On Ukraines side, but those nail bombs violate the Geneva Convention
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
Some of those nails are rusty. It’s not hygienic.
TIL war is okay as long as you’re hygienic.
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.
Increased lethality to the target is OK though
Yeah, this topic is pretty crazy. I get banning nukes, and gassing, but shrapnal limitations?
Right so my understanding is something like fishhooks would be illegal because they’re shaped to maximize suffering, but these would be fine.
Let’s do some thorough testing then. For uh… science
Geneva Convention guidelines
Geneva Suggestions
Geneva spam pamphlets
The poor invading forces have an easy way to avoid it.
It’s more like most states interpret it to allow reciprocity.
Can’t handle the heat, don’t start a fire, etc.
<Citation needed>
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.
Absolute redneck engineering
mmm tetanus bomb
Tape loses tackiness in moist or humid conditions so before summer the UA will want to switch to steel plumber’s tape/pipe straps.
