• EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    On Ukraines side, but those nail bombs violate the Geneva Convention

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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

      • kiagam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    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.