订阅以下载
gamerside's XM25

my guy's over in the steam comments section of a niche mod for a niche game arguing the legal definition of a grenade. chill out and enjoy the mod.

great mod, now I've got a use for low str, high acc and decent TU units that aren't just "scout"

I made this mod because I liked the idea of accurate higher velocity grenade launchers, essentially real life 40k bolters. Not to endlessly try to hammer information inside your skull futility hoping you would learn something, but I wasted my time by not listening to the age old advice of "don't argue with idiots". fuck off, I will not waste my time arguing with you any longer.

summary: "The State practice cited is insufficient to support a conclusion that the broad
proposition suggested by Rule 157 has become customary: examples of operational
practice are limited to a handful of instances; a significant number of the examples
do not support the Rule; and the cited practice utilizes definitions of ‘‘war crimes’’
too divergent to be considered ‘‘both extensive and virtually uniform’’."

conclusion: "The United States selected these rules from various sections of the Study, in an
attempt to review a fair cross-section of the Study and its commentary. Although
these rules obviously are of interest to the United States, this selection should not
be taken to indicate that these are the rules of greatest import to the United States"

...good god this guy is an idiot, this is an exercise in futility. the US doesn't care. it was never a consideration to cancel XM25, the goal of the XM25 was to be deadlier by accurately air bursting a shell on top or beside an enemy. it being a "war crime" to explode inside an enemy would make other weapons a war crime by direct impacting a human such as a rocket launcher, grenade launcher, 20mm rounds, and other similar weapons. go shut the fuck up, here's a source for good mesure you dipshit: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_866_11.pdf

In 2007, the Legal Adviser for the US Department of State John B Bellinger III and the General Counsel for the US Department of Defense William J Haynes II jointly provided an initial response to the ICRC’s 2005 study on behalf of the US Government, which provided numerous objections from the US Government to the rules the ICRC proposed.[121] The joint statement focused a significant portion of its content on Rule 78 of the ICRC’s study dealing with exploding projectiles, which states: ‘The anti-personnel use of bullets which explode within the human body is prohibited.’[122] The joint statement asserted that only anti-personnel projectiles that are specifically designed to explode within the human body are illegal under customary international humanitarian law, and it asserts that all other projectiles that ‘could, under some circumstances, explode in the human body (but were not designed to do so)’ are not illegal.

In 2001, the US asserted that ‘there is no valid military requirement for a bullet designed to explode upon impact with the human body.’[119] These latter views are reflected in the 2007 joint statement of the US Department of State and the US Department of Defense discussed in the following paragraphs of this section.[120]

You're right, it's not about the weight for the 40mm, it's about it's intended use, I'll past part of the pertinant part for that but if you read through the XM25 Individual Semi-Automatic Airburst Weapon System and International Law, it lays out why the XM25 was said to breach the St Petersburg Declaration and why other weapons don't, it's a mix of intended use and poorly chosen words in the description of the weapon system.

[A] projectile that will explode on impact with the human body would be prohibited by the law of war from use for anti-personnel purposes. This remains the view of the US.[117]

Again, in the 2000 update to the legal review of an exploding projectile, the US Army reiterated this position against the legality of exploding projectiles:

[T]he considerable practice of nations during this century suggests that States accept that an exploding projectile designed exclusively for antipersonnel use would be prohibited, as there is no military purpose for it.[118]

@discoplumber you are a dumbass
https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/TM-43-0001-28-1994.pdf#page=600 weight is listed as 0.503 lb,
also known as 228 grams.

40mm Grenades are not under the 400 grams stipulated in the St Petersburg declaration and so it does not apply to those, this isn't hard to understand, it's not about the destructiveness of the grenade, it's about if it meets the definition described in the law.