To understand this paradox, we have to look beyond the “health” arguments and into the terrifying logic of military strategy versus state control.
The reason a soldier in a trench has more protection against chemical weapons than a mother at a protest comes down to two specific concepts: The Escalation Ladder (in war) and Asymmetric Control (in policing).
Here is the deep dive into why this double standard exists.
1. Why it is Banned in War: “The Fog of War” & Nuclear Escalation
The ban on Riot Control Agents (RCAs) in warfare—codified in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993—is not primarily humanitarian. It is strategic.
The “Flashpoint” Problem:
In the chaos of a battlefield, it is impossible to instantly distinguish between “less-lethal” pepper spray and a lethal nerve agent like Sarin or VX.
- The Scenario: If Army A fires a canister of white gas at Army B, Army B’s sensors detect “chemicals.”
- The Reaction: Army B cannot wait to see if their eyes just sting or if they are about to die. They must assume the worst. They immediately don full MOPP (chemical) gear and launch a retaliatory strike.
- The Escalation: Since Army B believes they are under lethal chemical attack, they may retaliate with lethal chemical weapons or even tactical nuclear weapons.
The Conclusion: Pepper spray is banned in war because its use risks triggering a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) exchange. The ban is about preserving the stability of the geopolitical order, not saving individual soldiers from pain.
The “Inefficacy” Factor:
From a purely tactical standpoint, pepper spray is useless against a modern military. Every modern soldier carries a gas mask and is trained to fight in it. Shooting pepper spray at a prepared army does nothing but annoy them. It is a weapon that only works against the unprotected.
2. Why it is Allowed in Policing: The “Domestic Loophole”
When the Chemical Weapons Convention was being negotiated, the United States (and other nations) specifically lobbied for a loophole. They refused to sign the treaty unless they could keep using these agents on their own citizens.
The Legal Loophole (Article II, 9(d)):
The CWC explicitly defines “Law Enforcement including domestic riot control purposes” as a permitted purpose. This created a legal bifurcation:
- International: The chemical is a “Weapon of War.”
- Domestic: The same chemical is a “Riot Control Agent.”
The Logic of Asymmetric Control:
Unlike in war, where two armies are roughly equal, policing is “asymmetric.” The police have the gear; the crowd does not.
- Targeting the Vulnerable: Because the crowd is untrained and unequipped (no gas masks), the chemical works. It relies on the biological vulnerability of the citizen to force compliance.
- The “Humanitarian” Myth: The state justifies this by arguing that chemical weapons are a “substitution” for bullets. They argue: “Would you rather we shoot them?” This is a false dichotomy. By positioning chemical torture as the “merciful” alternative to death, they normalize the use of chemical weapons for minor infractions (like standing on a sidewalk).
3. The Deep Moral Rot: Biopolitical Control
The deepest reason this double standard persists is how the State views the Body of the Citizen versus the Body of the Enemy.
War is “Rules for Equals”:
War has rules (The Geneva Convention) because it is viewed as a contest between sovereign powers. There is a mutual respect for the destructive capacity of the enemy. You don’t gas them because you don’t want them to gas you.
Policing is “Management of Biomass”:
Domestically, the state does not fear the crowd’s nuclear retaliation. The crowd is viewed not as an enemy army, but as a biological mass that needs to be herded, dispersed, or subdued.
- The “Pain Compliance” Doctrine: The state claims the right to inflict pain to achieve obedience. Pepper spray is the ultimate tool for this because it attacks the senses. It doesn’t just block movement; it creates a physiological panic (the sensation of drowning/burning) that breaks the human will.
4. The “Surplus” Pipeline
There is also an industrial-military component.
- Development: As mentioned earlier, PAVA and CS gas were developed by military scientists. When the military realized these agents were useless against masked soldiers, they didn’t scrap the research.
- Transfer: They pivoted the market to law enforcement. The “militarization of police” isn’t just about tanks; it’s about the downward flow of rejected military technology. Weapons deemed too ineffective or chemically risky for the battlefield are rebranded as “crowd control” for the streets.
Summary
Pepper spray is banned in war because armies are too dangerous to provoke with ambiguous chemical clouds.
It is allowed in policing because citizens are vulnerable enough to be controlled by it.
The ban protects the stability of nations; the exemption permits the domination of people.
Leave a Reply