Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on sopuli.xyz

20 replies

lemm.ee

On Ukraines side, but those nail bombs violate the Geneva Convention

22
slaacaareply
lemmy.world

I didn’t know that. What is the difference between this, and “built-in” shrapnel in explosives (from a legal perspective)? The end result is all the same after the explosion

16
kiagamreply
lemmy.world

Only think I know is that fragment size can't be too small, maybe you can argue that a nail is untested and thus can make micro fragments? Curious to know why this wouldn't be allowed

Edit: looks like there is a general ban on "unnecessary suffering or superfluous wounds", so if the nails are strong enough to injure but not kill, they are prohibited.

7
deegeesereply
sopuli.xyz

Increased lethality to the target is OK though

7
sh.itjust.works

Yeah, this topic is pretty crazy. I get banning nukes, and gassing, but shrapnal limitations?

4

Right so my understanding is something like fishhooks would be illegal because they’re shaped to maximize suffering, but these would be fine.

6

Let’s do some thorough testing then. For uh.. science

2
lemmy.one

The poor invading forces have an easy way to avoid it.

5

It's more like most states interpret it to allow reciprocity.

Can't handle the heat, don't start a fire, etc.

2

I'd imagine a thin 3d printed jacket filled with ball bearings will exponentially increase the amount of shrapnell, it this ghetto variant looks nasty too.

12

You reached the end

Gifts from the AFU for the "liberators" from the DPRK ... | Spyke