|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 关于“达姆弹” |
 |
云儿
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
忙了好几天，上来读了楼下老芦文章，其中谈到，关于六四事件，“至少那‘达姆弹’之说已经被马悲鸣先生证伪。”这个正好以前我查过一些资料，有些不同看法。
马悲鸣的说法，我个人觉得同他的一贯风格差不多，属于寓创见于谬误的那种。他那篇《就所谓“国际法禁用开花弹”致蒋彦永医生的公开信》中，关于六四时军队没有使用开花弹的证明，是完全错误的，也就是讲他并没有证伪“开花弹”之说。但是有一点他却是对的，这就是，纯从专业和技术的角度衡量，六四军队就算使用了开花弹和爆炸弹，看起来也不算违背专业和国际标准。
下面简单列举一下他的主要论点和我的评论：
(1) 国际法只禁止使用开花弹，不禁止使用爆炸弹 - 错误！
无论是扩张型弹头还是粉碎型弹头，都是国际法明文禁止在国际武装冲突中使用的。扩张型弹头相当于我们俗称的“开花弹”，其设计在进入目标后通过扩张增加截面直径。而粉碎型弹头则相当于俗称的爆炸弹，命中目标后会碎裂，阻迫力高但穿透力很低。
(2) 扩张型弹头或所谓开花弹已不再生产 - 错
狭义的达姆弹指的是一种在印度达姆-达姆兵工厂发展出来的英国军用弹头，早已不再生产了。但是许多被国际法禁止在战场上使用的扩张型弹头和粉碎型弹头，却仍在生产，理由如下述。
(3) 美国警察和打猎用枪弹常使用爆炸弹 - 对，但不全面。
美国警察和打猎用枪弹不仅有粉碎型弹头，而且也常常使用扩张型弹头，即开花弹。
国际法虽然禁止在国际战争中使用开花弹或爆炸弹，却不禁止在其他场合使用。不仅美国和欧洲警察使用的枪弹也常有开花弹，而且几乎所有打猎用的步枪弹头都要求是开花弹，和目标接触要扩张。
国际武装冲突中禁止用开花弹，有一个人道原因，就是它们会造成大量的过度不必要的伤害。但是从技术上讲，实心弹也有优于开花弹的地方，如它穿透力强，能准确及远，适合远距离射击等等。在战场上可以假定目标后面还是敌人，因此穿透力强就是优点。再者，子弹经过远距离飞行，会有摆动震颤，也会象开花弹那样扩大创伤面。
至于警察使用开花弹，人们常提到的理由有二。其一，如马悲鸣所说，开花弹不易贯穿，在近距离民事场合，可避免对目标背后的人产生二次杀伤。其二，警察开枪，只是在迫不得已的情况下使用，通常是为了迅速制止歹徒攻击。不用开花弹，可能需要打许多枪，才能达到必要的制止效果；而用开花弹，常常只要一枪就能达到同样目的。就致命性而言，打很多枪实心弹，与打一枪开花弹，其实区别不大。这样，一旦确定开枪是必要的，使用开花弹就不好说是“过度不必要伤害”。
当然，也有不少人反对上述观点，很担心警察不当使用开花弹的后果。欧洲议会属下的一个特别委员会在1998年提出的报告中指出，扩张型弹头杀伤力强，致命率高，对部份中枪的嫌犯来说，几乎等于不经审判而执行死刑，因此要考虑对警察单位使用开花弹进行管制。美国新泽西州也立法禁止在民用场合用开花弹手枪。不过这些尚未演变成完全禁止扩张型弹头的潮流。
(4) 六四时军队没有使用开花弹 - 不成立
马悲鸣以国际禁用的开花弹已不再生产，作为六四时军队没有使用开花弹的证据，显然不能成立。许多人包括蒋医生都指认有死伤者疑似为开花弹所害。至于具体情况究竟如何，尚需进一步证据才能定论。
(5) 六四时军队使用的枪弹并不违背专业对口的标准 - 可以成立
客观地讲，与西方警察的枪械相比，即使军队使用了开花弹，也不算违背了专业和国际标准，理由已如上述。当然这只是纯从专业和技术角度而言。六四的问题，并不是使用什么枪弹的问题，而是开枪是否必要的问题。在没有必要开枪的场合，还要使用杀伤力极大的开花弹，是不可容忍的。
下面是一篇讨论开花弹的英文文章，摘自美国安德森学院的武器控制教材：
"Humane" and Expanding Bullets
The idea of making the shooting of another human being (however legally or
morally justified the shooting may be in defense of innocent life) "humane"
is arguably as oxymoronic as the idea of making firearms "safe." Reflection,
of course, allows that the "humaneness" and the "safeness" of deadly weapons
is relative: firearms and their employments or effects can be more or less "safe" or "humane." But that relativity is crucially a function of the human operator. Firearms and their ammunition are designed for lawful users and
(sporting uses aside) for those worstcase occasions when they are employed
justifiably against wrongful aggressors. For all lawful defensive
employments, bullets are intended to injure and to injure maximally; there is
nothing kind, gentle or humane about deliberate injury with a firearm, even
though the proper intent of a justifiable shooting of another human being is
neither to kill nor to wound gratuitously, but simply to stop wrongful
hostile action. Defensive ammunition is designed for maximal "stopping"
effect in justifiable shootings; it is not designed as some sort of
felicitous compromise between minimal and maximal injuriousness just in case
it should be inadvertantly or wrongfully, rather than justifiably, employed.
The idea that ammunition should be devised to minimize human hurt and injury
in case it is irresponsibly employed or the wrong human gets shot is both
seriously ignorant of the technological possibilities and seriously confused
about the essential nature of the tool and, more importantly, about the
residence of responsibility for its use and effects. The impetus to find more
humane ways of forcibly and effectively subduing wrongful and lethal threats
to the innocent has arguably reached the point of diminishing returns with
current firearms technology; the effort is better directed to investigating
the futuristic field of "less lethal" coercive technology (to which research
funded by the National Institute of Justice is duly devoted).
Nonetheless, the idea of making gun-shot wounds more humane, on its face, is
also difficult to fault. It is important to be specific about the ways
proposals for achieving this laudable goal are often misguided. New Jersey,
for example, prohibits the use of expanding, hollow-point handgun ammunition
by civilians, and such a ban was urged at the national level in 1993 when a
particular brand of hollow-point bullet, fearsomely labelled the Black Talon,
was alleged to be excessively destructive of human tissue and, therefore,
inhumane. Part of the objection to the Black Talon bullet was also the
liklihood that its jacket would fragment and endanger surgical personnel
clearing the wound channel (an appreciable concern in the era of AIDS),
but this is a potential liability of any hollow-point bullet (and there are
methods for safely locating and extracting bullets fragments). The
alternative to the wide variety of expanding, hollow-point (HP) bullets, and
the one mandated for handgun ammunition sold to civilians in New Jersey, is
the full-metal jacket (FMJ) or "hardball" bullet of military fame. The HP
typically also has at least a metal semijacket (SJHP), but the lead core is
exposed at the nose and hollow (and, often, prefragmented) to some depth in
order to facilitate expansion; whereas the lead core of the FMJ, as its name
implies, is completely enveloped in a metal jacket except at the base.
Consequently, FMJ's tend to penetrate tissue farther than HP's as a function
of their not expanding beyond their unfired diameter, such that the
penetration of FMJ's can result in the complete perforation of a human body,
thereby creating a hazard to someone behind the target. To put the tactical
and wound-ballistic issues between expanding and FMJ ammunition in
perspective, some history is helpful.
An early brand of expanding bullet was developed and manufactured at the
British Dum Dum Arsenal located near Calcutta, India, and used by the British
on India's northwest frontier and in the Sudan in 1897 and 1898. The dumdum
(as it came to be called) was a jacketed .303 caliber rifle bullet with the
jacket nose left open to expose the lead core and enhance bullet expansion.
Reportedly, some soldiers would cut or cross-cut the exposed lead nose with a
knife to further enhance expansion. Hence, any lead or lead-nosed bullets so
modified by hand are sometimes referred to as dumdum bullets. Also,
consequently, "dumdum" is often misapplied as a term for any commercially
manufactured soft-nose or hollow-point bullet. The British did not pursue
further development and improvement because the Hague Convention of 1899 (not
the Geneva Convention of 1925, as commonly thought, which largely dealt with
gas warfare) prohibited future use of such bullets in warfare.
Hollow-point bullet technology, one branch of expanding-bullet technology,
was not developed until the latter half of the 20th century. It is noteworthy that the modern convention of war that prohibited expanding bullets and
mandated fulljacket "hardball" ammunition could afford to be indifferent to
the tendency of FMJ bullets to over-penetrate or perforate their targets
where the battlefield backdrop of those targets was presumably also hostile.
By contrast, for environments inhabited by non-combatants, such as most law
enforcement and civilian self-defense settings, over-penetrating FMJ's are a
moral and legal liability. For purposes of modern warfare, wounding enemy
soldiers proved preferrable to killing them because a wounded soldier
requires many times the logistical support of a dead soldier. Wounding with
FMJ's may also be more humane by virtue of creating neater wounds (a factor
of importance in battlefield conditions where medical attention may be
neither immediate nor adequate, as opposed to contemporary civil situations,
where medical attention to gun-shot wounds tends to be both timely and
intensive).
However, FMJ bullets of many varieties over distance eventually yaw or tumble
in flight, which greatly enhances the wound channels they create. But, at
close quarters, on average, one might need to fire several FMJ rounds to
obtain the same stopping effect as from an expanding round. The tactical aim
is to produce a cessation in the opponent's hostile action as quickly as
possible, which is precisely what the HP is devised to do more expeditiously
than the FMJ, while not perforating a human target to become a liability
downrange. Multiple FMJ wounds can prove fatal in the long run, whereas an HP
is more likely to stop hostilities in the short run and can prove less lethal
in the long run. Therefore, it is not clear what the net advantage of FMJ's
really is. But, the theory was to minimize the morbidity and, thereby, the
fatality of wounds for combatants on the assumption that wounded soldiers
would cease fighting and become a logistical liability to their side.
Ammunition standards beyond the military battlefield (for hunting, law
enforcement or civilian defensive purposes) require quicker incapacitation
and less penetration than fully jacketed bullets afford. In these
applications beyond the battlefield, expanding bullets are calculated to be
more humane, all things considered. For example, hunting rounds must
effectively incapacitate game animals to prevent the escape and slower death
of wounded animals; consequently, expanding bullets are now mandated by law
for hunting in many jurisdictions. For defensive and law enforcement
purposes, expanding bullets are likewise morally and legally preferable:
quick incapacitation of offenders is desired, while over-penetration and
consequent ricochet pose a hazard to innocent bystanders; expanding HP's are
more likely to create an incapacitating wound, are less likely to
over-penetrate and have a much lower ricochet potential than FMJ's. Quick
incapacitation of an offender by an expanding bullet is actuarially less
likely to prove fatal than the requisite multiple hits by fully jacketed
bullets. By contrast, quick incapacitation by non-expanding bullets is highly
unlikely, resulting in more rounds having to be fired, creating a higher rate
of environmental hazard to innocent bystanders, a higher actuarial rate of
fatality, as well as a higher risk of stopping failure to the defender
herself.
Thus, while there are different performance standards for military
(full-metal jacket) and non-military (expanding) bullets, in its respective
context each standard is intended to be more humane than its alternative. The
difference in standards for whichever proves more humane is explained by the
very different settings, dynamics and objectives between typical military and
civil applications. Contrary to the popular myth that holds expanding bullets
to be inherently inhumane based simplistically on their prohibition for
warfare by the Hague Convention, expandingbullet development and the more
recent development of hollow-point bullet technology has also been driven by
ostensibly humane ends. The notion that humaneness dictates restricting
civilian defensive ammunition to military "hardball," when all potential
effects are considered, is as dubious as it may be well intentioned.
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
