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.