Title.
In: 4
Because the world has a strange abusive obsession with “not my house, not my problem.”
Nations only care about other nations’ doings if they pose a threat.
Because the world has a strange abusive obsession with “not my house, not my problem.”
Nations only care about other nations’ doings if they pose a threat.
retaliation
If you get gassed by the opposition in a war, you’ll probably respond in kind before you know what the gas is that got thrown at you – so if they launch tear gas at you and you respond with sarine, now everyone is using chemical weapons, and if they launched sarine and you respond with tear gas, you look weak.
civilians tend to not have stockpiles of chemical weapons on hand, so that’s not really a concern in a domestic conflict.
retaliation
If you get gassed by the opposition in a war, you’ll probably respond in kind before you know what the gas is that got thrown at you – so if they launch tear gas at you and you respond with sarine, now everyone is using chemical weapons, and if they launched sarine and you respond with tear gas, you look weak.
civilians tend to not have stockpiles of chemical weapons on hand, so that’s not really a concern in a domestic conflict.
Another aspect of the ethics is hard to put in a way that makes logical sense, but I’ll try.
It lowers your opponents ability to defend themselves to an unsatisfactory degree, making them an easy target. To then continue to engage the enemy when they are in such a helpless state that the gas brings could be argued as similar to engaging a disarmed enemy, which is a war crime. That ambiguity is another reason why it is not done in warfare, because it may be more trouble down the line for command than it’s worth.
As for why it is acceptable to use on civilians, this is because unlike in war there is no intention to then engage and destroy the civilians, thus incapacitation is not saddled with the same morally grey baggage.
Another aspect of the ethics is hard to put in a way that makes logical sense, but I’ll try.
It lowers your opponents ability to defend themselves to an unsatisfactory degree, making them an easy target. To then continue to engage the enemy when they are in such a helpless state that the gas brings could be argued as similar to engaging a disarmed enemy, which is a war crime. That ambiguity is another reason why it is not done in warfare, because it may be more trouble down the line for command than it’s worth.
As for why it is acceptable to use on civilians, this is because unlike in war there is no intention to then engage and destroy the civilians, thus incapacitation is not saddled with the same morally grey baggage.
Wait that’s illegal in warfare? I’m going into recruit training for USMC in march and one event is called The Gas Chamber. Bunch a dudes go into a small room with burning CS gas, take off their masks after a while, then go out. It’s to “build trust in our equipment”
Then again military doesn’t really follow constitutions etc once you sign away to become gov property so I guess it doesn’t matter lol. Glad to know I won’t have to deal with it if I ever see actual combat hopefully
Wait that’s illegal in warfare? I’m going into recruit training for USMC in march and one event is called The Gas Chamber. Bunch a dudes go into a small room with burning CS gas, take off their masks after a while, then go out. It’s to “build trust in our equipment”
Then again military doesn’t really follow constitutions etc once you sign away to become gov property so I guess it doesn’t matter lol. Glad to know I won’t have to deal with it if I ever see actual combat hopefully
Same reason tasers or directed energy weapons are banned by the Geneva Convention; they are weapons of torture. But your local police arent at war so torturing you to death is just fine by them
Same reason tasers or directed energy weapons are banned by the Geneva Convention; they are weapons of torture. But your local police arent at war so torturing you to death is just fine by them
Latest Answers