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

[John W.]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Jan & Durl Kruse <jandurl at comcast.net>
wrote:

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.
>
>
Yes.  And....?  Killing in the military context is already legalized.  And
if you're going to kill rather than be killed, it's best to kill more
effectively, isn't it?

Sure, it's chilling to talk dispassionately about killing in ANY context.
But killing is a science, like any other science.  There are principles that
apply and must be considered.



> This is front page news today in our local paper.  What does that imply?
>
>
"If it bleeds, it leads."



> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080527/7fe54c48/attachment.htm