wrong-o reindeer lover!! actually, FMJ bullets, the kind endorsed by this Convention, are designed to wound soldiers instead of killing them. that way, you remove 3 to 4 soldiers from the fight for every one you hit, as someone has to carry the wounded soldier to an aid station, care for him, etc. the technology of 1899 was also drastically different from now. efficient hollow-point bullet designs didn’t exist.

and if you REALLY think that this Convention reduced suffering on the battlefield, try looking at footage from WW I sometime. it was fought with ammunition that stuck to this Convention’s limitations. no suffering there, right??

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2007/06/05/one-answer-to-h…
Defense.org

but I agree that a 111 year-old agreement is pretty much worthless due to the advances in technology since it’s writing

Warfare was never intended to be pretty or principled. The Hague Convention was an attempt to inflict reason and principles in an unprincipled human endeavor. That is why it is likely the US Senate rejected the Hague as unenforcible and thus pointless. I also side with the numerous comments that point out the legal issue of what rules apply when non-signatories engage in conflict. In such cases, the is no binding authority and as such each is allow to wage unrestricted warfare. For those that savor the majesty of law, laws are only binding upon contracting parties…period.

Darkgent

The mechanics of how one achieves these objectives matters little to the victim of this ignoble endeavor. Dead is dead and crippled is little better. Having been wounded and crippled personally, I took little solace in the minor distinction. It took me 6 long years to recover well enough to return to the profession of arms. Spinal wounds really don’t care what mechanism inflicts the injury. To my mind, if I and my collegues had more lethal ammunition perhaps I would have never been wounded.