If it's shown to be better to use non-expanding bullets to wound rather than quickly kill, armies would just adopt that round. There wouldn't be a need to sign a convention to have permission to use non-expanding rounds. To the contrary, the convention limits them to using non-expanding rounds when combating other signatories.

You make the assumption that our enemy care about their wounded or have the capacity to render aid. Neither of these postulations are true in the current conflict and any Taliban wounded undoubtedly pray that they will be picked up by coalition forces rather than their own.

Huh? I stated the "better to wound than kill" argument does NOT make sense as a reason to come up with the Hague convention. I'm not debating the validity of that statement, but rather the validity of it as a reason for the need to come up with the non-expanding bullet part of the Hague convention.

I highly doubt the Taliban are signatories to the Hague convention. Therefore no party is bound to it, making that conflict irrelevant to this conversation.