Under the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, the anti-personnel use of firearms with a caliber of 10 mm or larger (.50 caliber... 12.7 mm, etc.) was supposed to be prohibited, but in the current world line it’s...
Under the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, the use against personnel of firearms with a caliber of 10 millimeters or more (50 caliber... 12.7 mm, etc.) was supposed to be prohibited, but on the current world line, no matter how much you look into the convention, it turns out there is no such provision. Now it feels like there is a guideline saying caution is needed in use because it may violate Article 23, paragraph 5, but many people remember that it was clearly written before that you must not directly aim and fire at the human body with rifle bullets whose projectile diameter exceeds 10 millimeters. Because of this, the United States, etc. (China and Russia are the same on this point), maintained that a 50-caliber sniper rifle is strictly an anti-materiel rifle, and that in past wars it only hit human bodies by accident, and as for the use of 50-caliber sniper rifles against personnel in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which is frequently called into question, they brushed off the opinions of European human rights groups calling for a halt to its use by interpreting that terrorists are not combatants protected by the convention but criminals. But this was a necessary excuse precisely because it was clearly stated that anything 10 millimeters or more was no good, and in a situation like now, I don’t know of such a one-sided interpretation, and even if the convention were revised in that direction, the various countries would never ratify it.
This case is part of the Mandela Effect case database based on "The Window of Opportunity: A Guidepost to the Mandela Effect — The Ultra-Secret X-Files" by Aoyama Takuto.