Use of hollowpoint bullets in war after the Hague accords

[tipoc]

This post relates to an ongoing discussion about the use of hollow point pistol bullets after the signing of the Hague Accords of 1899 and 1907. These are the Conventions that banned the use of hollowpoint ammo in warfare. It has been pointed out before that the bans of certain weapons and practices (torture of prisoners for example) only applied to the nations that signed the accords or agreed to abide by them. The bans did not apply to nations that did not sign the accords or to colonies, territories, or enemies other than recognized governments. So...

In addition to the full metal jacket ball
cartridges, 9mm Parabellum has been
produced with a wide variety of hollow
point and and soft point loads. DWM
produced hollow-point truncated bullet
loads before World War I for use by it’s
colonial troops in Africa. Commercial
and police hollowpoint and soft point
loads have been in regular production
by many countries, but particularly by
the United States. There is even a
unique hollowpoint, softpoint bullet with
a sawtooth tip called a “Pingrabber”
used in the north-eastern US for the sport of shooting bowling pins

http://cartridgecollectors.org/documents/Introduction-to-9mm-Luger-Cartridges.pdf

It's often said that the Hague Accords forced the U.S. military to forgo the use of hollow point bullets in war and thus to rely on less effective ball ammo. But this opinion is not accurate. JHP ammo in the past was both more expensive, less reliable and less durable than ball ammo. This has begun to change in the last few decades. This in both long guns and short.

tipoc

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The Hague Conventions of 1907 are widely said to prohibit the use of hollow-point or expanding ammunition, but that's not exactly what the language of the accord says.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Scroll down about halfway, to Section II, Chapter 1, Article 23:

Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

 

[1911_Hardball]

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

Interesting.
If anything, that should be an argument in favor of expanding bullets.

 

[44 AMP]

If anything, that should be an argument in favor of expanding bullets.

Why apply 20th/21st century logic to a 19th century treaty??


its rather simple to understand, once you accept the principle that war is not about killing, it is about defeating the enemy, and honorable nations conduct war by rules.

Expanding bullets = bigger wounds. Bigger wounds = more suffering, therefore expanding bullets are banned.

So is poison...

However, its ok to BURN people to death,....

Those folks had some strange ideas by today's standards....

 

[zxcvbob]

Did the US ever ratify the Hague Convention treaty? (I don't think so)

If it was signed but never ratified, that creates an interesting situation where other nations think we are bound by it and we think we are not.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I believe the United States did not formally sign (or ratify) it, but I think we have said we will abide by the terms. That means other combatants are supposed to abide by it if we are in a conflict with them.

 

[tipoc]

Aguila is correct. With an exception.

Article 4 Section 3 of the 1899 agreement.

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,

Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,

Declare as follows:

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

he Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use of bullets which readily expand or flatten in the human body by national armies engaged in international warfare.

The U.S. ratified the first three articles of the 1899 Hague Convention but never signed Article IV. Additionally, Article IV, Section 3 states that the prohibition on the use of hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories. Even if the U.S.A. signed Article IV, the provisions wouldn’t apply to the United States unless fighting another signatory state.

A grey area of international law has always been the treatment of irregular fighters. The Great Powers did not appreciate participation by non-nation state actors in their conflicts. At the 1899 Hague Conference, the Martens Clause determined that non-uniformed insurgents were unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. This means that according to Hague, the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas. pirates and terrorists. SOCOM has used this to their advantage.

https://sofrep.com/gear/u-s-army-ad...,point rounds produce reliable incapacitation.

Finally catching up, current U.S. military lawyers argue that that the shift to jacketed hollow point (JHP) ammunition by conventional forces does not increase suffering and reduces risk to non-combatants.

Same source as above.

As 44 AMP said even where the signers agreed to not use hollow point ammo, they could still use bombs, cluster bombs, agent orange, napalm, white phosphorous, and worse as desired.

A number of nations, like Germany, used poison gas in combat in clear violation of the Accords. Not to mention the slaughter of millions in concentration camps during WWII.

The Hague accords covered a wide variety of things, many routinely forgotten.

tipoc

 

[SHR970]

The U.S. neither signed nor ratified the Hauge Accords nor the Geneva Conventions prior to they being incorporated into the U.N. Charter*. Prior to the UN Charter we stated that we would abide by them as long as the other side did as well. Hence the WW1 issue with US soldiers using "Riot Guns" vs. der Deutches Heer using Poision Gas.

Same goes for WWII U.S. vis a vis Imperial Japan and our later unrestricted warfare. The Emperor stated that they would abide but when it was clear that they did not all bets were off. That includes the Tokyo Firestorm, Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Even under the U.N. Charter the U.S. has not signed on to ALL of the provisions that are vestiges of both the Hauge and the Geneva as the out clauses were deleted in many of them. The "QUOTE / UNQUOTE" rules of war against irregular units are defined and JihadiJoe (as a recent case) are covered as either illegal combatants or spies. In either case neither are entitled to the protections or priviledges of the provisions.

 

[tipoc]

Such accords are most useful as political window dressing and as symbolic gestures to the opponents of certain aspects of warfare or colonial wars. Great ceremonies are held with trumpets and bunting, Presidents and Emperors turn out and declare a new day has arrived and warfare will soon be out and the terrible weapons banned.

Like other diplomatic agreements, think Climate Accords, and the agreement against the use of landmines, they are often little more than political campaigns to convince folks that they are doing something. Often, not always, but often.

By the time of the Hague Accords, hollowpoint bullets were largely gone as military ammo. Smokeless powder and new bullet designs (spitzer bullets) replaced bullets of lead or with exposed lead for warfare. Just as the treaty on landmines was signed as land mines were on the way out for modern warfare and regulated for fewer uses.

In general it isn't any commitment to the accords that prevent abuses of "the laws of warfare" (as well as the treatment of prisoners of war, children, etc.) but how much political and military pressure is brought to bear on the governments involved. Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas against the Kurds became a part of a political campaign to justify the invasion of Iraq and his overthrow. When heinous weapons, or methods are used there is a political price to be paid.

tipoc

 

[TXAZ]

In reality....
"History is written by the victors." So are war crimes trials.

 

[PocketCamera]

those rules only applied to ACTUAL governmental soldiers..... colonial troops didnt actually qualify as governmental soldiers.

ie the local militia raised by the colonial german Boer settlers didnt qualify as governmental troops, and i have seen some old writings that indicated british soldiers using soft point hunting ammo.

 

[Dfariswheel]

Apparently the US military has decided that the Accords do not ban hollow point expanding ammo, and are going to begin issuing hollow point expanding pistol ammo.

We've been using hollow point rifle and pistol ammo against terrorists, and now it's going to be increasingly issued to standard combat troops to increase the effectiveness of the 9mm pistol.

 

[globemaster3]

In the 2000s, I was issued 9mm HP ammo for use in an antihijacking role on the aircraft. If we were forced down, the lawyers instructed us that we should unload the HP and go back to ball. Not sure what today’s guidance is.

 

[jonjon00]

Apparently the US military has decided that the Accords do not ban hollow point expanding ammo, and are going to begin issuing hollow point expanding pistol ammo.



We've been using hollow point rifle and pistol ammo against terrorists, and now it's going to be increasingly issued to standard combat troops to increase the effectiveness of the 9mm pistol.

The only way to increase the effectiveness of a military issue 9mm is to remove and replace the operator.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk

 

[tipoc]

The U.S. has been using hollow point ammo for some time now.

Part of the adoption of the M17 was the adoption of new ammo, including JHP. You can read about that in the two pieces below.

What the Army was looking for, among other things, was a 9 mm load whose projectile would penetrate 14" of ballistic gelatin at 50 meters.

That would be military 20% ballistic gel.

The ammunition accompanying the M17 includes the M1152 FMJ and the M1153 Special Purpose loads. There are actually four, and they are described in part in government documents as: “Ball, Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP), Drilled Dummy Inert (DDI) and Blank.” While it is pretty obvious what the dummies and blanks are for—I’ll skip them—the uses for the M1152 and M1153 are given as “The Ball cartridge is intended for use against enemy personnel, for training, and for force protection. The JHP cartridge is required for use in situations where limited over-penetration of targets is necessary to reduce collateral damage.” In case you didn’t catch it, “Special Purpose” equals “jacketed hollow point.”

The Army’s lawyers determined that the use of hollow points by troops does not violate the Hague Convention of 1899. Army Col. Brian Stehle, who was the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons, was quoted in a military.com article, “We have a law of war determination that stated that this type of ammunition is usable.” Other “Special Purpose” rounds, including open tip match (OTM) and .45 JHPs have already been used by Special Operations troops for some time.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/23/m1152-m1153-the-army-s-new-9-mm-luger-loads/

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...rt-us-xm17-mhs-it-s-the-hollow-points-stupid/

As I've mentioned before they have used hollow point ammo in the past.

In the 90’s, U.S. Special Operations Command lawyers successfully argued that the Sierra 7.62 Matchking hollow point bullets and the Winchester .45 caliber 230 grain Jacked Hollow point were not designed to caused unnecessary suffering and these rounds were then fielded in combat.

Finally catching up, current U.S. military lawyers argue that that the shift to jacketed hollow point (JHP) ammunition by conventional forces does not increase suffering and reduces risk to non-combatants.

https://sofrep.com/gear/u-s-army-ad...,point rounds produce reliable incapacitation.

tipoc

 

[1911_Hardball]

its rather simple to understand, once you accept the principle that war is not about killing, it is about defeating the enemy, and honorable nations conduct war by rules.

Yes, I understand that.

Expanding bullets = bigger wounds. Bigger wounds = more suffering, therefore expanding bullets are banned.....

There is a tactical advantage to wounding rather than killing. Killing takes a combatant out of the fight. Wounding takes the the wounded out of action as well as those who have to care for and transport them however, strictly with regard to the issue of suffering, expanding bullets = bigger wounds. Bigger wounds = greater likelihood of death. Suffering ends at death therefore expanding bullets shouldn't be banned.....

 

[buck460XVR]

its rather simple to understand, once you accept the principle that war is not about killing, it is about defeating the enemy, and honorable nations conduct war by rules.

I remember a article in Popular Mechanics back in the 60s during the Vietnam conflict. They claimed that a wounded soldier was better than a dead one because of the effort and the amount of other personnel it took to retrieve them alive and keep them alive.

The rules of war are ignored by even the most honorable of nations. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are prime examples.

 

[44 AMP]

The rules of war are ignored by even the most honorable of nations. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are prime examples.

How do you figure Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples of violating the rules of war?

 

[tipoc]

The main reason for me starting this thread was that I think that the idea that the U.S. military was hampered, limited and weakened on the battle field in it's use of ammo for small arms, by the Hague accords, has been mistaken. We hear folks say this often but I don't think it's actually true. For the reasons stated here by a number of folks.

It's also the case that for the warfare that the U.S. fought during the 20th century FMJ bullets were much better bullets for warfare than any JHP or exposed lead bullets available, and for more reasons than price and durability, though those are valid reasons. There are exceptions for sniper rounds. It's only in this current century that the question becomes raised due to advances in bullet technology and reliability in the small arms in use.

A discussion of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are another threads worth of topic.

tipoc

 

[Hal]

It's also the case that for the warfare that the U.S. fought during the 20th century FMJ bullets were much better bullets for warfare than any JHP or exposed lead bullets available, and for more reasons than price and durability, though those are valid reasons.

Phillip Sharpe seems to lean towards that idea.
He has an interesting take on it in his 1937 book The Complete Guide to Handloading.


Later on - he mentioned something about how useless hollow points are - which surprised me at the time I read it, but, I can't seem to put my finger on exactly where it was he mentioned that.

It's sort of funny & sad @ the same time when he calls WWI - The Great War - since naturally, in 1937, WWII hadn't begun.

Anyhow - it's a great read.
You can get it here:
https://archive.org/details/Complete_Guide_to_Handloading_Sharpe_1937/page/n3/mode/2up