The Bullet Banned for Its Destructive Power
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 11. 2023
- Amidst the vast array of .50-caliber rounds, one name emerges from the shadows - the infamous Raufoss Mk 211, a true force to be reckoned with. This enigmatic ammunition, boasting a multipurpose anti-material high explosive incendiary/armor-piercing nature, possesses the ability to render moderate armored vehicles and helicopters helpless before its might. The fervor surrounding this munition has captivated military enthusiasts and experts alike, as its reputation precedes its every deployment.
However, its immense indiscriminate power comes at a cost, prompting certain governments to take action and ban its use when enemy troops are in the target area. Despite this, fervent debates persist, with some staunchly advocating for its continued presence on the front lines. In hushed tones, it has even been hailed as the ultimate .50-caliber round available in the market today.
While the allure of the Raufoss Mk 211 cannot be denied, the controversy surrounding its extraordinary potency has ignited a fiery discourse. The question lingers: should such a weapon of unparalleled destructive prowess be wielded, or is its restriction a necessary safeguard in the face of its awe-inspiring capabilities? As nations grapple with the dilemma, the legend of the Raufoss Mk 211 only grows, whispered amongst military circles with reverence and trepidation alike. - Věda a technologie
The idea of banning a BULLET in a time of artillery and guided bmunitions seems absolutely silly, no matter how effective it is.
Exactly.....weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
The idea that this bullet is the banned one, yet we are perfectly ok with using depleted uranium rounds on the battlefield and just leaving them there...But that small arms nuclear warfare is ok apparently
Common sense dictates that in a war you want what is best to kill an enemy with. So banning these baffles me.
Depleted uranium roads are not a radiological threat. The material is used because it’s dense
To a point unless you’re good with NBC warfare. As far as these rounds I would not want to shot with one. The restrictions against use against personnel is very reasonable.
No such thing as overkill when your life is on the line.
Exactly.....weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
Maxim 37:
There is no "overkill."
There is only "open fire!" and "reloading!"
-The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries
― Howard Tayler
@@nexpro6118 okay thanks for posting the same comment under every every comment
That’s not true. How about stop relying on war to solve problems all together and actually put in the real hard work. Creation will all ways take more energy than destruction. Destruction is easy fixing the problems and creating is hard.
Except we, the military, are not Mercenaries.
War is SUPPOSED to be horrible - and therefore avoided at all costs.
0.27 Lmao when the .22LR started falling while he's talking about a .50 cal incendiary high explosive round.
The whole video is full of the wrong calibers.
It’s a good thing our enemies respect all weapons bans.
😁😁😁
And never use human shields.
Ya right
@@jamespope2840 Aw c’mon now, where’s your optimism in humanity? 😂
The US and Israel are the most prolific war crime perpetrators and disregard international law more then anyone else on earth, with countries like Russia and China being known offenders too but to a substantially lesser degree.
I may have missed one earlier, but it took me until 9 minutes in to finally see a .50 weapon on a video about .50 ammunition.
You mean to say that that pile of 22LR _isn't_ HEI-AP?!? 😮😢😭
@@MostlyPennyCatI was chuckling about that one.
Someone has a sense of humor in the editing room.
Shows .30 cal machine gun
"The Barnet .50 cal" 😂
Banning this ammo is foolish as it is fighting with both hands tied behind your back. When comes to a fight for your life, the only way to not die, is to be meaner than the other guy. History proves this out!!!
We are talking about treaties with terms written by 1868 standards. Weapons that wouldn't win a given fight per se, but would lead to horrible, slow, painful deaths were deemed unsportsmanlike. This is 1800's European mentality after all. WWI total war doctrine hadn't been written yet, and even they had rules against hooked bayonets.
UFC with biting, eye gouging, nut ripping and hole tearing
I must say as a former orator and corporate spokesperson, your voice and diction are a huge reason I enjoy your channels, along with the contant. Thank you.
It's a bad ass round for defeating the enemie and the cover they use. Sounds like a win-win to me.
...weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
I mean, I get "No exploding bullets" on smaller rounds against soft targets. It would turn a probable would into a likely kill. It's a humanitarian thing. But .50 BMG (12.7mm) is so large a round, with so much muzzle energy, that hit against a soft target is a probable kill, regardless of secondary effect.
...weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
That's why you aim for canteens and other material equipment.
@@chia_pet7121🫶🏻
@@chia_pet7121yeah that's ok then hahaaaaaa
Kentucky Ballistics fired some PLASTIC .50cal training rounds at a ballistic gel dummy, and even that caused insane damage.
Granted, he was only maybe a dozen yards away at best, but again... a plastic bullet... 🥴
The call to ban it is more for when a vehicle gets set on fire and the occupants burn alive; inhumane deaths. Same for Napalm and White Phosphorus.
It was great to see this round again. I haven't seen the Raufoss Mk 211 since the late 2000's.
When I was in the army we were told you can't use 50 .cal against troops only equipment but uniforms and buttons and ID tags
And belt buckles are considered enemy equipment
I remember that also in the 80's but they use it now.
I was told that in the Army during my deployment to Iraq in 07-08, also. On my truck we had a 240B and the only couple of times we rolled out with an M2 I didn't have to use it. I doubt I would've been in trouble if I did use it, though, only if I didn't.
Same with the shotgun and doors wearing flip flops
The Emperor of North Korea uses it to execute people he doesn't like 50 cal machine gun
@@ifv2089hate them doors
You get hit by a 50 cal it probably won't matter how it's constructed.
In the 1960's my dad's friend Rudy had been in the German Army in the Ski Patrol in Norway. He was strafed by a P-51 Mustang and was hit in the calf and his thigh. It killed some of his fellow soldiers. He always limped. One time we went camping at a lake and I saw a very nasty scar on his leg and saw that his calf was missing a lot of muscle as if a shark but the flesh off, then it healed. The pair of 50BMG rounds passed through flesh only and did not hit bone. He said that he passed out in the cold from loss of blood and woke up in a field hospital lucky to be alive.
In the 1990's I got into 1000 yard shooting and had a 42 pound bull barreled bolt action target rifle chambered in .50BMG. We shot many things with it in the Nevada Desert. One shot broke a Chevy 6.2 diesel cylinder head in half. We enjoyed breaking 2 foot boulders into chunks with it. But the biggest disappointment was in shooting semi truck tires on rims. Where the rounds passed through the rubber, it looked like the area was stabbed with an ice pick...no hole. Where they hit the steel rim, there were holes right through the steel.
Wait....so we can have missiles and shells of insane size and destructive power, but bullets are bad? I'm missing something here
The reason there is a minimum weight for explosive rounds has to do with humane warfare. If you get hit by, as you call them "missiles and shells of insane size and destructive power" then you're pretty certain of a very quick if not instant death, while getting hit in the shoulder by a hypothetical explosive 5,56 round you might slowely bleed out while suffering from the combined effects of a bullet wound, shrapnel, and who knows what else. So obviously the former is quite humane, the latter is not. As a result, it is illegal in warfare to use explosive rounds with less than several hundred grammes of explosive in them against enemy fighters.
This video must set a new record for the ratio of totally unrelated contents. Looks more like an M240/FN MAG machineguns, 5.56mm ammo and even 40mm AGWs...
Yeah they sprinkled in a little 22LR as well. This channel lost me a long time ago.
I lol'd hard at the 22LR footage. 95% of the footage is totally irrelevant to the video.
@@Apophis-en9pi Ever see the movie Airplane? Every time they showed the jet from the outside it was making propeller plane noises.
@@bpm990d 😂
@@Apophis-en9pi In the overall picture, those 22LR rounds were just the icing on the cake../
Considering you put artillery shells in the thumbnail I can only guess they were banned to protect the shooter's shoulder.
At least it wasn't one of those 9mm bullets. You know that they can blow the lungs out of the body.
Worse video they have ever done. Show the fucking thing your talking about.
It was more about slow deaths and unnecessary pain by people already out of the fight. Remember that explosives in 1868 were a wee bit weaker than what is delivered nowadays.
The banned "bullets"
*shows nuke in the thumbnail* 😂
Combat and war should not be fair. Those that want it banned are already at a disadvantage.
It wasn't about fairness back in 1868. It was about the winners being burdened by horrific, tortuous deaths long after the battles were over.
It seems like the rules are to make it less heinous and easier to stomach, if it was all or nothing and everything goes then maybe politicians would think twice before starting them every two weeks for money.
yep time to bring back mustard gas, and Davey-Crockets.
I don’t understand banning this round when militaries utilize fragmenting artillery shells and other extremely devastating types of ammunition against personnel. It’s not like this was designed to inflict unnecessary suffering like pungi sticks or the like.
There is NO such thing as a round TOO potent. That is what all the research is about. Used to save your life and those around you is the whole idea. Bad guys should pick fights with OTHER people.
EXACTLY!!!! ...weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
The ar15 is designed to fire a bullet that "yaws" in a human body and leaves unpatchable wounds.
Apparently these bullets are allowed in the civilian market that's why this weapon is the weapon of choice for mass murders.
In fact this bullet is so destructive the Soviets designed the same thing for their AK74.
The old treaties were not about weapons that could kill even faster. Rather, it was about weapons that killed slowly, after the battle was already over, that were banned. Remember, explosives in 1868 were a little weaker than what modern explosives deliver.
@@brealistic3542 That statement was so bad, it wasn't even good enough to be wrong. A quick google shows that the AR-15 can be made into 12 different calibers, each with their own ballistic niche. For the most part, it's "tacticool" to have an AR-15 more than any other reason, though it isn't a slouch in actual performance. As for that garbage referred to the AK-74, you are misinformed. The AK74 was a Cold War upgrade to the AK-47, as the Soviets were trying to keep up with the NATO rifles in the 1970s.
These fools complained cuz the special .50 cal round caused too much damage? Um I think but I could be wrong, I don’t think any .50 cal round is gonna be gentle.
EXACTLY...weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
the bullet kills without hitting you. that`s the difference
Brah, have u not watched a single guntoobers video? Raufoss rounds are not thaaat crazy....
When a channel has buzzwords such as: "banned" or "destructive" or anything of the like; then shows a clip of 22LR cartridges bouncing around, it doesn't help credibility lol 8:37 for reference
He called it a m82 Barnett. Dark videos are a joke. He just reads press releases over stock footage.
I hate how much stock footage they use that has nothing to do with the subject matter.
This is crazy.
If you are hit by a .50-caliber round, you are DEAD, no matter what .50 caliber round you get hit with.
But this one makes you extra dead
the bullet kills without hitting you. that`s the difference
“You can only use that round on equipment!”
“…..That dude’s wearing a canteen…”
*WHUMP*
For certain weapons, phosphorus etc, I can see the need for a ban considering the savage nature of the damage inflicted on people. However for a round like this I think it would save more livews than it would take. I mean given that it is so potent against vehicles and the like it would make the attackers more circumspect in their willingness to advance thereby reducing overall the amount of casualties generated. It is more of a deterant round in the way I look at it.
...weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
My first thought was the American sniper who took out a Taliban machine gun team consisting of 3 people with one of these rounds who where hiding behind a wall. He loaded and fired and all him and his spotter saw was the wall behind them turn red, he took out all 3 and saved the lives of the troops on the ground. Think he was enjoying the enemy for about 12 hours that day. Typical of people who have never been in a fire fight or never served to say what can/can’t be used.
Flamethrowers ore banned, but given that all but the truly suicidal would choose running away rather than being burned alive, you can reasonably argue that they are a very strong deterrent.
If you want to talk about savage and/or inhumane weapons, look at the photos from WWI and WWII showing those wounded (read: horrifically maimed) by artillery.
@@nexpro6118 "Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time"? Oh, you mean like someone assuming what another person has or hasn't done in their life and insulting them based on your preconceived notion? I agree, that is weird. How do you know I haven't served or otherwise had experience with firearms? Also it was only my thoughts and an opportunity for discussion. It wasn't a request for an arse to insult me and give me grief just for the fun of it.
The ORCS are using white phosphorous ordinance in Ukraine today. Did anyone happen to remind them of this rule ? I didn’t think so !
War is hell. It's all about killing the enemy and tearing up all their stuff. Banning a weapon or type of ammo that makes this task easier seems like an oxymoron to me.
Okay, what is the purpose of firing a bullet at a person?? To kill or at least disable that person. This ammo just happens to be extremely effective at its purpose. Enough said!
Banning never works as intended and won't stop it's use.
The nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has been a great success. Excuse me, lost my mind for a moment 🤣
Stupid suggestion, let’s ban war and we won’t have to worry about the most effective way to shred a person or annihilate a group of soldiers in one Big Bang. I know it’s stupid and definitely out of the question in this day and age due to the $$$$ which would be lost, Silly Me !
When I was in the army in 1977 - 79 in Germany we had been firing .50 cal. armor piercing incendiary rounds on the range. Someone brought one of those rounds back to the barracks, and we nipped its nose off the bullet and dug out all the incendiary powder in the tip of the round. When we fired incendiary rounds downrange it looked like no more than a little spark when the rounds impacted. So we touched off the incendiary round, and we were amazed at the size of the flash when the powder caught fire. Luckily, no one was hurt. We took extra special care in removing all the evidence of the incident because the army hates it when soldiers meddle with military grade rounds. We'd have been in big trouble if we were caught.
Maaaan, we got .21 seconds in before we saw an actual .50 cal... 😂 Just bustin your chops. 👍
I want our troops to have every advantage.
Then stop invading other countries
They say it wont explode when it hit humans. But i have used it with a M2 on a ship when i was in the navy, and you could often see flashes when it hit the water. And the human body is 80% water so i would think it has about the same effect on a body. Plus a soldier has a lot of hard surfaces to hit like magazines and body armor that would defiantly cause it to explode.
I'm not so sure this is completely accurate
The point is effectiveness and ability to destroy the enemy. That's literally the purpose of weapons.
I've only seen a minute and I have to say that ban is beyond ridiculous. Like someone else said, we have artillery and guided ammunitions. Not to mention atom bombs. How does this make any kind of sense? I think hollow points are also banned, that kind of makes more sense because it splinters and medics are at a loss in that case.
1) US SOCOM saw effective use of the Raufoss Mk211 50 BMG from the Norwegian military and approached NAMMO for a contract to be supplied ammo.
2) US gov had Lake City ammunition plant be licensed to manufacture their version.
3) The cost is more closer to $20. The $75 is what civilian people in US pay if they know where to look.
As someone who works 50 cal bullets at LCAAP we in fact do not make that bullet, we get them shipped to us and then make the completed cartridge with our cases.
Isn't the objective, he who has the best weapon wins? Why are people in the killing business upset that this may be too much of a good thing?
We aren't. Politicians are.. mostly because the media makes the public upset...
Exactly...weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
Yeah ban this bullet, but depleted uranium is fine. A round made from U238 is slightly radioactive and has an added feature of being both armor piercing and incendiary. Like magnesium u238 catches fire and cooks the crews of tanks, apc's etc... so....
The announcer called the Barret M82 the "Barnet M82". Must not be a gun guy as most firearms enthusiasts wouldn't mispronounce that name in particular.
An AI voice without the I part?
World War I Germany accused the US of war crimes for using shot guns. "War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." US General
William Tecumseh Sherman
Well. I saw a .22 long rifle, .223 in a SAW, .308 and one .50 BMG mark2. Good thing I know the difference. A “RAUFUSS” made by NAMMO is simply a Armor piercing, in cinerary HE round. Tracer and non tracer. A very good round. We shoot grey tips all the time! The HAUGE also banned .50 bmg on use against people! So who cares!
The treaty of The Hague does not ban .50 BMG use on people, so you're incorrect there. And if your dumb ass thinks "who cares", well the International Criminal Court does, not to mention breaking the rules of war opens up the legal opportunity to the enemy to do the exact same.
Who would've thought a bullet in a war could ever in a million years be a "danger to personnel"
I enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
The geneva convention bans any bullet except Full Metal Jacketed rounds from being used aganist personnel. It used to ban explosive rounds under 30mm, but I guess that one has been superceeded or everybody is ignoring it.
That said, I've noticed a lot of stuff being used in special ops that don't seem to hold to the rules.
Actually, it's The Hague convention. And USA wasn't a signatory.
We had 12 ga shotguns loaded with buckshot when I was in the US Army. Vietnam era. Very effective .
@@formericeDid you happen to mean flechettes?
@@formerice...as a belt buckel type weapon; it would be effective in a CQB situation. Especially if fitted with the duck tail muzzle
Those that don't have it want it banned.!
Exactly.......weird how the people who have never been in a gun fight, are the ones who say/write how gun fights are/go and how a person in a gun fight should react lol. Pretty ignorant AND arrogant at the same time
@@nexpro6118 What makes you think those who wrote the The Hague treaty had no military experience, did you meet them?
@@pieterveenders9793 umm...we have these devices today that allows us to look up ANYTHING we want for free....all it takes Is a few minutes of your time to self educate with research, rather than only using that device I talked about to be on social media and look at porn....
Raufoss M211 is frigging awesome stuff. Its a blast to use..
You are showing for the most part 30 cal m240's not m2 50 cal. Research your subject better. This a poor representation of this round
I agree totally
I also don't believe they are banned
He does it for clout
For people like us to talk and comment more so the algorithm shows it more and he or she or they them or anything. Js
Its stock footage. This is how these videos work. Calm down.
I'm sorry but, I was rolling laughing at the occasional mix of falling .22LR video bullets when talking about this uber 50 BMG ammo. 🤣
A weapon so powerful it makes an enemy not want to fight any more is a safe and sane way to end a war. It is also a statement that says the house of a strong warrior is safe from attack
“ No your honor, this is an anti material weapon . I would never use it on a person. I was shooting at his canteen, sir.”
20mm version called” the ex wife”❤
A person hit by a 12.7mm round, is not going to notice what kind of round it is. Even a 12.7mm near miss, causes injuries. I think the ICRC, needs to stay out of combat "ideas", as they have no clue.
Space Marine: Why are you guys so bothered about my pistol ammo?
The St. Petersburg accords banned specific rounds because they were considered inhumane.They tended not to kill immediately, but maimed leading to a horrific and slow death. Which I believe was the intent. Wounded soldiers can overwhelm an enemy in ways, including morale, that just outright killing them doesn't. The goal wasn't to decrease killing or stop war it was to have less wounded around to deal with. So, in essence, yes war is inhumane, but we don't want it to be this inhumane.
Looking at the MK 211 and how it functions, I cannot picture it leaving more people wounded than a standard round but being the exact opposite. It would kill those that would be wounded by a standard round.
I don't remember who said it, but "The only way to make warfare more humane is to win quickly." (something close to that) Seems like this might do that. Or not, with both sides using it.
This isn't the first time we have banned a weapon because it's too mean to our enemies.
Exquisite irony.
As a former TC would be my Ammo of choice!
Makes no sense banning it when the people you fight will use it against you anyway.
The UN should restrict the sale of that round to ONLY UN military’s.
To prohibit it's use against infantry, when they are trying to kill you, seems ridiculous when they can be lobbing mortars at you. Are these bullets more destructive than 60mm mortars, or even grenades from an mk19, that are also used against soldiers? In war, you're trying to kill your enemy before they kill you, but these bureoaucrats seem to be arguing that it's unseemly to kill them too quickly or effectively.
liberals moving at full speed. being competent as per usual
Winning in battle is a war crime.
Why ban something if it is effective against the enemy?
In the movie Hyena Road, when the SF guys are on the hillside shooting at the potential IED and the leader tells their sniper to load a Rufus, he was referring to this round. The Raufoss MK-211 so it could punch through the pavement and dirt, into the buried munition and ignite it from inside, thus detonating the IED from a safe standoff distance.
So it's ok with big bullets (artillery, missles) but not so much with small bullets? Sounds more like big governments who have a big grip on tanks and aircraft, etc. but not so much on what can be moved around on persons?
Tell the Terrorists They Cannot Use Them !
Whatever happened to the saying "All Things are Fair in Love and War"...???
"War is hell" quoted some famous General...
What do they refer to a .50 BMG round while showing .22LR, .556, .762 caliber weapons?
The Mk 211 round is not "banned" by any current treaty the US is a signatory of. It is still in common use by all branches of the US DOD. The title of the video is either an unintentional or intentional lie on the part of the author.
Dear Mr Dark. You've really outdone yourself with hyperbole in your intro here. Well-played, sir(?)
Nice film 🙂
Norway here, our ammunition is widely known. Please talk about Kongsberg Automotive and Nammo aswell🇧🇻
Banned for its destructive power, you must be talking about the .223! I mean it will “blow a hole through your stomach if you’re shot,” and the weapon of war that shoots it “weighs as much as 10 boxes!” Oh your talking about actual large caliber bullets that explode on impact, oh ya that actually makes more sense
This is like sovietwombles doomsday ammo in Arma, when his squad found out the doomsday ammos description of "eliminates cover" during a mission.
It seems dumb to be going after a round of ammo that is a small variant of a family of explosive rounds much bigger and used against soldiers rather than what it was originally made for taking out armour
Funniest Boot Camp lecture EVER:
"It's against the Geneva Convention, to shoot (people/combatants... ) with a .50 cal!
And you can't say that you were "just aiming athe their gear!"
Like their cargo belt, helmet or canteen!"
Meanwhile...
"CHECK OUT THESE RECORD-BREAKING SNIPPER SHOTS WITH THE .50 CAL (ON PEOPLE)!"
Worried about the moral and ethical issues regarding weapons of war is a paradox.
They want people to fight nice.
@danor6812 Killing is violent, bloody, and ugly. So "nice" is a problem.
That is a serious round.🇺🇸
It would be nice to mention that the Raufoss is .50 caliber and not used in any of the small arms. It's main use is for light armored vehicles.
When we “limit” the uses of our ammunition this is by design “discriminatory” and “discrimination” is never alright
Some dude thinking a millisecond before an artillery shell spreads him over a quarter-mile radius: _"thank God I wasn't hit with a 50-cal... that might've been fatal."_
Geneva convention: you can kill, but with less damage 😂😂😂😂😂
I gave you a thumbs up because the information was interesting. The presentation has some work to do.
In war you fight to win and this is a battle winner 🏆
the smallest changes can make a huge difference in war when they introduced the acog optic the marines got accused of war crimes they thought we were executing people because it turned your average shooter into a headshot machine every time
Amazing how John Moses Browning invention can be so good even today
Would the rounds incedery be detonated by a soft target. Do they have to hit something hard to activate ?
Generally a harder target to be reliable, but they work against soft targets most of the time.
Given the fact that war is already illegal, one would think that the munitions used would be irrelevent.
War is only illegal if you lose
If you're shot by a basic 50 bmg you're dead, if you're shot by this fancy round you're even deader? Eh?
In war you do what you have to do, but i wouldn't wish a phosphorus round on my worst enemy.
That's just ridiculous. There's no way to use this ammunition without affecting personnel
I noticed some inaccurate information between about 00:01 to 10:09.
It's Barrett, not Barnet. I get the feeling I'm taking the "correction comment" bait, but oh well.
$75 a round?!!!!! Did I hear that right?
1. In a kill-or-be-killed situation, no one cares what are they using to survive a fight.
2. Given the ruthless opponents such as terrorists and those who don`t respect humanitarianism, being soft to the enemy is being cruel to your friends and family. War is not a game or a competition, any enemy who gets spared will go back to fight against you, your friend, and your family. The next confrontation can easily result in your own death or the death of those you care about.
Safety and protection(whatever is for yourself or family) come at a price and war doesn`t have any law.
I'd say the $75/round cost eliminates it for any kind of general anti-personnel use. Would make for an expensive war and no benefit for anti-personnel over a regular 50BMG round, or something smaller. I like how the video had a bunch of 22lr rounds at 0:30 though!
The want to ban this ammunitions while bombs, rockets, and artillery grenades are fallowed.
Maybe the problem is that when firing a bullet, the shooter is aiming at individuals, while launching a rocket or grenade, the target is a group of people.
Understand it, those who can.
Soft point bullets are banned in war. Seeing the damage they do to deer I can understand why; however, the point in war is to eliminate the enemy. Soft points anywhere in the human body would be fatal as would most extremities.
If you think warfighring is about equally-matched opponents, you are very mistaken. The bigger the advantage one has over their opponent, the better - which is obvious to everyone except politicians, apparently.
should a powerfuil round be used, yes.
Wait, how is a bunker a soft target?
You're not supposed to ban a weapon until both sides have it.
the same countries using cluster munitions are talking about banning a bullet?