Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
with them.

Urban myth, I think, growing out of it being both technically illegal
and practically pointless to fire the .50" spotting rifles for 106mm
recoilless rifles at people (it fired explosive rounds designed to make
an obvious flash when they hit the tank you were aiming for, hence
violating Hague rules).

I've heard stories about how you had to claim you were shooting a .50"
Browning at the enemy's web gear or helmets or rifles and it was just
too bad their bodies got in the way. However, I've got the UK tactical
guidance for the .50" heavy machine gun at work, and it's almost
enthusiastic in its description of the effects on personnel as well as
light armoured vehicles, soft-skinned transport, patrol boats and even
helicopters and aircraft if you manage a hit. Doesn't sound like there
are legal worries about firing .50" machineguns at people in the UK.

(*Please* don't shoot one at me. They sound like very effective weapons.
I would hate to have to go through the trouble of cowering and appeasing
you at the time to persuade you to stop, and then hunting you down and
killing you later )

Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?

I daresay a lawyer could take the case, and even that there were
instances of illegality (where a pilot didn't land pre-strike and get
signed declarations from everyone who might be hit that 'I agree that I
am (delete as applicable) (a) an active armed member of the Viet Cong
who will be carrying my weapon when this airstrike hits, (b) a uniformed
soldier of the North Vietnamese Army, (c) so strongly sympathetic to
those groups that I directly supply aid and comfort to them'.

Technically, without those signed declarations from every single person
you might possibly injure with your strike, you're potentially a war
criminal for not taking all possible precautions to protect
noncombatants. However, I don't think you'd get a case out of it. The
GCs require you to try to avoid noncombatant casualties where they would
be disproportionate to the military results, not to eschew them
completely. (As a data point, notice how few civilians were killed per
ton of bombs dropped when the B-52s hit Hanoi in late 1972)


Bear in mind that the US and UK were attacked for "illegally" using
cluster munitions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. While there have
been cries that assorted Presidents, secretaries of states and senior
air marshalls will be prosecuted and sentenced to life at hard labour
for their wickedness, none of these claims have amounted to much more
than hot air.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk