Title.
In: 4
I’m sure there are more technical arguments here, but basically international warfare has regularly been considered almost a “gentleman’s sport” by European military leaders where “honor” held a ton of value win or lose. An honorable loss was considered better than a dishonorable victory. Our men fight your men and shall the best side win while our opposing officers sit back together a drink scotch while things play out. You could use reasonable advantages of technology…etc, but couldn’t play too dirty or use low blows. Chemical weapons were considered dirty and not honorable because they were hard to use against ONLY there target and also made the battlefield impossible to occupy after by the winning army.
Basically there have always been unwritten rules of honor and “fair play” in most warfare that have mostly been followed. Post WWI and WWII, countries got together and codified these rules. Nobody can force you to play by them, but once again military leadership and militaries in general typically lives and dies by codes of honor, so they are mostly followed. The issue is often that insurgents like the Taliban or the Vietcong never shared these cultural values, so even our military leadership feels “if they don’t play by the rules, nether should we” which how we got agent Orange and drone strikes…etc
I’m sure there are more technical arguments here, but basically international warfare has regularly been considered almost a “gentleman’s sport” by European military leaders where “honor” held a ton of value win or lose. An honorable loss was considered better than a dishonorable victory. Our men fight your men and shall the best side win while our opposing officers sit back together a drink scotch while things play out. You could use reasonable advantages of technology…etc, but couldn’t play too dirty or use low blows. Chemical weapons were considered dirty and not honorable because they were hard to use against ONLY there target and also made the battlefield impossible to occupy after by the winning army.
Basically there have always been unwritten rules of honor and “fair play” in most warfare that have mostly been followed. Post WWI and WWII, countries got together and codified these rules. Nobody can force you to play by them, but once again military leadership and militaries in general typically lives and dies by codes of honor, so they are mostly followed. The issue is often that insurgents like the Taliban or the Vietcong never shared these cultural values, so even our military leadership feels “if they don’t play by the rules, nether should we” which how we got agent Orange and drone strikes…etc
Although people like to meme them, warcrimes are different than crimes against humanity. There are quite a few war crimes that are not crimes in domestic contexts simply because warfare and agreements between how nations and their soldiers should treat each other do not have the same requirements or considerations, or negotiating power, as domestic issues of how a government treats it’s citizens.
Although people like to meme them, warcrimes are different than crimes against humanity. There are quite a few war crimes that are not crimes in domestic contexts simply because warfare and agreements between how nations and their soldiers should treat each other do not have the same requirements or considerations, or negotiating power, as domestic issues of how a government treats it’s citizens.
It’s due to the threat of escalation.
When national army A uses tear gas against national army B, there is a credible threat national army B might respond with Chlorine gas. And Army A might then toss out some Mustard Gas to which Army B responds with something like Sarin gas and so on and so forth. Ever nastier, ever more potent, ever harder to protect against or contain. So to keep things from getting out of hand, the powers that be slapped a ban on chemical weapons use in warfare.
When it’s a crowd of protesters versus the cops, there is no threat of escalation. If the cops lob tear gas into the crowd of protesters, no one in the crowd is back there whipping up mustard gas or chlorine gas (hopefully) which they can lob back at the cops. Because where national armies are backed by a munitions industry, protesters have no such infrastructure standing behind them. It starts with tear gas, and it ends with tear gas.
So because of the potential for escalation in war, and the lack of potential for escalation in ‘crowd control’ situations, tear gas is permitted for the later. Not that this is good or just or right. It’s just the official explanation. Also, the US makes the stuff in Western PA, and our government sort of specializes in dealing weapons around the globe. So we sell it to our cops and the cops in other nations for use against their own people, because our leaders have sold us all out so blatantly they have cause to fear us little people rising up against them. Knowing tear gas exists, and the cops they pay to protect their property from us poors will deploy it against us makes the 1%ers sleep a little easier at night.
It’s due to the threat of escalation.
When national army A uses tear gas against national army B, there is a credible threat national army B might respond with Chlorine gas. And Army A might then toss out some Mustard Gas to which Army B responds with something like Sarin gas and so on and so forth. Ever nastier, ever more potent, ever harder to protect against or contain. So to keep things from getting out of hand, the powers that be slapped a ban on chemical weapons use in warfare.
When it’s a crowd of protesters versus the cops, there is no threat of escalation. If the cops lob tear gas into the crowd of protesters, no one in the crowd is back there whipping up mustard gas or chlorine gas (hopefully) which they can lob back at the cops. Because where national armies are backed by a munitions industry, protesters have no such infrastructure standing behind them. It starts with tear gas, and it ends with tear gas.
So because of the potential for escalation in war, and the lack of potential for escalation in ‘crowd control’ situations, tear gas is permitted for the later. Not that this is good or just or right. It’s just the official explanation. Also, the US makes the stuff in Western PA, and our government sort of specializes in dealing weapons around the globe. So we sell it to our cops and the cops in other nations for use against their own people, because our leaders have sold us all out so blatantly they have cause to fear us little people rising up against them. Knowing tear gas exists, and the cops they pay to protect their property from us poors will deploy it against us makes the 1%ers sleep a little easier at night.
Its like casual or competitive gaming. You see broken game mechanics being used in casual like super strong gun or some exploits. But they might be banned in competitve. Its not so much fun when some random bloke just sprays the whole trench with fire instead of knifing each other in the gut. More fun to watch.
Its like casual or competitive gaming. You see broken game mechanics being used in casual like super strong gun or some exploits. But they might be banned in competitve. Its not so much fun when some random bloke just sprays the whole trench with fire instead of knifing each other in the gut. More fun to watch.
It’s illegal internationally because a bunch of countries got together and agreed that it would be. It’s not illegal domestically because a bunch of lawmakers did not get together to agree that it should be.
Laws of war are just a bunch of things that countries don’t want to have to suffer so they got together to promise not to do them. Typically these are things where the tactical benefits aren’t great enough to outweigh the pain and suffering they cause. There are “legal” things that militaries can do that cause more suffering, they just happen to be so useful that nobody is going to pledge not to do them. And it should be noted that once wars get serious enough all those rules are going out the window.
It’s illegal internationally because a bunch of countries got together and agreed that it would be. It’s not illegal domestically because a bunch of lawmakers did not get together to agree that it should be.
Laws of war are just a bunch of things that countries don’t want to have to suffer so they got together to promise not to do them. Typically these are things where the tactical benefits aren’t great enough to outweigh the pain and suffering they cause. There are “legal” things that militaries can do that cause more suffering, they just happen to be so useful that nobody is going to pledge not to do them. And it should be noted that once wars get serious enough all those rules are going out the window.
Latest Answers