131–140 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the escalation seen in the Ukrainian Maidan, went from some heavy handed policing to non-lethal rounds (eg: teargas / beanbags) to BBs to snipers and live firing on crowds.
Yes, although that was exceptionally irrational, to the point where I don't really feel I understand the events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are aware that these LRAD systems have been used against US citizens, aren't you?
Police also regularly use tear gas against US citizens. These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.
I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that less-lethal weapon feel about it.
I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that less-lethal weapon feel about it.
[flagged]
From your perspective, can you guess how you'd feel building a less-lethal weapons system like is the subject of this post, given what you think the typical uses of it would be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are aware that these LRAD systems have been used against US citizens, aren't you?
Police also regularly use tear gas against US citizens. These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police also regularly use tear gas against US citizens. These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.
The Geneva Convention bans all chemical weapons. Part of the rationale for a total ban is to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents. Helpful r/AskHistorians thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwtj89/the_c...
Chemical weapons are tactically useless for modern militaries [1]. You’re pretty much always better off pounding with high explosives.
And there isn’t a known path to escalation potential. If there were, everyone would be developing it.
[1] https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are they against the Geneva convention because of the direct effects, or because in a war you’d then proceed to kill everyone while they’re coughing?
Both? Indiscriminate chemical weapons is the issue, not the intent. Otherwise wouldn't all weapons be illegal?
Is there any counter measure for this? Hardcore hearing protection? Noise cancelling headphones? Handheld sound insulation "shield"?
I wonder how the engineers and scientists who contributed to that less-lethal weapon feel about it.
This has to be about people who pushes the button. Not about the people who invents the technology. Otherwise you might want to stop all the kitchen knifes production, cause people occasionally use those to kill each other.