He stated that there had been a big uproar over this idea cuz' it was tantamount to "CHEMICAL WARFARE"! OMG!
It IS chemical warfare, banned by the Geneva Conventions when applied by military forces. This is not in question. These paralytic agents need to be applied carefully in calibrated fashion when used as medical agents. A gas spread indiscriminately among
a large crowd of people would pretty inevitably result in deaths and permanent injury. Given that ‘riot control’ by the military is pretty much exclusively used in conflicts with civilians, it is clearly banned by the Conventions.
There was also a big flap when the US experimented with 'tear gas' in VietNam.
For the same reason, although I think irritant agents like tear gas and pepper spray have been declared not to violate the conventions in the time since, for certain uses like crowd dispersal. That said, it’s use in Vietnam in the Viet Cong tunnels was
tantamount to gassing soldiers in the trenches in WWI and was arguably a war crime, as under confined conditions it can easily be lethal. That no one was prosecuted for the war crimes committed in Vietnam doesn’t negate the fact that they did happen.
Of course the Geneva Conventions do not apply to civilian authorities when used against their own citizens. “Riot Control” covers a multitude of sins. As it is tear gas, pepper spray, and other so-called ‘non-lethal’ weapons like tasers, bean bag and rubber
rounds, can and do kill and injure hundreds of people annually. I'd be frightened to think of what would happen with things like paralytic agents in their hands.
--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs