3 ms·

It's disingenuous to pretend that the chemical weapons of the WW's and the massive cold war stockpiles of VX or sarin are in the same class as deliberately nonl

It's disingenuous to pretend that the chemical weapons of the WW's and the massive cold war stockpiles of VX or sarin are in the same class as deliberately nonlethal lachrymator agents used in riot control. The fact that chemical weapons treaties technically ban pepper spray in the same manner as nerve gas doesn't mean it's a massive evil of police overreach -- there's plenty of low-hanging fruit on that topic without needing to make ridiculous arguments.

sillystuff 4y ago
GP isn't wrong though. Tear gas of the type used by civilian police forces against the general population is illegal to use in war. It is a war crime to use it. Tear gas was developed by France and used on the battle field in WWI before being used for "crowd control". https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/departments/history-and-philosophy-of-medicine/archives/wwi/essays/medicine/gas-in-the-great-war.html#:~:text=Several%20chemicals%20were%20weaponized%20in,tear%20gas%20in%20August%201914 https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/department.... "Riot control agents, including tear gas and other gases which have debilitating but non-permanent effects as a means of warfare, is prohibited in armed conflict under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul... And, if a government's leaders feel they need to gas, assault with sound cannons / water cannons / pepper spray, use flash bang grenades, beat with clubs, and/or fire rubber coated steel bullets at their population, it might be taken as a hint that the government involved has lost the consent of the governed.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  This is one of those sayings that's technically true but misses the point by a mile. A wounded soldier is a greater burden than a dead soldier, so a possible tactic would be to deliberately wound. Some people thought that was especially amoral, so they added a rule against it to what they called international law. So most police weaponry is illegal under international law, but it's illegal because it's less deadly than the permitted alternative.

sillystuff 4y ago

GP isn't wrong though. Tear gas of the type used by civilian police forces against the general population is illegal to use in war. It is a war crime to use it. Tear gas was developed by France and used on the battle field in WWI before being used for "crowd control". https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/departments/history-and-philosophy-of-medicine/archives/wwi/essays/medicine/gas-in-the-great-war.html#:~:text=Several%20chemicals%20were%20weaponized%20in,tear%20gas%20in%20August%201914 https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/department.... "Riot control agents, including tear gas and other gases which have debilitating but non-permanent effects as a means of warfare, is prohibited in armed conflict under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul... And, if a government's leaders feel they need to gas, assault with sound cannons / water cannons / pepper spray, use flash bang grenades, beat with clubs, and/or fire rubber coated steel bullets at their population, it might be taken as a hint that the government involved has lost the consent of the governed.

iudqnolq 4y ago
This is one of those sayings that's technically true but misses the point by a mile. A wounded soldier is a greater burden than a dead soldier, so a possible tactic would be to deliberately wound. Some people thought that was especially amoral, so they added a rule against it to what they called international law. So most police weaponry is illegal under international law, but it's illegal because it's less deadly than the permitted alternative.