US Contractors test weapons for kill power - on live Iraqis

[DuctapeFatwa]

Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them. In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.

He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly.

“It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart,” Thomas said.

Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new — and controversial — bullet. The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is “nonstandard” and hasn’t passed the military’s approval process.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2426405.php

Note: This should be helpful to those of you who have wondered why the regime uses so many commercial soldiers (about 10% of those in Iraq, almost all of the ones in Colombia)

[i_am_not_john_galt]

1. That's just awful

The article says this round is not approved by the military for use, but does anyone know if it meets Geneva convention requirements? I thought that all small arms ammo had to have a "full metal jacket" to prevent just this kind of effect. If this round penetrates armour it must not be anything like the non-geneva hollow-point or soft-point rounds, but it surely produces the same result.

Also who are these "colleagues" who can fire non-approved ammo without consequence?

[arcane1]

2. Private military contractors, aka "mercenaries"

they answer to no one. Geneva be damned, this is corporate war!

:puke:

[tom_paine]

4. Hey, it worked for the Hessians

And as we are ruled again by King George, it is only fitting that we should now use Hessians, too.

They're a steal at 7 Pounds Sterling a Head!

[spindoctor]

10. Hehe...that reminds me of Chris Rock's gun-violence solution

"We oughta make bullets $5,000 a piece."

[bobthedrummer]

18. Private Military Company/PMC link

http://www.icij.org/dtaweb/icij_bow.asp?Section=Chapter&ChapNum=2

[OldSoldier]

5. It is a "frangible" round. Highly illegal.

The projectile must stay intact when it enters the body, both to minimize suffering and to make the bullet easier for a doctor to remove.

This round is specifically designed to break up when it hits the target.

Whoever's bright idea it was to take this round to Iraq needs to be taken out back and shot with one. A lethal ass hit? Bob Boudelang's sure lucky we didn't have any of these in Grenada!

[Frangible]

7. The US never signed the Geneva accords

This title here is very deceptive; the bullet's manufacturer has made them for a long time and are not a defense contractor.

Frangible bullets are fun for blowing up watermellons with, but their performance in combat is a bit short in terms of penetration, which is why they aren't used much.

Typically frangible bullets are used when overpenetration is an issue; ie airplanes and some shooting ranges.

Oh well, just like the media to try to drum up fear instead of knowing wtf they're talking about.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. The source of this article is the Army Times

[htuttle]

12. Well, that's the damned liberal military media for ya!

Must be a buncha Bolsheviks over at the Army Times!

:eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. ha ha

*lol* good one! :)

[i_am_not_john_galt]

14. These are reported as both armour piercing and frangible

Makes no sense to me, but the article says they will penetrate armour but not penetrate a human body. Dunno how they do that.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Don't forget the Black Rhino...

a super-bullet that was supposed to do just about everything except aim itself. It was supposed to be both frangible and AP.

It was a pipe dream. The guy who made the press release had close ties to gun-control groups, and basically did it to generate publicity for them, to drum up popularity for banning bullets.

[Silverhair]

30. Actually the current 5.56mm NATO is designed to break in

two upon entry into a body. Fighting a war gently is a fantasy held to by people that have never been in one.

[moroni]

20. Not Geneva....

Research the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907.

Had this individual been in the military, he might have been subject to court martial under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, however, there have been opinions written to approve the use of hollow point ammunition under certain circumstances.

I do not think the U.S. signed the 1899 agreement.

[leftchick]

3. corporate soldiers....

this is just sickening.... :puke:

[Aidoneus]

6. like butcher Blair said, Iraq is a "Test Case"

:argh:

[maggrwaggr]

17. So was Vietnam. My own father was involved in this

in Vietnam. He was involved in new experimental weapons, and what they would do is give them to the South Vietnamese to try out. He said sometimes they worked well and sometimes they didn't. He would fly in after the firefight and see how it went. Sometimes there wasn't much to greet him except dead bodies cuz things didn't work so well.

America .....

[veracity]

8. Uh,,,,war us hell....!

Does it really matter how you kill? We have always had the most effective weapons of mass (and individual) destruction. We're the best in everything, didn't you know???? We've always used third world nations as testing grounds for new and improved ways to kill people. I read where they wanted to court martial one of our soldiers for "cowardice" because he totally freaked out when he saw an Iraqi virtually cut in half by his comrade in arms. They dropped the charge but refused to give this guy counselling. Bravery is being able to stomach death without flinching. Don't ya just luv it?

[arcane1]

21. they still got him for "derelection of duty" (sp?)

the bastards

[spindoctor]

11. I wasn't aware we used mercenaries at all.

Let alone so many. 10%, that is rougly 10,000 of them, right?
That is a very...very scarry thought. Do you have some links to back that information up?

[htuttle]

13. It's hard to find that information in one easy link

But that's part of why they love to use mercenaries...

If you do some reading on 'Plan Columbia', you will run across a lot of reference to 'private military contractors'. Afghanistan has a lot of US-paid mercenary activity as well, under the guise of 'security personnel' (Karzai's original bodyguards were US-paid mercenaries, for example).

[spindoctor]

24. Found some links

http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/business/20031030040458.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p06s01-woam.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/10/we_597_01.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

25. I don't have a link. I heard a regime spokesoaf say it on one of the

CrusadeNets. It is not considered "secret."

[w4rma]

32. Soldiers of good fortune (on the corporatization of the U.S. military)

They fly helicopters, guard military bases and provide reconnaissance. They're private military companies--and they're replacing U.S. soldiers in the war on terrorism

At a remote tactical training camp in a North Carolina swamp, six U.S. sailors are gearing up for their part in President Bush's war on terrorism. Dressed in camouflage on a January afternoon, they wear protective masks and carry nine-millimeter Berettas that fire nonlethal bullets filled with colored soap. Their mission: recapture a ship--actually a three-story-high model constructed of gray steel cargo containers--from armed hijackers.
…
Because they operate with little oversight, using contractors also enables the military to skirt troop limits imposed by Congress and to carry out clandestine operations without committing U.S. troops or attracting public attention. "Private military corporations become a way to distance themselves and create what we used to call 'plausible deniability,'" says Daniel Nelson, a former professor of civil-military relations at the Defense Department's Marshall European Center for Security Studies. "It's disastrous for democracy."
…
When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them--and the government--from public scrutiny. In 2001, an Alabama-based firm called Aviation Development Corp. that provided reconnaissance for the CIA in South America misidentified an errant plane as possibly belonging to cocaine traffickers. Based on the company's information, the Peruvian air force shot down the aircraft, killing a U.S. missionary and her seven-month-old daughter. Afterward, when members of Congress tried to investigate, the State Department and the CIA refused to provide any information, citing privacy concerns. "We can't talk about it," administration officials told Congress, according to a source familiar with the incident. "It's a private entity. Call the company."

The lack of oversight alarms some members of Congress. "Under a shroud of secrecy, the United States is carrying out military missions with people who don't have the same level of accountability," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leading congressional critic of privatized war. "We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country."
…
The companies don't rely on informal networking alone, though. They also pour plenty of money into the political system--especially into the re-election war chests of lawmakers who oversee their business. An analysis shows that 17 of the nation's leading private military firms have invested more than $12.4 million in congressional and presidential campaigns since 1999.
…
http://indyweek.com/durham/2003-07-23/cover.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=174742
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35837

[maggrwaggr]

15. well if you're gonna shoot somebody, why not go for broke?

Why are we arguing about the "safety" of bullets?

If you're in a war, and you're shooting to kill, why not use a bullet that will do the most damage?

[htuttle]

19. Following that logic....

How about we bring back mustard gas, nerve agents, weaponized anthrax, incendiary bombing of civilian neighborhoods, and all the other horrors of war that we thought we put behind us in the 20th century?

It's quite obvious that the US intends to ignore all international standards of conduct, so why not just open Pandora's box again?

Battlefield nukes, anyone?

(note: I don't agree with this logic)

[maggrwaggr]

22. because we're talking about bullets. "Humane" bullets

We're not talking about those other things, we're talking about bullets.

Bullets are not "safe" or "humane". They're supposed to kill.

I realize I'm taking the devil's advocate's view here, but if somebody's shooting at me, and I want to kill them, and I have a bullet that will do so even if I hit them in the ass, I see no reason not to use that bullet.

Just being realistic here.

[Silverhair]

26. I have been in war and understand what you are saying.

You are right, but many here will not understand it. Some people think that you are supposed to fight "gently". If I were going back into combat, I would want a whole bunch of those new bullets.

[htuttle]

28. But would you want the other side to have them?

Most of the modern 'rules of war' were written during a period where quite often Europeans/Westerners were fighting each other. At the time, there was a recognition that the soldiers on the line (on all sides of the war), were all doing their duties to their own countries, and thus, should be spared unnecessary cruelty.

If an infantry soldier gets shot, whether from a frangible round or FMJ one, they are going to be out of action, ie, a casualty removed from the opposing force. It doesn't really matter at that time whether they are dead or just wounded (actually, it's often tactically better if they are only wounded..). Why cripple or kill someone just trying to do their duty if you don't have to? Putting them out of action should be enough, I think was the idea.

However, Westerners have always had a double standard when it comes to killing other westerners vs killing little brown people. Could Churchill have mustard-gassed Facist Italians as blithley as he gassed Iraqis in the 1920's? Probably not and still keep his reputation intact.

Now that most wars are Europeans/Westerners fighting little brown people, the rules of war don't seem as relevant to most Americans -- but they should be all the same.

[Silverhair]

29. I don't give a damn about the race of the guy I'm at war with.

I want the most destructive tools that my country can give me. And yes, Churchill was very rough on the Germans. Gas wasn't used by either side because of the fear of retaliation. MAD operated even back then. If you think we were "gentle" on the Germans, look at Dresden.

And I totally reject your idea that it is somehow racist to want to stay alive and win a war.

[htuttle]

37. You make a good point

When wars get started, pragmatism generally rules above 'law'.

I don't think that it's racist to want to stay alive and win a war -- that wasn't exactly my point. But keep in mind on that -- the people that drew up the laws of war were seldom those who'd be affected by it. Soldiers don't draw up treaties, politicians do.

I brought the 'Westerner vs Westerner' factor up, because it occurred to me that I couldn't imagine the US accepting ANY restrictions similar to the Geneva Convention today -- it would be characterized as 'weak' (as a matter of fact, Bush pulled out or outright rejected several international initiatives in 2001-2003 dealing with chemical weapons, land mines, etc...). The only difference I could see between the atmosphere when the laws of war were drawn up, and the present day, is that back then many more wars were fought solely between European powers.

Regarding Dresden -- you're right, and most historians agree today that it was in fact a crime of war (that was never charged).

However, why then are certain weapons (ie., Weapons of Mass Destruction) characterized as somehow 'morally wrong'? Same with terrorism. If it's morally wrong to blow up a civilian bus, is it morally wrong to drop cluster bombs on populated areas, or use weapons that are bound to have a large amount of overkill? Is there a moral difference between killing an innocent person on purpose vs killing them due to 'expediency' (and thus declaring them 'collateral')? That's a question for the philosophers, I suppose.

While you might be entirely correct that in practice the only restraint upon conduct in a war is fear of reprisal, that doesn't sit well with the notion that the US is somehow morally correct in it's actions. Either morality has a place in war and violent conflict, or it doesn't, and we should accept that 'total war' means mustard gas is no different than daisy cutters. Suicide bombers are morally the same as cluster bombs. Their area of effect and indiscriminate lethality are the same.

Perhaps my only point is this: Are we just going to stop trying to be a more civilized world, or are we going to really plunge headlong into barbarism? It's dishonest and probably damaging in the long run being in the middle like we are now, where our actions are barbaric, and cheered on by an influential segment of the population, yet our words speak of morality and 'justice'. We used to at least try to be 'good'. We used to able to provide a far better endorsement of our government than, "at least he's not as bad as Stalin" (yet).

And I've digressed way too much today. This thread was supposed to be about bullets. My apologizes.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Not even remotely true.

"If an infantry soldier gets shot, whether from a frangible round or FMJ one, they are going to be out of action, ie, a casualty removed from the opposing force. It doesn't really matter at that time whether they are dead or just wounded (actually, it's often tactically better if they are only wounded..). Why cripple or kill someone just trying to do their duty if you don't have to? Putting them out of action should be enough, I think was the idea."

There's a conflict here between the tactical and the strategic. From the strategic perspective, it's far better to wound than to kill. Why? because a wounded soldier taxes the enemy's infrastructure. They've got to evacuate, treat, and rehabilitate a wounded person. That takes up resources and manpower. If the person is dead, they just have to bury him.

Tactically, it's far better to kill than to wound. Why? Because a wounded person can still pull a trigger right there and then. After being shot, depending on the placement of the hit, a person may have minutes or even hours where they can still shoot back, and potentially kill the attacker, before they must be evacuated. If you read through the citations issued to Congressional Medal of Honor winners, you'll very frequently find that they were seriously wounded, sometimes shot repeatedly, but continued to fight on. Another example of this was during the Phillipines campaign around the beginning of the 20th century. The US army was issuing .38 revolvers. The bullets didn't cause enough damage to consistently take enemy combatants out of the fight when they were shot. That's why the army went to the 1911 .45 ACP.


The basic idea of killing the enemy instead of wounding him isn't one of protecting the lives of the enemy. It's one of protecting your own people. Dead people are physically incapable of shooting back. Wounded people can shoot back. If you want more information on stuff like this, google "miami shootout FBI" and you should find info about an incident which made this point very well. It involved two murderers being stopped and shot, but killing a bunch of FBI guys before they bled out.

[rman]

33. those other things are also supposed to kill

if you'r going to kill the enemy, why not on a massive scale?

it'll be cheaper in many ways, just being realistic.

(also advocate of the devil)

[knight_of_the_star]

23. You know

For some odd reason I thought that mercs were made obsolete during the latter part of the Middle Ages by the introduction of professional, national armies. I guess this proves me wrong.

[Silverhair]

27. There is a difference between a Merc and a company representative.

In all of our wars, there have been company representative up where the action is to be able to observe how the stuff they make actually works in real war. Lindberg (sp?) flew some combat mission in WWII in the Pacific. Company reps serve a very valuable purpose. They get first hand information quickly back to the manufacturers.

A Merc is hired by the gov't specifically to fight. The company rep is sent by the company in cooperation with the gov't. He fights only in personal self defense (In theory.)

[DS1]

31. Bill O'Reilly himself would be proud of the spin in your title

*sheesh*

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. The article itself did not have a title. It is indeed my title, and like

any other possible title I could have given it, it will be sure to displease some.

[PSR40004]

38. Sounds like self defense...

If I was there as a private citizen I'd wouldn't be using army issue FMJ.