171–180 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (a follow-on to the 1925 "Geneva Convention") allows for the use of riot control agents (like tear gas) for law enforcement purposes. https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon
Suppressing protests in US isn't usually law enforcement, its purpose is to violate the law and suppress speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? Leave. The moment it turns into a riot you’re doing damage to your cause. (If you’re in a protest and see hooligans, restrain them.)
You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority, it can help your cause. The reaction is the action. It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't necessarily dispute that claim, but do you have evidence to support it ?
It's extensively covered on the wikipedia page alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_acoustic_device#Uni... Also if you just google "LRAD use in [country]" there are source for any country you're actually wondering about...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once there's violence targeting you, the solution is to bring real weapons and resolve it using ordinary military tactics, that is, you kill the operator.
That sounds bold and exciting, but it's clearly false and terrible advice. Violence, like warfare, is politics by other means. Every expert knows that law of warfare - the first law of warfare, in a sense - that it ends when and only when there is political agreement. Even in warfare, violence just buys time and changes your political position. In countries with rule-of-law, you can use the political / legal system t…
If…if… We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! … We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - The Gulag Archipelago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Operator is typically thousands of kilometres away
No, he's probably just around the corner, having just set up the speakers and put on his hearing protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't necessarily dispute that claim, but do you have evidence to support it ?
It's extensively covered on the wikipedia page alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_acoustic_device#Uni... Also if you just google "LRAD use in [country]" there are source for any country you're actually wondering about...
> In the first half of 2020, Bad Homburg's fire brigade and city police used an LRAD 100X system more than 60 times to deliver COVID-19 information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (a follow-on to the 1925 "Geneva Convention") allows for the use of riot control agents (like tear gas) for law enforcement purposes. https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon
Suppressing protests in US isn't usually law enforcement, its purpose is to violate the law and suppress speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chemical weapons are tactically useless to the American combat doctrine, as described in that article. As we have seen, the Russian doctrine (and Ukraine's doctrine) relies on much more brute force to push a meter at a time and much more indiscriminate damage. It's hard to imagine chemical weapons being useless. He makes the mistake of looking at how the US military fights and thinking that is the only way to fight a…
Russian tactics have been largely ineffective and characterized by horrendous losses despite immense advantages in manpower and material