[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;18437568]It's a shame that the US Military is one of the few countries that actively enforces the Geneva Conventions- many of which are absurd.
We're fighting people who have no value for human life at all, but we have to cripple ourselves just to prove we're not the demons their propaganda accuses us to be. We're not fighting a war, we're putting on a dog and pony show to win the hearts of the region. But that's what we have to do, I suppose. You cannot defeat insurgency by killing it. You have to stop it at the source- make the people love you.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that we should be as bad as the ones we fight?
:downs:
I'd love to see that kind of logic in WW2, just go and invade germany and kill all the germans. Yeehaw
High-caliber rounds are more accurate at long range. That's their purpose.
Not necessarily. The 7.62 is definitely of a higher caliber than the 5.56, but it is slower, has a lower effective range, and is more easily affected by wind and temperature. Therefore, it is less accurate. Match grade bullets perform much better because they're carefully manufactured.
I don't know much about war, but I do know that in modern times that we aren't fighting against a flag or uniform, but a bunch of radicals. Said radicals will kill us in any way possible, we should fuck them up just as bad.
[QUOTE=uber sky;18271144]It's illegal to put a rock in a snowball in the Geneva conventions.[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to Year 11s at my school :argh:
[QUOTE=doommarine23;18437615]So what you're saying is that we should be as bad as the ones we fight?
:downs:
I'd love to see that kind of logic in WW2, just go and invade germany and kill all the germans. Yeehaw[/QUOTE]
Uhh, we [I]did [/I]use that logic in WW2. Everyone did.
Geneva needs to ban spawn camping. Those guys are jerks.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;18271155]Using a .50 cal round should be used to assassinate people.[/QUOTE]
No Kill Like Overkill huh?
[QUOTE=uber sky;18271144]It's illegal to put a rock in a snowball in the Geneva conventions.[/QUOTE]
Dog shit in a snowball was my personal favourite.
[QUOTE=archangel125;18282057]Yep. But the weapon has been employed before for assassination missions, the range being the biggest advantage.[/QUOTE]
By who, Captain Price? :downs:
The Barret is an Anti Materiel rifle, only to be used against actual combatants in an emergency. And there's no way it has ever been used in an assassination, that's just fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;18437615]So what you're saying is that we should be as bad as the ones we fight?
:downs:
I'd love to see that kind of logic in WW2, just go and invade germany and kill all the germans. Yeehaw[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying if we had access to our full arsenol a lot of lives could've been saved. The 5.56 is a rather unpredictable round. It's fast and accurate, but after a few inches of penetration it spins out of control and can end up just about anywhere in the body. it's entirely possible to shoot somebody center mass and have the round exit their thigh with no major damage caused to internal organs. Or it can shred you internally, but death will be slow and unpreventable due to the heavy internal bleeding. A solution? Hollow point rounds. But those are outlawed under the Geneva conventions.
If we nonfatally wound an enemy combatant we are required by law to use our own limited medical supplies to treat them or we could be charged for murder. I'm not saying we need to be brutal, I'm saying we need to be smart. A warzone is a warzone. As a soldier, I can tell you right now that while the Geneva Conventions are, for the most part, a step in the right direction: they also put us soldiers into unnecessary harm when fighting an enemy that kills indiscriminately.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;18439399]As a soldier, I can tell you right now that while the Geneva Conventions are, for the most part, a step in the right direction: they also put us soldiers into unnecessary harm when fighting an enemy that kills indiscriminately.[/QUOTE]
Kind of like the case of the four Navy Seals in Afghanistan that had the choice of killing a lonely farmer who happened upon them or just let him go.
They let him go and the farmer alerts insurgents. A bloody and dramatic fire fight ensued.
14 US soldiers, I believe, were killed following that incident. (3 of the 4 Seals and 11 from the rescue helicopter that got shot down in an effort to get them out).
Perhaps killing the farmer could have prevented these 14 casualties? Who knows.
Well and good. But I still think the Americans in favor of going nuclear have some serious mental issues. A weapon that kills hundreds of thousands indiscriminately and literally taints the earth for generations to come is not one that should be used in any war, regardless of the situation. I'd say that the creation of the A-bomb was the biggest step humanity has taken toward its own destruction to date.
-snip-
[QUOTE=yawmwen;18277558]Most assassinations don't happen from 1.5km, that's just the effective range of the weapon they are using, and in reality, getting a good shot from that far away takes a great deal of skill(and a bit of luck) since you have to take into account like 50 different variables.[/QUOTE]
Are you a fan of Mark Wahlberg?
Killing is okay but not if you use dum dum rounds?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;18437568]It's a shame that the US Military is one of the few countries that actively enforces the Geneva Conventions- many of which are absurd.
We're fighting people who have no value for human life at all, but we have to cripple ourselves just to prove we're not the demons their propaganda accuses us to be. We're not fighting a war, we're putting on a dog and pony show to win the hearts of the region. But that's what we have to do, I suppose. You cannot defeat insurgency by killing it. You have to stop it at the source- make the people love you.[/QUOTE]
Congrads on getting RU. You deserve it.
Pretty dumb banning specific high velocity pieces of lead used to fuck shit up in the most efficient manner possible from warfare simply because "omg THEY'RE HIGH CALIBERR!!!"
[QUOTE=archangel125;18437802]Not necessarily. The 7.62 is definitely of a higher caliber than the 5.56, but it is slower, has a lower effective range, and is more easily affected by wind and temperature. Therefore, it is less accurate. Match grade bullets perform much better because they're carefully manufactured.[/QUOTE]
Not to be cocky, but since there's all sorts of 7.62 rounds can you type out which you're referring to? i'm assuming 7.62x39 soviet, since 7.62x51 NATO has a much higher velocity and range than 5.56.
Hell, why not just tip or fill the bullets with pufferfish poison, that wya then a kill is guaranteed within seconds.
I hope the 30mm never gets banned, or A-10s will be severely handicapped :ohdear:
[QUOTE]Well and good. But I still think the Americans in favor of going nuclear have some serious mental issues. A weapon that kills hundreds of thousands indiscriminately and literally taints the earth for generations to come is not one that should be used in any war, regardless of the situation. I'd say that the creation of the A-bomb was the biggest step humanity has taken toward its own destruction to date.[/QUOTE]
In certain situations a weapon like that is needed, such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes they killed around 100,000 civilians but they saved the lives of millions of both americans and japanese alike. Just look at all battle of Tarawa where our Marines landed and tried to take the island from the Japanese. By the end of the battle every single Japanese was killed. The reason why is while most were killed in combat but large portion committed suicide rather than e rather than being dishonored by being captured. If we were to invade the mainland of Japan millions of soldiers would have been killed and civilians too. Weapons like these are made to shock and awe the enemy into surrendering. My grandpa fought on Tarawa as part of the 6th battalion and in his opinion of seeing the wars in the pacific. A weapon like that was needed.
Also, don't say stupid shit like that when your an eleven year old that sits behind your computer all day playing call of duty thinking he knows what war is because of what he sees on the internet. If you have a grandparent who fought in WW2 ask them about their opinion and the things they saw as they fought. Come back and tell me then that a weapon such as that isn't needed.
I don't think that most people realize why wars are fought.
Fuckit, everyone carries a M2 just because they can.
Also, in my eyes, the bigger the gun, the more vaporized they are, the faster the motherfuckers die. Put more Mk19s, fit bigger AGMs on aircraft.
[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;18447402]Fuckit, everyone carries a M2 just because they can.
Also, in my eyes, the bigger the gun, the more vaporized they are, the faster the motherfuckers die. Put more Mk19s, fit bigger AGMs on aircraft.[/QUOTE]
God bless America, no?
[QUOTE=Scyze;18448694]God bless America, no?[/QUOTE]
I'm personally waiting for them to come out with the AT4 handgun version.
[QUOTE=_Sniper_;18271483]Lol, they make it sound like war is a game and they don't want one side to get their feelings hurt.[/QUOTE]
haha, you said canadian forces
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;18448756]haha, you said canadian forces[/QUOTE]
Quote fail much?
And FYI, most times the USMC does an excercise with the CF, we wipe 'em out.
[QUOTE=cheeseman52;18446653]Also, don't say stupid shit like that when your an eleven year old that sits behind your computer all day playing call of duty thinking he knows what war is because of what he sees on the internet. If you have a grandparent who fought in WW2 ask them about their opinion and the things they saw as they fought. Come back and tell me then that a weapon such as that isn't needed.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you.
My grandfather had friends and my grandmother told me they where never the same after they went through the war, they wouldn't want to speak about it for a few years and they eventually did talk.
But the act of killing someone is seriously huge, it isn't just a simple shot and down and move on like it is in COD4.
If you make it through the it, during it and after it; you will realise that you've taken someone's life, someone like you, their life and wiped them from the face of the earth.
The bomb on Hiroshima was neccessary and stopped millions of lives being destroyed by destroying thousands. But since every country knows how to manufacture them, you don't know whos hands they will fall into and how they will use them, either they will use them to kill alot of people, or kill alot of people but end up saving even more lives.
There shouldn't even be any of this, killing someone else of your own species just because you disagree on something. It's a seriously stupid concept.
[QUOTE=cheeseman52;18446653]
Also, don't say stupid shit like that when your an eleven year old that sits behind your computer all day playing call of duty thinking he knows what war is because of what he sees on the internet. If you have a grandparent who fought in WW2 ask them about their opinion and the things they saw as they fought. Come back and tell me then that a weapon such as that isn't needed.[/QUOTE]
Your post was good until this retarded bit. If anything, this makes you seem more of an eleven-year-old than anyone else. I'm fucking nineteen, you tool. What are you, twelve?
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;18436525]I think incendiary weapons should be banned. without getting too creative, burning is pretty much the worst way to go.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure nobody actually uses incendiary weapons anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
