Hacker News Reader

Comment by camilo2025 | Hacker News Reader

camilo2025

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.

What would ICC think of it, I wonder.

The ICC is fine with it. France is a particularly big fan of firing tear gas canisters at protestors. It's not just the US.

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?

Some weapons are intrinsically forbidden because of their effects on individuals: soft-point bullets for instance. These are as discriminate as you want them to be, but are nonetheless prohibited in conflicts. Thus it's not just indiscriminate weapons that are banned by international agreement!

When asked why tear gas is banned, the answer I gave was "the weapon is indiscriminate and chemical" not "all banned weapons are indiscriminate and chemical".

For example lasers used to blind soldiers are generally banned as well and as you point out, lasers are basically arbitrarily discriminate.

AIUI they are mainly banned because they could lead to escalations in chemical weapons usage. If your enemy uses tear gas vs cs gas, it could be hard to tell right away and you might feel pressure to use all the tools you have available (including lethal chemical weapons) vs. Play by the rules.

Of course if you are fighting a real war, there is probably going to be chem weapons used. It happened in Syria. It is happening in Ukraine. It will keep happening. Geneva convention is wishful thinking.

something to consider is that in the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) the military used a bunker buster on a Sarin gas storage facility and shot the sarin high into the atmosphere, where it then floated far downwind and landed on US troops. Ofc, reporting on it doesn't really consider Iraqi civilians and is only weepy about US soldiers.

https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2022/s...

> Geneva convention is wishful thinking.

It is a convention. It is useful for applying pressure. It certainly seems to reduce their use.

You could as well say that laws against murder or theft or whatever are wishful thinking.

Murder is generally punished. Unless you spew pollutants with known biological harm leading to numerous cancerous deaths and cover it up and pay off enough politicians. Then it is generally rewarded or at least tolerated.

It's because of the direct effects; chlorine gas for instance will almost instantly blind anyone exposed to it, and tear gas can also be fatal. My great-grandfather was gassed in the First World War and only narrowly survived. Chemical weapons were technically already banned by this point, but it was WW1 that prompted the modern Geneva Protocol (not the Geneva Conventions; these are slight different). Unfortunately, none of the Geneva treaties cover their use outside of wartime.

Many people don't realize this but many of the banned weapons are ones with a decent chance of maiming people but leaving them alive. This is worse for everyone involved in a war (everyone here meaning politicians and generals, not soldiers) than killing them. Cluster munitions, flamethrowers, and anti-personnel mines all fit in this category, too.

Most of Geneva Convention items are things that are huge liabilities to the own sides. e.g., there were such chemical gases that react with gas mask filters so to specifically bypass filtering. No one in Europe wants to pay welfare costs for factory leaks or downwind collateral damages in neighboring countries or army of veterans maimed with that thing, but they will have to if their enemies would use it to their advantages. Agreeing to a universal ban solves that problem.

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...

> Part of the rationale for a total ban is to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents

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...

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 war. Incidentally, if you looked at how the Roman army used short swords and concluded that "long swords are useless for fighting a war," I bet he would have something to say about it.

Russian tactics have been largely ineffective and characterized by horrendous losses despite immense advantages in manpower and material

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.

Putin has conquered more population than he lost (even just counting fighting age men)

What a weird metric. More civilians subjugated than soldiers lost?

it's war goals (destruction or total control of Ukraine

Russia wants to destroy the Ukrainian cultural identity. It's cultural genocide, and it's been a goal of theirs for hundreds of years. This is why they steal Ukrainian children and ship them off to be adopted in Russia.

I agree it's weird. But it's the metric, I think, that most determines if Putin can just start another war in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. That's my reason for why it's important. It determines the next phase of the war.

They’ve worked, at great cost, against Ukraine. They wouldn’t work against a more powerful foe with air superiority.

Why would e.g. sarin be useful for indiscriminate damage when A) you could drop a conventional or thermobaric bomb instead, and B) you can circumvent sarin by wearing a $200 suit from AliExpress? I'm not seeing how it's meant to fit into Russian military doctrine other than in niche circumstances.

It's much cheaper. Read the book "The Dead Hand" for details.

If you give me a specific quote from the book I'll be able to understand what you mean a bit better.

I know there's a quote floating around which gives the figure of $2000/km^2 for conventional weapons, $800 for sarin etc., $600 for nuclear, and $1 for biological. I'll respond to that.

The problem is, those numbers are for attacking civilians. You can of course make the argument that Russian military doctrine includes massacring civilians, but I would respond that not only is sarin more expensive against modern military targets, it's outright ineffective against them if they're prepared.

> He makes the mistake of looking at how the US military fights and thinking that is the only way to fight a war

Keep reading.

"And, so, where do we still see chemical weapons used? In static-system vs. static-system warfare. Thus, in Syria – where the Syrian Civil War has been waged as a series of starve-or-surrender urban sieges, a hallmark of static vs. static fighting – you see significant use of chemical weapons, especially as a terror tactic against besieged civilians. The limited manpower and capabilities of regime forces have caused the war to deteriorate into a series of sieges, sometimes stretching out years (fighting in Aleppo lasted for four years, for instance; the final siege itself ran from February 2014 to its conclusion in December 2016). Anti-regime forces are often poorly equipped (often completely unable, for instance, to engage regime air-assets) and the civilian populace was completely unprotected against chemical munitions, making them far more vulnerable targets.

But a major factor here is actually weakness, in the Syrian regime forces. Assad simply didn’t have a lot of modern air-to-ground munitions; chemical munitions weren’t being compared for cost- and mission-effectiveness against such modern weapons, but against barrels loaded with explosives, nails and scrap – weapons which would have been primitive by the standards of the 1940s, much less now. And – let’s be honest here – his ground forces lack manpower, but also perform quite poorly. Remember: the question for the effectiveness of chemical weapons is value-over-replacement – while the vulnerability of anti-regime forces increased the value, we also must note that Assad’s heavily weakened, static system forces also substantially reduced the value of the replacement. In a fight between what are, in the last analysis, two weak forces, the calculation on the effectiveness of chemical weapons changes."

I read the analysis. I think he's being far too dismissive of the doctrinal considerations in his analysis. Frankly, he is also not an expert on modern warfare in any way, too.

There is a good book called "eating soup with a knife" (and the author has given talks on this) that talks about the importance of doctrine and culture in constructing a fighting force (in this case, the book is mostly about counterinsurgency doctrine and how the American and British militaries are uniquely unsuited to it). An American-style doctrine simply does not work in Russia, even given unlimited resources, because of how the culture and the military work. The weapons are then built to fit the doctrine, not the other way around.

In other words, the "static system" actually is the way to get the Russian military (and the Ukrainian military) to work. That difference in doctrine, by the way, caused a lot of headaches because US weapons are not made for it.

> the "static system" actually is the way to get the Russian military (and the Ukrainian military) to work

Well, yes. They've been unable to launch combined-arms maneouvres. They failed to establish even air supremacy against decades-old NATO air defence kit. Russia has to fight the way it does because it's unable to fight more effectively.

The author's core point stands: we didn't outlaw chemical weapons because of any moral reasons, we outlawed them because the world's leading militaries don't need them. In cases where they have tactical value, lo and behold, they get used.

On that point we agree, that the world's leading militaries don't need them. However, they are a tool that increases the effectiveness of other militaries.

I disagree with him that the specific combined arms shock doctrine is what make those militaries the world's leading ones. Those militaries are leading because they have the best people, weapons, and training, and a combined arms shock doctrine fits with their culture.

> they are a tool that increases the effectiveness of other militaries

Sure. Which is why the world's leading militaries banned them. OP said we banned chemical weapons "to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents." There is simply no evidence we were that high minded.

Chemical weapons are useless because they're expensive and ineffective. It's not like they haven't been deployed on the battlefield before.

>Chemical weapons are tactically useless for modern militaries

The defense of Azovstal steelworks and Gaza tunnels seems to show otherwise.

> Chemical weapons are tactically useless for modern militaries [1]. You’re pretty much always better off pounding with high explosives.

Maybe you know something I don't but in country we were always MOPP Ready:

    MOPP Ready – Protective mask is carried. First set of suit, gloves, and boots are available within two hours, second set within six hours.

My mask was usually in the truck or in my pack. We qualify with our masks on a yearly basis. It could be argued that the chance of chemical deterrents that require MOPP 0 and above is negligible due to the our current landscape but that can honestly change based on the opponent or geography.

> These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.

Isn't that a category ban that came out of a couple specific members of that category that were used and had particularly nasty effects? And then countries' domestic law enforcement rules tend to be defined in different terms.

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 the use of gas as a weapon than in dealing with the LD50 of the various gasses.

Likewise with frangible/hollow-point ammunition, it isn't even banned by the Geneva Conventions, it was banned under the now-defunct Hague Convention. For better or worse they thought that these "tumbling" or "expanding" bullets were designed to inflict intentionally greater suffering. Who knows maybe the versions that existed in the late 1800's did too, the ones today aren't used because they're worthless against even modest body armor.

But again, people just see text on a picture in a meme and take it to heart.

> 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 are also cases where the additional stopping power is invaluable, for example against a pack of dogs.

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.

An argument that modern body armor has largely negated the incentive does not imply that the ethical concerns don't exist. They are entirely separate points of discussion.

> You can argue that any GSW that isn't immediately lethal inflicts suffering, I'm not sure how an expanding head changes that.

It's a matter of intent and degree. If we collectively threw up our hands every time we encountered a grey area we'd never be able to agree on anything.

The point is that in the event that a weapon fails to kill the target, there are ethical concerns if it does more damage, particularly long term damage, than absolutely necessary. There's no need to make warfare even worse than it already is.

Except they are used today. Russian 5.45 is famously highly prone to tumbling due to its design with bubble of air in the front of the bullet (even more so than rifle rounds in general). If we look at American 5.56mm, the original M193 was prone to fragmenting, which the original study reports on what would eventually become M16 noted as the reason why it's capable of creating more devastating wounds then the then-standard M80 ball. And modern M855A1 fragments even more reliably (at lower velocities) while still punching through armor.

Pretty much any OTM round is effectively expanding and/or fragmenting (depending on velocity) as well...

So for all practical purposes this convention hasn't been followed for literally decades now. The pretense is that we claim that all these bullet designs just happen to do what they do. Although IIRC the US military authorized use of 9mm JHP in some circumstances, as well, so I think even that veneer is mostly gone by now.

Generally if you do it to your own people the world is fine with.. just about anything.

Serbia is currently using it on its own people, and yet we here we are reading about it and discussing, with no small amount of outrage.

I similarly condemn such actions. But unless we are in a position to enforce any change in behaviour on Serbia then being unhappy on a web forum doesn't count. It's as useful as "thoughts and prayers".

Take some meaningful action away from this forum and we'll see. I am not in a meaningful position to do so unfortunately.

Action isnt the only measure of meaning or the only determinate of caring.

Caring exists on a spectrum, and isnt black and white.

Thoughts and prayers are a form of caring as well, and an important one. It isn't always what a utilitarian wants, but it is part of a package deal when working with real humans with emotional and social lives.

I think you and I are largely in agreement in that caring is good. Without such caring then no such meaningful actions would ever happen. We need to care, it is a good part of society. But care without action can be ignored.

So as far as Serbia is concerned "no meaningful consequence = the world is fine with.. just about anything."

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

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 principles of the convention.

> 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 chemical weapons. It is this danger of escalation that States sought to avert by agreeing to prohibit the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare in armed conflict. This motivation is equally valid in international and non-international armed conflicts.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule75

finally someone bringing some reason and evidence to this stupid discussion. thank you

>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?

I think the argument here is that its okay to use against a crowd because the risk of escalation is very low.

It's acceptable only because the authorities know the masses will accept it. And what could the masses do otherwise, gather signatures? So yes, it is how it is, until the masses somehow decide it's not - and then will get gassed again. Because the masses wishing for a change are rarely in a majority and authorities usually listen to majorities.

Well, by definition yes. The job of the masses is to resist by any means available. If it starts using terrorist tactics it stops being the masses. Of course besides gathering signatures there's many other peaceful adjacent things that can be done (leftist types love the meme of a general strike, but of course civil disobedience, road blockades, and so on are all on the table), and somewhere between guerilla warfare and spray painting stencils in the night there's a fuzzy ethical line. On one side it's Taliban style "we will wait until they leave" and on the other side it's again Taliban style, but the bad things.

Mostly the masses ought to be proactive, educate itself, and so on to avoid signing conventions that have these exceptions.

Yes, I know. :/

I think this discussion is missing a significant issue: why would a democratic government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, use tear gas? Why do British Bobbies carry batons?

The simplest answer, which is the basis of all police powers of the state: to prevent crimes against persons and crimes against property. Riotous mobs get people hurt, often killed. The businesses proximate to a protest, often small businesses, often under-insured due to cost constraints, are very likely to be severely affected by protests that turn violent. Major corporate storefronts can absorb the cost of damages, but the same damages to a mom-and-pop grocery could be the end of the business, no matter how much they sympathize with the community that is outraged. And let me reiterate what I started with: riotous mobs get people hurt, often killed.

Tear gas vs the baton is a lesser version of the observation by James B. Conant, president of Harvard University, in his autobiography: "To me the development of new and more effective gases seemed no more immoral than the manufacture of explosives and guns. . . I did not see in 1917, and do not see in 1968, why tearing a man's guts out by a high-explosive shell is to be preferred to maiming him by attacking his lungs or skin."

https://www.amazon.com/My-Several-Lives-Memoirs-Inventor/dp/...

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.

> 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 chemical weapons. It is this danger of escalation that States sought to avert by agreeing to prohibit the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare in armed conflict.

The implication of the statement “These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.” is that riot agents are considered too barbaric to be deployed even in war, which is not the reason these agents are prohibited in wartime use. Instead, there was a worry that it would be too difficult to differentiate riot agents from chemical weapons (e.g. chlorine or mustard gas), which could lead the party attacked with riot agents to retaliate with chemical weapons.

Is your argument, or would you agree with governments making the argument, that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you/they know its asymmetric?

I made no such argument. My argument is that the claim

> These are weapons that would violate the Geneva convention, but we're okay with them to disperse a crowd.

is misleading because it implies that riot agents are comparable to chemical weapons. Riot agents are intended to disperse crowds while keeping casualties to a minimum. Chemical weapons are intended to kill people.

As opposed to citizens, who ought to just be thrilled their government is gassing them?

Nuking a non-nuclear country has less risk of MAD style escalation, yes? Same idea.

Is your argument that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you know its asymmetric?

I’m not making an argument, rather an observation.

A saying I’ve heard from many folks I know who have been in the US military is ‘fair fights are for idiots’. I think it’s a common mindset in any (successful) military.

For sure, I agree with that. How does that link back to having exceptions allowing law enforcement to use tear gas on civilians though?

Because civilians don’t have WMD style chemical weapons, generally? So are not an ‘MAD’ type risk. Unlike potential enemy combatants.

Morality has nothing to do with these scenarios (treaty/convention wise) near as I can tell.

It seems like you would agree then that the use of force should be acceptable as long as you know its asymmetric.

Am I misreading you there?

Clearly yes, you are misreading me.

If governments consider it acceptable or not has nothing to do with my opinion. Or yours.

This would be all well and good except that society is not actually constructed by neutral arbiters outside the world, as much as certain parties have their pretensions to that -- they are created by the interactions of interested parties. In other words: class struggle.

Suppressing protests in US isn't usually law enforcement, its purpose is to violate the law and suppress speech.

The link you were just given offers clarity on that point; the definition does not hinge on the meaning of the word "riot".

In the case of the Bonus Army, it was Herbert Hoover's intent to deny a means of existence with bullets to deny existence of vets and their families even sooner. History really wants to rhyme again soon, which is unfortunate.

Don’t worry, that will never happen again, because America will never be willing to fight another war in Europe.

How do you feel about the defensive use of pepper spray?

Ya, and what about high-velocity lead spray?

You asked the wrong person. I would rather that people ditched pepper spray for defensive uses altogether and carried guns instead.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.5358303

It is an obvious fallacy to conflate the usage of tear gas canisters with the usage of mustard gas in WWI. They differ drastically in amount/concentration, area of effect, and long term health risks, thus should be treated differently in considering their usage.

Tear gas clearly sits on a spectrum of non-lethal arms with various other options that are more or less harmful. While it's entirely fair to criticize its use on a case by case basis, insofar as disorderly public gatherings can have varying levels of violence/destruction, it would stand to reason that some instances warrant the use of tear gas.

24/7 lighting of prisoners so they can't sleep is torture, unless it's the American police and they need to keep the lights on for 'safety'.

Electro shock torture is illegal... unless it's the cops using a taser to get a desired behavior/compliance.

Police use > legally defined torture/war crimes.

My American Citizen score card:

LRAD + Tear gas 2009

Tear gas 2017

Tear gas 2021

Still got the exhausted canister from 2009 as a souvenir. Carry a bottle of water, the tear gas rinses out quickly.

They have been used against US citizens in the United States? That is news to me.

If they have been used in other countries against US diplomatic corps that is an act of war.

Now if a US citizen uses a visit to a foreign country to protest against a government they’re on their own. I’m sorry, but US citizens shouldn’t be engaging in that and the US state department has no obligation to protect that condition.

it's actually quite common. i have personally experienced use of LRAD by police as a weapon.

the first actual use of LRAD by police as a weapon in the united states was possibly in 2009

https://www.aclupa.org/news/2012/11/14/city-pittsburgh-settl...

though it is known to have been deployed but not used as a weapon earlier than that.

but to clarify, i don't think the video posted by OP shows use of an LRAD. that is something else

Used in 2014 against protesters in Ferguson.

https://slate.com/technology/2014/08/lrad-long-range-acousti...

The US has also in some places explicitly legalized the use of cars as a lethal weapon against protestors: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/us/politics/republican-an...

Example: https://www.theblaze.com/news/general-mark-milley-pentagon-a...

Yes - we've got a long way to go with regards to these technologies.

It doesn't matter what it is, or where it's happening in the world, the conversation always comes back to the US. Always.

When?

NYPD -- https://gothamist.com/news/city-settles-lawsuit-protesters-w...

Apparently used multiple times during Black Lives Matter protests: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/06/04/204368...

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_acoustic_device#Uni...

Was an especially commonly discussed topic in 2020 during the George Floyd related protests. Some notable video resources on how to defend against these devices and what one can expect: [0] and [1]. To save you time, if i remember correctly, the most effective is one of those plastic riot shields held in reverse to direct the sound back at the sender (notably pretty difficult when you don't want to just hit other protesters, or don't know where the sound is coming from and/or are getting hit by reflections).

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXKTBQBugIA

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqIvak-4Ek

I went hiking in Honolulu once with this woman who worked for the US gov I met on tinder. We went through this bamboo grove behind the city. All of sudden there was this overwhelming tiredness that took me over and I had to sleep. I needed to sit down by a rock and fell asleep very quickly. Then I woke up really quickly but it seemed like avea have passed. It was crazy. I was super healthy back then and don't have any issues or take any medicines. It was crazy, let me tell you, that woman was very precise but very strange.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com