The reason for that is not necessarily its direct harm though, but to avoid combating parties one-upping each other with chemical warfare, e.g starting with teargas and escalating to sarine gas or whatever. This post explains it better: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwtj89/the_c...
No its specifically about field commanders. When a field commander sees gas they respond with gas because the taboo has been broken and they may have insufficient data to know that its less-than-lethal. Protesters are not armed with WMDs that they can radio in before the smoke clears. It can certainly escalate a situation but its unlikely to break the WMD taboo which is what the treaty cares about.
Escalation is still an issue with protests. Police respond with tear gas, protestors respond with bleach (like in Austin). Police respond with rubber bullets, protestors respond with bricks. Police respond with batons, protestors respond with baseball bats. Etc.
Eventually, this tit-for-tat ends up with lead bullets and dead people.
This sounds like a claim that wars happen because of weapons.
Protesters, and police sometimes have incompatible goals (say crowd wants to block traffic somewhere, and police ordered to prevent it), and the conflict is inevitable in such circumstances. It's a little naïve to claim that it would not happen if one, or even both sides would come unprepared for violence. Deescalation is preferred way, but it works as much as either protesters would be ready to back off (and some protesters may see it as a surrender), or political power giving orders to police is ready to let protesters get what they want (and it's not always possible for them for variety of reasons). Also, ability to show force often plays a role in deescalation strategies.
How? There's no risk of escalation in the chemical weapons regime from the protestors, nor is there any chance of the police using lethal chemical weapons such as sarin gas.
The logic around chemical weapons in the Geneva conventions was specific to escalation around chemical weapons. It wasn't a fully general argument about the use of force. Any force used by police could cause escalation, but we do allow the police to use force.
It's not about escalating use of chemical weapons, it's about escalating the use of violence. It's not hard to see that the same tit-for-tat mentality in chemical weapons escalation could easily apply to any form of violence. Sure, protesters don't have chemical weapons like tear gas, but they could start with bleach, or a mixture or bleach & ammonia, or Molotov cocktails. It's not like the list of home-made destructive devices is a short list.
Authority isn't the point and is irrelevant when it comes to simply observing the pattern. The point is a pattern where violence can often escalate with a more violent response. Recognizing that pattern can help in short-circuiting it.
However, if you do want to get into "authority", just look at the many officers around the country in the last few week that have been suspended or fired for unjustified use of force against protesters after being caught on camera. They had no authority for that use of force. Authority has limits, and those limits do not prevent the escalating pattern of violent behavior. But again, that isn't the point: Authority is irrelevant when speaking of observed behavioral patterns like this. The pattern exists, authority doesn't prevent that, and a failure to recognize that pattern or simply brush it aside by saying, "well the police had authority to do it" is not helpful, not if you're interested in actually solving the problem
Let me put it into technical terms if that helps you understand it better: Imagine a buffer overflow results in a escalated permissions for code execution. Here I am saying "This is what's happening." While there you are saying, "But that code had no authority to execute like that!" It is both true, and irrelevant. It is happening, and recognizing that problem helps in moving towards a solution.
What authority does the US have to invade a foreign country. Kill thousands and destroy billions in property to “spread democracy”. Americans are okay with the destruction of property “for freedom” as long as it happens on foreign soil.
I think you rather underestimate the resourcefulness of pissed off people. Furthermore, your statement pretty much demonstrates exactly why it is that government's shouldn't have an exception carved out for them with regard to protests.
The seemingly unanswerable tactic will be used as often as possible. This prioritizes the existence of the government over irs compliance with the will of the people.
At this point, and this may be controversial, but I wouldn't blink an eye if a form of chemical attack were perpetrated against police forces. Yes, I understand the consequences of that statement. Yes, I realize those are people's sons, daughters, wives, husbands, etc who would be harmed.
I cannot judge a group for giving back as much as they get. The protesters didn't start gassing people. The police did. Rendering the air unbreathable is the ultimate in scummy tactics. It shows a wanton disregard for everyone's well-being, and when you come to the fight with a gas mask knowing you'll be crippling an enemy to take advantage of their weakness/ill-equippedness, I'm sorry. It may be tactically and strategically sound, but the inhumanity of it instantly puts you on the low ground. You are at war (whether international formalities are accommodated for or not) with your own population at that point. There is no legitimacy in my eyes that justifies resorting to gas weaponry; and may they who do reap what they sow 7 fold. Ranks right up there with poisoning the water supply in my book.
To be human is to understand that the occasional bout of violent opposition will happen in your lifetime. To poison the very air we breathe is to abandon all standard of decency, and deserves to be returned in kind.
>Zero percent chance of police pumping in something lethal
