Title.
In: 4
The alternative is shooting their own population.
In general, the populace doesn’t respond well to being murdered, so the powers that be wanted *something* that works.
Whether this is right or wrong is up to debate
The alternative is shooting their own population.
In general, the populace doesn’t respond well to being murdered, so the powers that be wanted *something* that works.
Whether this is right or wrong is up to debate
There is basically no military utility to tear gas. The countermeasures are easy enough for any functioning government to come up with, and even if it does work it’s still possible to function under its effect. So in the vast majority of military situations you’d be better served by just chucking a bunch of high explosives at the problem. On the other hand it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a CS gas attack to be reported as “chemical weapons” which could result in a retaliatory escalation, which would be really bad.
There is basically no military utility to tear gas. The countermeasures are easy enough for any functioning government to come up with, and even if it does work it’s still possible to function under its effect. So in the vast majority of military situations you’d be better served by just chucking a bunch of high explosives at the problem. On the other hand it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a CS gas attack to be reported as “chemical weapons” which could result in a retaliatory escalation, which would be really bad.
If you, a soldier in the trenches, see a haze of gas coming your way, you have no way to determine whether it’s deadly or just tear gas. Thus, governments agreed to ban *all* chemical agents in warfare.
If you, a soldier in the trenches, see a haze of gas coming your way, you have no way to determine whether it’s deadly or just tear gas. Thus, governments agreed to ban *all* chemical agents in warfare.
Good accurate answers here, in addition.
What is and isn’t a war crime is determined by the dominate power.
What is and isn’t a war crime is clearly laid out in the Geneva convention.
Even though there is established law it comes down to whom is enforcing the “law” and how they interpret it.
The “whom” that is enforcing the “law” is the victor in a War.
The West was the victor in WWII so the West got to determine what was and what wasn’t a “war crime” during that period of time.
The result was the “Nuremburg trials”, many precedents were set at this point.
The World in general deemed that the result of the Nuremburg trials was good and should set the precedent for how Nations should behave in regard to one another.
With the way the World is today it will be interesting to see how things play out from a legal perspective.
Dominate powers can and do do what ever they want, it doesn’t make it legal or moral much less ethical.
Good accurate answers here, in addition.
What is and isn’t a war crime is determined by the dominate power.
What is and isn’t a war crime is clearly laid out in the Geneva convention.
Even though there is established law it comes down to whom is enforcing the “law” and how they interpret it.
The “whom” that is enforcing the “law” is the victor in a War.
The West was the victor in WWII so the West got to determine what was and what wasn’t a “war crime” during that period of time.
The result was the “Nuremburg trials”, many precedents were set at this point.
The World in general deemed that the result of the Nuremburg trials was good and should set the precedent for how Nations should behave in regard to one another.
With the way the World is today it will be interesting to see how things play out from a legal perspective.
Dominate powers can and do do what ever they want, it doesn’t make it legal or moral much less ethical.
For whatever reason, you’re a country at war with another country.
You have a stockpile of chemical weapons, but you don’t use them, because 1, fuck that stuff and 2, it’s illegal. Your enemy also have chemical weapons, like mustard gas and sarin.
Now, you have reports coming in that the enemy shot cannisters at your troops that released a chemical, and immediately your troops reported trouble breathing, blindness, pain, etc…
What do you do? Wait until reports come in that clarify it was just tear gas and not mustard or sarin? Or do you respond in kind and launch your chemical weapons?
For whatever reason, you’re a country at war with another country.
You have a stockpile of chemical weapons, but you don’t use them, because 1, fuck that stuff and 2, it’s illegal. Your enemy also have chemical weapons, like mustard gas and sarin.
Now, you have reports coming in that the enemy shot cannisters at your troops that released a chemical, and immediately your troops reported trouble breathing, blindness, pain, etc…
What do you do? Wait until reports come in that clarify it was just tear gas and not mustard or sarin? Or do you respond in kind and launch your chemical weapons?
Latest Answers