The Dilemma of Tear Gas: Why Its Use on US Citizens and in Warfare Differs

The use of tear gas has sparked controversy both domestically and internationally. While the weapon is widely accepted for crowd control, its use in warfare remains highly contested. The key to understanding this paradox lies in the specific language and context of international treaties and the nature of the targets.

Overview of the Treaty Restrictions

The current international treaties, such as the Geneva Protocol, ban the use of tear gas and other chemical agents in warfare. However, these bans come with significant caveats and exceptions.

Why Tear Gas is Allowed for Riot Control

Tear gas (also known as CS gas or 'Chemical Smoke') is specifically allowed for riot control purposes because its lethality is considered insufficient to be classified as a chemical weapon. In the context of warfare, the broad definitions and fears of escalation play critical roles.

The Fears of Escalation

Historically, the inclusion of a provision in the Geneva Protocol has allowed countries to counteract the use of chemical weapons by their adversaries. This provision stipulates that if one country uses chemical weapons, the other nation can utilize any chemical agents at its disposal, regardless of their potency. This has created a fear of escalation, where using even a harmless gas like tear gas could potentially lead to the use of far more dangerous substances such as mustard gas or sarin gas.

Tear Gas Does Not Qualify as a Chemical Weapon for Riot Control

Interestingly, tear gas used in riot control no longer qualifies as a chemical weapon. It retains this status only when employed in a manner prohibited by international law.

Why Tear Gas Can be Used on US Citizens but Not in Warfare

The Geneva Convention strictly prohibits the use of noxious chemicals or gases against fighting forces during wartime. However, the Convention does not apply to internal policing. This allows law enforcement to use tear gas to disperse rioting crowds and maintain order. The reasoning behind this is that the crowds are not considered legitimate combatants under international law.

Tear Gas vs. Chemical Weapons

While tear gas is not lethal and is easily neutralized with water, it is still classified as a chemical weapon. However, it is only considered dangerous in the context of warfare. In riot control scenarios, tear gas is viewed as a less lethal alternative to other more harmful weapons.

Dispelling Myths: Protection Against Tear Gas

Myths persist that tear gas is more challenging to combat than one might think. However, knowledge of proper procedures can significantly reduce its effects. Spraying water on one's face and covering the mouth with a bandanna can offer some protection.

The Divergence in Legal Standards

Despite its potential danger, tear gas is not employed against potentially deadly threats such as terrorists. The primary objective of law enforcement is to disperse and contain crowds, not to physically harm adversaries. Additionally, the use of tear gas on a battlefield is considered an international war crime under the principles of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, tear gas can only be used against citizens within the context of law enforcement.

Thus, the legal and practical distinctions between the use of tear gas domestically and in warfare reflect a complex interplay of legal frameworks, historical precedents, and the evolving nature of conflict.