(no subject)
Last year we visited our friend in Connecticut. . .there not far from her house was a old ww2 Duster tank. I actually have some pictures of it that I took. But here is another picture, this is what it looked like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster
Well that 40mm gun sure has stood the test of time. Originally designed as an anti-aircraft gun, the Duster guns where found to be great against incoming enemy troops! When used in Vietnam against troops, the soldiers found they where very effective! Well the reason I write about the Duster guns is that I am a big opponent of what I call "meat chunk weapons". Just call it a MCW, for short. Boys and girls, the lesson for today is that a MCW is any weapon that simply turns humans into unidentifiable meat chunks. Yes, when a human being is hit directly with a 40mm explosive round, the body is turned into hamburger, usually almost unidentifiable as a human being, except for the occasional finger or toe left smoldering on the battlefield.
As a veteran in the US Navy, I am aware of the kinetic energy of large caliber weapons. I know they are powerful. With that understanding, why don't I like MCW's (meat chunk weapons)? Well first of all their used to be this thing called honor in battle. You used to honor the dead or wounded, maybe even give them a decent burial. Things like MCW leave little to honor. If they don't kill you, the fragments of a MCW round will certainly cause you great suffering. So what is the big fuss? Don't we have bigger weapons that kill people? Yes we do. . . but most of those big weapons are supposed to blow up THINGS, not people. Bombs are usually used to destroy a building (and those inside it).
The problem:
The problem with MCW's is that no one really knows what they are for. Some say they are to "soften up a target". Others say they are to kill people. Others say they should only used against buildings (and ok if people are in them). But the problem is, they are historically shown to do one thing well. . .kill people. Now in war we want to kill people right? Or is it that we want to convince them to surrender? If we want to convince them to surrender, the problem with MCW use is that the enemy will know you have no compassion. . .why should they surrender? You are turning their fellow soldiers into smoked jerky!
The problem I see is that long ago, the Geneva convention said that we should not cause undo suffering in war. But the writers knew this wasn't going to happen, so they didn't make any strict rules against certain weapons. I believe these weapons should have rules. The are so inhumane it's not even funny. The government loves them, the soldiers love to shoot them. The problem is there are no rules on what these things are used for. The design is both to destroy and burn targets. So you hit a target, it blows up, and the incendiary nature of the weapon continues to burn the victims. Or wait, is it to burn the building? Again no one has rules on what these weapons are used for.
Now fast forward to 2008. The air force uses the 40mm guns in the ac130 gunship. The Army uses them in 40mm machine guns on the battlefield. They are so popular that the Army even has 40mm grenade launchers for troops. Yes they are popular and we use them alot on people.
What do you think these weapons should be used for? Should there be rules on these weapons? Should they not even be used in many cases where humans will be the victims? I would say yes.
Government wants 250,000 more bullets for the meat chunk weapons.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85e03da6406cd47fad7e073ae90035b4&tab=core&_cview=1
40mm grenade launcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M42_Duster
Well that 40mm gun sure has stood the test of time. Originally designed as an anti-aircraft gun, the Duster guns where found to be great against incoming enemy troops! When used in Vietnam against troops, the soldiers found they where very effective! Well the reason I write about the Duster guns is that I am a big opponent of what I call "meat chunk weapons". Just call it a MCW, for short. Boys and girls, the lesson for today is that a MCW is any weapon that simply turns humans into unidentifiable meat chunks. Yes, when a human being is hit directly with a 40mm explosive round, the body is turned into hamburger, usually almost unidentifiable as a human being, except for the occasional finger or toe left smoldering on the battlefield.
As a veteran in the US Navy, I am aware of the kinetic energy of large caliber weapons. I know they are powerful. With that understanding, why don't I like MCW's (meat chunk weapons)? Well first of all their used to be this thing called honor in battle. You used to honor the dead or wounded, maybe even give them a decent burial. Things like MCW leave little to honor. If they don't kill you, the fragments of a MCW round will certainly cause you great suffering. So what is the big fuss? Don't we have bigger weapons that kill people? Yes we do. . . but most of those big weapons are supposed to blow up THINGS, not people. Bombs are usually used to destroy a building (and those inside it).
The problem:
The problem with MCW's is that no one really knows what they are for. Some say they are to "soften up a target". Others say they are to kill people. Others say they should only used against buildings (and ok if people are in them). But the problem is, they are historically shown to do one thing well. . .kill people. Now in war we want to kill people right? Or is it that we want to convince them to surrender? If we want to convince them to surrender, the problem with MCW use is that the enemy will know you have no compassion. . .why should they surrender? You are turning their fellow soldiers into smoked jerky!
The problem I see is that long ago, the Geneva convention said that we should not cause undo suffering in war. But the writers knew this wasn't going to happen, so they didn't make any strict rules against certain weapons. I believe these weapons should have rules. The are so inhumane it's not even funny. The government loves them, the soldiers love to shoot them. The problem is there are no rules on what these things are used for. The design is both to destroy and burn targets. So you hit a target, it blows up, and the incendiary nature of the weapon continues to burn the victims. Or wait, is it to burn the building? Again no one has rules on what these weapons are used for.
Now fast forward to 2008. The air force uses the 40mm guns in the ac130 gunship. The Army uses them in 40mm machine guns on the battlefield. They are so popular that the Army even has 40mm grenade launchers for troops. Yes they are popular and we use them alot on people.
What do you think these weapons should be used for? Should there be rules on these weapons? Should they not even be used in many cases where humans will be the victims? I would say yes.
Government wants 250,000 more bullets for the meat chunk weapons.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85e03da6406cd47fad7e073ae90035b4&tab=core&_cview=1
40mm grenade launcher