• Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    Tear gas is banned for military use not because it’s exceptionally harmful, but because all chemical weapons are banned. The exception being tear gas use for riot control. One could argue that seeing some kind of chemical weapon used (like tear gas) could lead the other side to use ones that kill in minutes (novichok, sarin) since it’s kinda hard to determine what’s comming “your way” in that situation.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s also indiscriminate and persistent, so you could have medics and things caught in the crossfire, even if they arrive afterwards, and weren’t the intended targets.

    • hydroptic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yep, I think the blanket ban makes sense exactly due to the reasons you outlined. My point was more that at least it’s not like they’re just chucking Novichok agents at the Ukrainians, and are sticking to less horrible agents at least for now. Still a war crime and I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of either of those – even just CS at high enough concentrations will make your skin feel like it’s on fire, and I can say from experience that it’s not fun at all. While PS is technically for riot control, it’s classified as a lung damaging agent and in high concentrations can even kill