Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43377133
This one kind of wins just by getting more votes and comments.
Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
251–260 of 530 posts
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's inline with what the point the GP was trying to make. Tear gas would otherwise fall into the definition of a weapon that would violate the Geneva Convention if not for the specific earmark that its okay for law enforcement to use it. Its a bit of a logical loop based only on definitions. Its not against the convention because the law includes the exception, but the exception otherwise goes against the…
> As explained in the military manual of the Netherlands, the prohibition of the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare is inspired by the fact that use of tear gas, for example, in armed conflict “runs the danger of provoking the use of other more dangerous chemicals”. A party which is being attacked by riot control agents may think it is being attacked by deadly chemical weapons and resort to the use of…
finally someone bringing some reason and evidence to this stupid discussion. thank you
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#253in case anyone’s curious about the context of the protest, I wrote a brief summary for an outside perspective about a month ago https://markoanastasov.com/signals/serbia-student-revolution...
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The idea and significance of the proper noun 'The Geneva Convention' is a much different class than just a noun like 'criminal' or 'murder'. The point of invoking it is not to hide behind an abstraction, but in fact to appeal to something specific. What is it appealing to then? When you say "violates the Geneva convention", I'm thinking of things like genocide, killing of civilians, and soldiers in trenches choking…
Insofar as you want to continue to charge this fallacy here, it doesn't really matter because "the Geneva Convention" is not, per the cited article, a "category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction." It is something specific that happened/exists, and in that it has no "archetypal member." Whether you specifically have an emotional reaction to it is beyond the point, and in fact beyond gp's po…
>Insofar as you want to continue to charge this fallacy here, it doesn't really matter because "the Geneva Convention" is not, per the cited article, a "category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction." It is something specific that happened/exists, and in that it has no "archetypal member."
The exact phrasing used in the quoted post was "violate the Geneva convention". I don't know about you, but "violate the Geneva convention" does give me an emotional reaction.
>If you take the argument minimally charitably [...]
Like you're doing above by some clever rewording?
>its just pointing out an inconsistency between what was at once point judged to be bad by an international community, and the actions of one member of that community today.
I seriously doubt any member of "the international community" thinks that tear gas is somehow comparable to a war crime or using mustard gas, or that it's somehow extra bad because it's a chemical weapon. Moreover if you really want to cling onto what was written (ie. "no chemical weapons") vs what's intended (ie. "no mustard gas deployed in the trenches"), the geneva convention also has a specific carve-out for domestic use.
>BBut further, do you really, in good faith, think gp was trying to form some airtight logical argument against the use of tear gas? Do you think its possible they were maybe just pointing something interesting out? What actual motive could you have to try and create this very thin gotcha here?
Because I think it's interesting to point out how the non-central fallacy might apply here :^)
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. People think that the "Frangible bullets and teargas banned by the Genevan Conventions" means that they're seen as too cruel to use in war. Unfortunately the "wisdom of crowds" that we've created on social media has decided that it does. The reality is that we're talking about the views of people in 1925, as informed by a previous group of people in the late 1800's. They were far more concerned with avoiding t…
> Who knows maybe the versions that existed in the late 1800's did too The ones now and back then aren't any different. They do inflict greater suffering when the injury isn't immediately lethal. They essentially maim the target. There's a legitimate case to be made for home defense because they won't penetrate common building materials nearly as far. It makes them much safer to anyone in the surrounding area. There…
You can argue that any GSW that isn't immediately lethal inflicts suffering, I'm not sure how an expanding head changes that. In a handgun round mushrooming is absolutely about terminal ballistics rather than protection against over-penetration, but it is true that expanding .223 and frangible rounds are focused on over-penetration
But again the biggest reason you don't see expanding rounds in war is (especially modern) armor defeats them far more easily than standard .223.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's inline with what the point the GP was trying to make. Tear gas would otherwise fall into the definition of a weapon that would violate the Geneva Convention if not for the specific earmark that its okay for law enforcement to use it. Its a bit of a logical loop based only on definitions. Its not against the convention because the law includes the exception, but the exception otherwise goes against the…
> As explained in the military manual of the Netherlands, the prohibition of the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare is inspired by the fact that use of tear gas, for example, in armed conflict “runs the danger of provoking the use of other more dangerous chemicals”. A party which is being attacked by riot control agents may think it is being attacked by deadly chemical weapons and resort to the use of…
>This motivation is equally valid in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Okay but clearly protesters aren't going to escalate to mustard gas just because police used tear gas?
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would prefer protesters not be killed by oppressive governments. I guess you prefer tanks and guns. Feel free to make an argument.
An argument with which they could win a scenario conveniently tailored by you, that you have arbitrary control over, and can twist until their argument is rendered senseless again? > I would prefer protesters not be killed by oppressive governments. I guess you prefer tanks and guns. On a tangential note, may I ask your stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine? I'd guess you're also a great proponent of the "peace"…
Whoa, great tangent.
I'm saying I'd rather see people robbed of their human rights by non lethal force over lethal force. There's * dozens* of mass killings that prove its not uncommon.
You have some wingnut tangent about Ukraine and assumptions that since I don't ride your high horse I'm a bad guy of fantastical proportions. Its weak minded thinkers like you that prop up the evil cabals of this world.
Feel free to contemplate the cancerous nature of your intellectual defects.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's inline with what the point the GP was trying to make. Tear gas would otherwise fall into the definition of a weapon that would violate the Geneva Convention if not for the specific earmark that its okay for law enforcement to use it. Its a bit of a logical loop based only on definitions. Its not against the convention because the law includes the exception, but the exception otherwise goes against the…
> As explained in the military manual of the Netherlands, the prohibition of the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare is inspired by the fact that use of tear gas, for example, in armed conflict “runs the danger of provoking the use of other more dangerous chemicals”. A party which is being attacked by riot control agents may think it is being attacked by deadly chemical weapons and resort to the use of…
Can you elaborate on your point here? It seems that you're linking to documentation of where the exception was made, but I don't think the existence of that exception was in question here.
I don't have a dog in this fight as it were, but the GGP comment was taking issue with the exception allowing a tool that would violate the Geneva Convention in war being used against civilians in a context where law enforcement considers it crowd or riot control.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russian tactics have worked so far in Ukraine, as gruesome as that is.
That very much depends on what you mean by "worked". And it's not like Western militaries are lacking the physical means to engage in heavier and more damaging attacks; they just have viable alternatives that they prefer.
1) Putin has conquered more population than he lost (even just counting fighting age men)
2) Putin has conquered more money/value/resources than he lost due to the conflict (by a factor of 10, maybe 100)
3) Even Ukraine's European allies seem to agree that Putin will get a ceasefire and sanctions relief where he gets to keep what he conquered
It's true that Russia did not achieve it's war goals (destruction or total control of Ukraine, and let's just not talk about the outright embarrassing "in 3 days" part), but they got quite a bit. Perhaps even more important, they got more than enough to make the conflict, at least potentially, a net positive for Putin.
Re: Military grade sonic weapon is used against protesters in Serbia
#260From the videos and the description, it looks like it basically makes you think there’s a vehicle approaching and everyone runs away to not get run over. But would this actually work repeatedly or could you actively override the panic effect if you become aware that it’s just an illusion?
As I understand, you can override the panic, but lose your hearing.
At least in the videos I saw, it didn’t look that loud.
People were more confused and looking for the source of the sound while trying to move away, not holding their ears like they were literally hurt by the noise.