Money is whats important, and usually what you need crowd control in is against annoying people demonstrating. They are usually in the way of business, and a couple cans of sarin or chlorine would get rid of them within the hour.
Im starting to think these aren't the same chemical weapons that.
!? Theres someone at the do...
Tear gas was a great way to control them. Chemical weapons are a good way to control a crowd that doesn't actually hurt the people in the crowd. Chemical weapons help get the crowd under control without having to make arrests. Chemical irritants or riot control agents (RCAs) as they are known under international law, such as tear gas or pepper spray, are used around the world by a range of actors for both personal protection and ‘crowd management’.
Yes of course. However this is an irrelevant question since the US has already been dismantling its chemical weapons programs for the past 20 years with around 89.75% already destroyed and our last 2 chemical depots scheduled to be dismantled in and around 2017. The dismantling of chemical weapons and disarmament is a slow and lengthy process and you are late to the party.
There were a lot of protesters that tried to break up Trump's inauguration. Tear gas was a great way to control them. Chemical weapons are a good way to control a crowd that doesn't actually hurt the people in the crowd. Chemical weapons help get the crowd under control without having to make arrests.
Chemical weapons should never be used. The idea of using chemical weapons for crowd control is absurd. Rubber bullets and pepper spray might be needed to combat unruly, violent crowds; however, chemical weapons are considered WMD. No nation or government agency should ever use chemical weapons on its citizens nor the citizens of other countries.