• teft@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    14 hours ago

    3 things. First it’s a myth that triangular bayonets are banned under the geneva conventions. Only serrated bayonets are illegal. Secondly it wouldn’t make sense to ban something in war because it’s “more lethal”. That’s like the whole point of war. Serrated blades are banned because they cause undue suffering. Third, the geneva conventions only apply to humanitarian treatment at war. Governments are free to do what they want to their citizens according to international law. It’s why tear gas is banned for warfare via the geneva conventions yet police can gas the shit out of protestors.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Nitpick: the Geneva conventions apply for all kinds of conflicts, including domestic ones. However, tear gas is allowed for riot control in policing.

      The reason it’s banned in war is because if the other side sees you using chemical weapons, they might respond with their own, but the bad ones, like nerve gas. In riot control, that isn’t going to happen.

    • PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yes, it was the “undue suffering” component that I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification. What was the reason to do away with them then? They went to flat blades, didn’t they? Not sure if bayonets are even current issue for armies any longer. Are they?

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Not sure if bayonets are even current issue for armies any longer

        You’ve run into the answer here: bayonets simply aren’t a big deal in warfare anymore, so it doesn’t overly matter what they’re shaped like.