[Peace-discuss] Today in the Military *Military.com*

[Jan & Durl Kruse]

> The following article is on the front page of the News-Gazette today  
> (Tuesday May 27).
> The N-G has not reprinted the entire AP article posted at Military.com.
> See link below for the entire article.
> I find this article chilling.  But I suppose it is better to know what  
> the Military mindset is regarding weapons and the use of them  To me  
> it sounds as if some are looking for ways to legalize killing and to  
> do so more effectively.
> This is front page news today in our local paper.  What does that  
> imply?
> This report seems so matter of fact.  That's what troubles me the most.
>  JAN K
>
>
> http://www.military.com/news/article/army-critics-debate-choice-of- 
> bullets.html?col=1186032310810
>
> Army, Critics Debate Choice of Bullets
> May 26, 2008
> Associated Press
>
>
> WASHINGTON - As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor,  
> a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a  
> lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
>
>  As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14.  
> The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past,  
> spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into  
> the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most Soldiers carry.
>
>  "Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was  
> definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and  
> left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."
>
>  Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan  
> and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.
>
>  The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot  
> in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an  
> enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to  
> Associated Press interviews.
>
>  Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds  
> of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different  
> targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place  
> in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's  
> battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda  
> Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and  
> run.
>
>  Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body  
> like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a  
> pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or  
> the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep  
> on fighting and even live to fight another day.
>
>  In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey  
> 2,600 Soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly  
> one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger  
> caliber bullets.
>
>  Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger  
> bullets, officials say.
>
>  "If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot  
> him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division  
> at Fort Benning, Georgia, home to the Army's infantry school.
>
>  At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention  
> in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how  
> much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been  
> produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense  
> request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million  
> (euro56 million) for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a  
> AAA battery.
>
>  None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a  
> retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq,  
> Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.
>
>  "The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't  
> do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are  
> lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his  
> 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.
>
>  Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in  
> Mogadishu, Somalia's slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter  
> hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.
>
>  "I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt," says Howe, a  
> retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army's elite Delta  
> Force. "The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came  
> from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn't faze  
> him."
>
>  With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds,  
> said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be  
> tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a  
> Soldier might get.
>
>  "The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a  
> room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him  
> down as fast as possible."
>
>  Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority  
> on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The  
> M4 rifle has a 14.5-inch (36.8-centimeter) barrel - too short to  
> create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to  
> the body.
>
>  "The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to  
> fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage.  
> It's that simple."
>
>  Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units  
> can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that  
> expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to  
> survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as  
> most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the  
> International Committee of the Red Cross.
>
>  The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies,  
> however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency  
> that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other  
> types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.
>
>  "It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military  
> personnel to use the same proven ammunition," Roberts says.
>
>  In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's  
> Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of Soldiers,  
> scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's  
> effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded  
> there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better  
> than the M855.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8119 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080527/5a487070/attachment.bin