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

[–] AnUnusualRelic 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Some of those nails are rusty. It's not hygienic.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

TIL war is okay as long as you're hygienic.

[–] kiagam 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Increased lethality to the target is OK though

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

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

[–] Docus 2 points 2 months ago

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

[–] LowtierComputer 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Geneva Convention guidelines

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Geneva Suggestions

[–] scemmy 2 points 2 months ago

Geneva spam pamphlets

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

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

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

[–] ikidd 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Do a google search next time