6 ms·
Police also regularly use tear gas against US citizens. These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd
by pclmulqdq 2y ago
Police also regularly use tear gas against US citizens. These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.
- amelius 2y agoWhat would ICC think of it, I wonder.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoThe ICC is fine with it. France is a particularly big fan of firing tear gas canisters at protestors. It's not just the US.
- laweijfmvo 2y agoare they against the Geneva convention because of the direct effects, or because in a war you’d then proceed to kill everyone while they’re coughing?
- jvanderbot 2y agoBoth? Indiscriminate chemical weapons is the issue, not the intent. Otherwise wouldn't all weapons be illegal?
- seabass-labrax 2y agoSome weapons are intrinsically forbidden because of their effects on individuals: soft-point bullets for instance. These are as discriminate as you want them to be, but are nonetheless prohibited in conflicts. Thus it's not just indiscriminate weapons that are banned by international agreement!
- jvanderbot 2y agoWhen asked why tear gas is banned, the answer I gave was "the weapon is indiscriminate and chemical" not "all banned weapons are indiscriminate and chemical". For example lasers used to blind soldiers are generally banned as well and as you point out, lasers are basically arbitrarily discriminate.
- NewJazz 2y agoAIUI they are mainly banned because they could lead to escalations in chemical weapons usage. If your enemy uses tear gas vs cs gas, it could be hard to tell right away and you might feel pressure to use all the tools you have available (including lethal chemical weapons) vs. Play by the rules. Of course if you are fighting a real war, there is probably going to be chem weapons used. It happened in Syria. It is happening in Ukraine. It will keep happening. Geneva convention is wishful thinking.
- tehjoker 2y agosomething to consider is that in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) the military used a bunker buster on a Sarin gas storage facility and shot the sarin high into the atmosphere, where it then floated far downwind and landed on US troops. Ofc, reporting on it doesn't really consider Iraqi civilians and is only weepy about US soldiers. https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2022/sarin-nerve-gas-gulf-war-illness.html https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2022/s...
- fc417fc802 2y ago> Geneva convention is wishful thinking. It is a convention. It is useful for applying pressure. It certainly seems to reduce their use. You could as well say that laws against murder or theft or whatever are wishful thinking.
- NewJazz 2y agoMurder is generally punished. Unless you spew pollutants with known biological harm leading to numerous cancerous deaths and cover it up and pay off enough politicians. Then it is generally rewarded or at least tolerated.
- seabass-labrax 2y agoIt's because of the direct effects; chlorine gas for instance will almost instantly blind anyone exposed to it, and tear gas can also be fatal. My great-grandfather was gassed in the First World War and only narrowly survived. Chemical weapons were technically already banned by this point, but it was WW1 that prompted the modern Geneva Protocol (not the Geneva Conventions; these are slight different). Unfortunately, none of the Geneva treaties cover their use outside of wartime.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoMany people don't realize this but many of the banned weapons are ones with a decent chance of maiming people but leaving them alive. This is worse for everyone involved in a war (everyone here meaning politicians and generals, not soldiers) than killing them. Cluster munitions, flamethrowers, and anti-personnel mines all fit in this category, too.
- numpad0 2y agoMost of Geneva Convention items are things that are huge liabilities to the own sides. e.g., there were such chemical gases that react with gas mask filters so to specifically bypass filtering. No one in Europe wants to pay welfare costs for factory leaks or downwind collateral damages in neighboring countries or army of veterans maimed with that thing, but they will have to if their enemies would use it to their advantages. Agreeing to a universal ban solves that problem.
- sa46 2y agoThe Geneva Convention bans all chemical weapons. Part of the rationale for a total ban is to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents. Helpful r/AskHistorians thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwtj89/the_chemical_weapons_convention_1993_has/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwtj89/the_c...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Part of the rationale for a total ban is to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents Chemical weapons are tactically useless for modern militaries [1]. You’re pretty much always better off pounding with high explosives. And there isn’t a known path to escalation potential. If there were, everyone would be developing it. [1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
- pclmulqdq 2y agoChemical weapons are tactically useless to the American combat doctrine, as described in that article. As we have seen, the Russian doctrine (and Ukraine's doctrine) relies on much more brute force to push a meter at a time and much more indiscriminate damage. It's hard to imagine chemical weapons being useless. He makes the mistake of looking at how the US military fights and thinking that is the only way to fight a war. Incidentally, if you looked at how the Roman army used short swords and concluded that "long swords are useless for fighting a war," I bet he would have something to say about it.
- tbrownaw 2y ago> These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd. Isn't that a category ban that came out of a couple specific members of that category that were used and had particularly nasty effects? And then countries' domestic law enforcement rules tend to be defined in different terms.
- EA-3167 2y agoIt is. People think that the "Frangible bullets and teargas banned by the Genevan Conventions" means that they're seen as too cruel to use in war. Unfortunately the "wisdom of crowds" that we've created on social media has decided that it does. The reality is that we're talking about the views of people in 1925, as informed by a previous group of people in the late 1800's. They were far more concerned with avoiding the use of gas as a weapon than in dealing with the LD50 of the various gasses. Likewise with frangible/hollow-point ammunition, it isn't even banned by the Geneva Conventions, it was banned under the now-defunct Hague Convention. For better or worse they thought that these "tumbling" or "expanding" bullets were designed to inflict intentionally greater suffering. Who knows maybe the versions that existed in the late 1800's did too, the ones today aren't used because they're worthless against even modest body armor. But again, people just see text on a picture in a meme and take it to heart.
- fc417fc802 2y ago> Who knows maybe the versions that existed in the late 1800's did too The ones now and back then aren't any different. They do inflict greater suffering when the injury isn't immediately lethal. They essentially maim the target. There's a legitimate case to be made for home defense because they won't penetrate common building materials nearly as far. It makes them much safer to anyone in the surrounding area. There are also cases where the additional stopping power is invaluable, for example against a pack of dogs.
- EA-3167 2y agoYou can argue that any GSW that isn't immediately lethal inflicts suffering, I'm not sure how an expanding head changes that. In a handgun round mushrooming is absolutely about terminal ballistics rather than protection against over-penetration, but it is true that expanding .223 and frangible rounds are focused on over-penetration But again the biggest reason you don't see expanding rounds in war is (especially modern) armor defeats them far more easily than standard .223.
- conception 2y agoGenerally if you do it to your own people the world is fine with.. just about anything.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSerbia is currently using it on its own people, and yet we here we are reading about it and discussing, with no small amount of outrage.
- _carbyau_ 2y agoI similarly condemn such actions. But unless we are in a position to enforce any change in behaviour on Serbia then being unhappy on a web forum doesn't count. It's as useful as "thoughts and prayers". Take some meaningful action away from this forum and we'll see. I am not in a meaningful position to do so unfortunately.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoAction isnt the only measure of meaning or the only determinate of caring. Caring exists on a spectrum, and isnt black and white. Thoughts and prayers are a form of caring as well, and an important one. It isn't always what a utilitarian wants, but it is part of a package deal when working with real humans with emotional and social lives.
- _carbyau_ 2y agoI think you and I are largely in agreement in that caring is good. Without such caring then no such meaningful actions would ever happen. We need to care, it is a good part of society. But care without action can be ignored. So as far as Serbia is concerned "no meaningful consequence = the world is fine with.. just about anything."
- killjoywashere 2y agoChemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (a follow-on to the 1925 "Geneva Convention") allows for the use of riot control agents (like tear gas) for law enforcement purposes. https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon
- _heimdall 2y agoI think that's inline with what the point the GP was trying to make. Tear gas would otherwise fall into the definition of a weapon that would violate the Geneva Convention if not for the specific earmark that its okay for law enforcement to use it. Its a bit of a logical loop based only on definitions. Its not against the convention because the law includes the exception, but the exception otherwise goes against the principles of the convention.
- lurk2 2y ago> As explained in the military manual of the Netherlands, the prohibition of the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare is inspired by the fact that use of tear gas, for example, in armed conflict “runs the danger of provoking the use of other more dangerous chemicals”. A party which is being attacked by riot control agents may think it is being attacked by deadly chemical weapons and resort to the use of chemical weapons. It is this danger of escalation that States sought to avert by agreeing to prohibit the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare in armed conflict. This motivation is equally valid in international and non-international armed conflicts. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule75 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule75
- vpribish 2y agofinally someone bringing some reason and evidence to this stupid discussion. thank you
- gruez 2y ago>This motivation is equally valid in international and non-international armed conflicts. Okay but clearly protesters aren't going to escalate to mustard gas just because police used tear gas?
- gruez 2y ago[flagged]
- axus 2y agoOr "murder is wrong, because God said so"
- matthewdgreen 2y agoTear gas and more lethal gasses were extensively used in WWI. Afterwards the various belligerents came to an agreement on which weapons were acceptable, and they specifically decided to include tear gas in that ban. There were various reasons they did this (fear of escalation to lethal gasses was the biggest concern) but one specific reason was the indiscriminate nature of the gas as well as the fact that it can cause unnecessary suffering. It is true that the Geneva Convention only bans tear gas for warfare, and allowed it for military riot control. The CWC then banned it even for those military applications in the 1990s. Some of the arguments made against the use of tear gas in military applications (in the 1920s and 1990s) also make good arguments for minimizing or eliminating its use in law enforcement settings. Rationalists like to reduce everything to a simple black and white argument, which tends to inject imprecision and bad understanding into the discourse.
- gruez 2y ago>one specific reason was the indiscriminate nature of the gas What are you talking about? The canisters launched by police are probably as discriminate as you can be when firing into a crowd. Are you expecting some sort of weapon that can precisely target the rioters in a crowd but leave everyone alone? >as well as the fact that it can cause unnecessary suffering. In the sense that "tear gas is just mustard gas", or "protesters have every right to be there and therefore any sort of discomfort is 'unnecessary suffering'"? What amount of "suffering" would you find acceptable?
- fc417fc802 2y agoI largely agree with what you wrote. > Rationalists like to ... But then you tacked this on to the end and it's entirely unnecessary. The linked article is actually a very good one about recognizing bad faith use of labels. It just doesn't really apply in this case because the original point (at least by my reading) wasn't a gotcha relying on the definition of a label but rather was using a label that the author believes is legitimate to point out the seeming inconsistency. Of course whether or not the label is legitimate is itself perfectly reasonable to discuss.
- BobaFloutist 2y agoHow do you feel about the defensive use of pepper spray?
- Y_Y 2y agoYa, and what about high-velocity lead spray?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoYou asked the wrong person. I would rather that people ditched pepper spray for defensive uses altogether and carried guns instead.
- kazinator 2y agohttps://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.5358303 https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.5358303
- mightyham 2y agoIt is an obvious fallacy to conflate the usage of tear gas canisters with the usage of mustard gas in WWI. They differ drastically in amount/concentration, area of effect, and long term health risks, thus should be treated differently in considering their usage. Tear gas clearly sits on a spectrum of non-lethal arms with various other options that are more or less harmful. While it's entirely fair to criticize its use on a case by case basis, insofar as disorderly public gatherings can have varying levels of violence/destruction, it would stand to reason that some instances warrant the use of tear gas.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago24/7 lighting of prisoners so they can't sleep is torture, unless it's the American police and they need to keep the lights on for 'safety'. Electro shock torture is illegal... unless it's the cops using a taser to get a desired behavior/compliance. Police use > legally defined torture/war crimes.