"This is why we think of nukes as a bad thing" - I don't, How many actual wars have you seen between countries with nukes in the last 70 years? Off the top of my head id say maybe some minor skirmishes between india, pakistan and china.

Todays nukes are truly the weapons of peace because they are so horrifing that leaders dont dare to use them because the usage of them would problably mean that ther wouldnt be much left to rule. Currently, even if a nuke would be used against a third world country then the social and political outcry from the side of the users themselves could cause a regime change. Its all thanks to the cold war era scaring that people treat nukes as bad, but in fact they truly do have forced goverments to use different tactics to do their politics.

4'th generation of nukes however aims to make nuclear war into a politically valid way of fighting.... which i find quite horrific perspective for future.

Also, i completely agree to your last paragraph

Well if we go by this logic then we should probably arm soldiers with explosive bullets that kill the target much more quickly or at least send them into shock (no suffering before death....... humanitarian, aye?) and incendiary bullets that would cauterize the wound (you know, no bleeding to death. Will hurt but at least after amputation you'd be alive afterwards).

This kind of logic is BS and should only come into action in those all out, last ditch wars like World Wars, not for invasion armies who have a minimum of war per decade behavior.

Heheheh.

Fair enough. Hopefully you've quit that though.

Show me the evidence that hollow points have better ballistics than FMJ. I don't believe your CO.

Wouldn't this type of ammo be even less likely to penetrate body armor that would more likely be encountered in a war situation?

What the Pentagon want and what the Pentagon get are two different things. Almost all new introduction to military offensive gear are "humanitarian" or "will lesson loss of live". The ban on this has stood for over a 100 years for good reason, it'll start an arms race, they'll never get away with it.

It makes sense. Jacketed rounds penetrate most materials, including flesh. A jacketed pistol round goes through a target and can end up striking another person unintentionally. Hollow points expend their energy inside the target, greatly reducing any chance of the bullet traveling beyond it's impact point. Of course most shots fired in a military conflict are going to be jacketed rifle rounds that are capable of penetrating a range of non hardened material, so it's really a moot issue.