[_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?

[lazide]

Clearly yes, you are misreading me.

If governments consider it acceptable or not has nothing to do with my opinion. Or yours.