[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.

[_heimdall]

It seems like you would agree then that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you know its asymmetric.

Am I misreading you there?