Which is wild when you add perspective using facts like the police in the US are less disciplined than troops overseas and tbe US still uses substances banned by the Geneva Convention on its civilian population. So if even the US wwon’t test it on their own people, it’s bad.
GC is for war and soldiers are combatants and not criminals by default (switching can happen easily). As an example Hollowpoint against criminals is okay as it can protect surrounding bystanders.
It’s a bit weird, but for countries war is different from domestic problems.
Which is wild when you add perspective using facts like the police in the US are less disciplined than troops overseas and tbe US still uses substances banned by the Geneva Convention on its civilian population. So if even the US wwon’t test it on their own people, it’s bad.
Listen, the Geneva convention only specifies what we can’t use on enemies, okay? As long as the targets are technically friendlies, it’s fair game!
GC is for war and soldiers are combatants and not criminals by default (switching can happen easily). As an example Hollowpoint against criminals is okay as it can protect surrounding bystanders.
It’s a bit weird, but for countries war is different from domestic problems.
Is that not what I said but less tongue-in-cheek?