Gas WMD and the G8.

[Jon_in_london]

Why is it a crime to use gas on the battlefield but OK to use it against unruly citizens?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Why is it a crime to use gas on the battlefield but OK to use it against unruly citizens?


Because tear gas doesnt kill.

C'mon John, you are not this stupid.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



Because tear gas doesnt kill.

C'mon John, you are not this stupid.

But you arent even allowed to use tear-gas on the battlefield!

So im not 'this stupid'

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


But you arent even allowed to use tear-gas on the battlefield!




There is no reason to use it on the battlefield, tear-gas is non-lethal.

Also, do you have a reference specifying that tear-gas is not to be used in battle?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony

There is no reason to use it on the battlefield, tear-gas is non-lethal.


Its an incapacitant and as such would be very usefull on the battlefield.

Originally posted by Tony

Also, do you have a reference specifying that tear-gas is not to be used in battle?

Geneva conventions.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/geneva1.html


PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE
Signed at Geneva June 17, 1925
Entered into force February 8, 1928
Ratification advised by the U.S. Senate December 16, 1974
Ratified by U.S. President January 22, 1975
U.S. ratification deposited with the
Government of France April 10, 1975
Proclaimed by U.S. President April 29, 1975


The Undersigned Plenipotentiaries, in the name of their respective Governments:

Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world; and

Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the World are Parties; and

To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;




Nah-nahny-poo-poos.

[Attrayant]

There is no reason to use it on the battlefield, tear-gas is non-lethal.

So, the only kind of acceptible force on a battlefield is a lethal one? http://fff.fathom.org/pages/attrayant/dubious.gif

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Tony
Because tear gas doesnt kill.

C'mon John, you are not this stupid.

I was under the impression that there's no such thing as "non-lethal" chemical agents, it's just a question of at what level do they become toxic.

Weren't all those Russian theater attendees killed by tear gas?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by chulbert

Weren't all those Russian theater attendees killed by tear gas?

No. It was a narcotic agent.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Attrayant


So, the only kind of acceptible force on a battlefield is a lethal one? http://fff.fathom.org/pages/attrayant/dubious.gif

Pretty much. The US has experimented with all kinds of crazy ideas for non-lethal weaponry. Nearly all of them are forbidden from use by some convention or another.

[bjornart]

Basically when the old 'rules-of-war' crowd banned weapons they wanted to get rid of all the ones that caused lots of suffering, and then death.
Today we could use weapons that caused some (short term) suffering and no death, but can't because the old rules prohibits them.
Maybe the rules need to be updated, unless of course one prefers 'death before dishonor'.

[bjornart]

A couple of relevant, slightly contradicting, quotes.

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/765
Asphyxiating gasses like CS are prohibited for military use by the 1925 Geneva protocol on chemical weapons. But you wouldn't know it given Chrétien's smug comments and the lack of concern shown by other governments which use CS. Indeed, the British and American governments asserted after signing the protocol that CS was not covered because it's "not harmful to man". CS was allowed for specific applications, such as dispersing rioting prisoners of war, later on, but it remains banned for offensive use.

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/byname/cbrne---irritants--cs-cn-cnc-ca-cr-cnb-ps.htm
Background: The sole purpose of irritants, also known as tear gas, riot control agents, and lacrimators, is to produce immediate discomfort and eye closure to render the victim incapable of fighting or resisting. Police forces use them for crowd control, and military forces currently use them mainly for training. They were used before World War I, and, during the war, they were the first chemical agents employed—well before the better-known chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas. The United States used them during the Vietnam War to deny tunnel access to its enemies. The United States excludes these agents from the 1925 Geneva Convention banning other chemical and biological weapons. Dispersal is allowed in specific US military operations but only by presidential order.

I can vouch for the 'mainly for training' bit. It's not a particularly pleasant experience, unless you are one of the lucky bastards who are immune to the effects.