[lurk2]

> 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

[sidewndr46]

As opposed to citizens, who ought to just be thrilled their government is gassing them?

[lazide]

Nuking a non-nuclear country has less risk of MAD style escalation, yes? Same idea.

[_heimdall]

Is your argument that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you know its asymmetric?

[lazide]

I’m not making an argument, rather an observation.

A saying I’ve heard from many folks I know who have been in the US military is ‘fair fights are for idiots’. I think it’s a common mindset in any (successful) military.

[_heimdall]

For sure, I agree with that. How does that link back to having exceptions allowing law enforcement to use tear gas on civilians though?

[lazide]

Because civilians don’t have WMD style chemical weapons, generally? So are not an ‘MAD’ type risk. Unlike potential enemy combatants.

Morality has nothing to do with these scenarios (treaty/convention wise) near as I can tell.

[gruez]

>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?

[_heimdall]

I think the argument here is that its okay to use against a crowd because the risk of escalation is very low.

[soco]

It's acceptable only because the authorities know the masses will accept it. And what could the masses do otherwise, gather signatures? So yes, it is how it is, until the masses somehow decide it's not - and then will get gassed again. Because the masses wishing for a change are rarely in a majority and authorities usually listen to majorities.

[pas]

Well, by definition yes. The job of the masses is to resist by any means available. If it starts using terrorist tactics it stops being the masses. Of course besides gathering signatures there's many other peaceful adjacent things that can be done (leftist types love the meme of a general strike, but of course civil disobedience, road blockades, and so on are all on the table), and somewhere between guerilla warfare and spray painting stencils in the night there's a fuzzy ethical line. On one side it's Taliban style "we will wait until they leave" and on the other side it's again Taliban style, but the bad things.

Mostly the masses ought to be proactive, educate itself, and so on to avoid signing conventions that have these exceptions.

Yes, I know. :/

[killjoywashere]

I think this discussion is missing a significant issue: why would a democratic government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, use tear gas? Why do British Bobbies carry batons?

The simplest answer, which is the basis of all police powers of the state: to prevent crimes against persons and crimes against property. Riotous mobs get people hurt, often killed. The businesses proximate to a protest, often small businesses, often under-insured due to cost constraints, are very likely to be severely affected by protests that turn violent. Major corporate storefronts can absorb the cost of damages, but the same damages to a mom-and-pop grocery could be the end of the business, no matter how much they sympathize with the community that is outraged. And let me reiterate what I started with: riotous mobs get people hurt, often killed.

Tear gas vs the baton is a lesser version of the observation by James B. Conant, president of Harvard University, in his autobiography: "To me the development of new and more effective gases seemed no more immoral than the manufacture of explosives and guns. . . I did not see in 1917, and do not see in 1968, why tearing a man's guts out by a high-explosive shell is to be preferred to maiming him by attacking his lungs or skin."

https://www.amazon.com/My-Several-Lives-Memoirs-Inventor/dp/...

[ever1337]

This would be all well and good except that society is not actually constructed by neutral arbiters outside the world, as much as certain parties have their pretensions to that -- they are created by the interactions of interested parties. In other words: class struggle.

[_heimdall]

Can you elaborate on your point here? It seems that you're linking to documentation of where the exception was made, but I don't think the existence of that exception was in question here.

I don't have a dog in this fight as it were, but the GGP comment was taking issue with the exception allowing a tool that would violate the Geneva Convention in war being used against civilians in a context where law enforcement considers it crowd or riot control.

[lurk2]

> 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.

The implication of the statement “These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.” is that riot agents are considered too barbaric to be deployed even in war, which is not the reason these agents are prohibited in wartime use. Instead, there was a worry that it would be too difficult to differentiate riot agents from chemical weapons (e.g. chlorine or mustard gas), which could lead the party attacked with riot agents to retaliate with chemical weapons.

[_heimdall]

Is your argument, or would you agree with governments making the argument, that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you/they know its asymmetric?

[lurk2]

I made no such argument. My argument is that the claim

> These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.

is misleading because it implies that riot agents are comparable to chemical weapons. Riot agents are intended to disperse crowds while keeping casualties to a minimum. Chemical weapons are intended to kill people.

[vpribish]

finally someone bringing some reason and evidence to this stupid discussion. thank you