Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The correct term for these means is "less-lethal".


Also, it’s literally a war crime to use tear gas on the battlefield, yet it’s somehow OK to use it on civilians. (I understand part of the reason is to prevent a slippery slope from tear gas to chlorine, but it’s still telling.)


Tear gas is routinely used at scale on people for training purposes. One of the things you learn (and a major point of the training) is that it is largely a psychological deterrent, you become acclimated to the unpleasant effects pretty quickly upon repeated exposure.


> it’s literally a war crime to use tear gas on the battlefield

Chemical weapons are banned because they’re useless for a modern military [1].

[1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...


That explanation sounds fishy to me. If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it.


> If something doesn't work then there's no need to ban it

Did you read the article?

Chemical weapons provide no benefit to a modern army. They do, however, to simpler armies. So the world's militaries, who command modern armies, came together and banned them.

Put another way, the U.S. military gains nothing from chemical weapons over high explosives. The Taliban, on the other hand, might.


In addition to what the other commenter said, it's virtue signaling.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: