Should we develop and/or use chemical/biological weapons? Are you serious?
Absolutely not. Not only no, but HELL no. The fact that they exist in any capacity after World War I is absolutely astounding to me. Didn’t people learn anything from that?
I think that when you are refering to Bioterror weapons , your mostly refering to either anthrax , panthrax , nerve and blister gas like VX , Sarin , mustard gas , and anything really related to the subject.
But when you think about it , they are mostly obsolete weaponry , that has known limits and capabilitys for deployment. Weather dependent for the most part, the after effects of a nuclear strike are easier to clean up , persistent nerve agents can remain viable for a number of decades ,and there are still fears that some archaeologist is gonna dig up someone that was struck down by the bubonic plague of the black death years.
A much better way , if you wanted to go that route ,would be to use genetically modified seeds , to alter a target countrys crop production, much more useful .
Declan
Yes, we should develop them.
The key word is “develop.” This does not mean producing and stockpiling vast amounts, but just enough to be able to create functional countermeasures, vaccines, whatever. Never hurts to be prepared.
:Evil Idea coming on: :eek: How about designing a virus that only kills people with certain genetic markers in their DNA, making sure of course that those markers are common in your enemies population, but fairly rare in your own. This is of course, beyond current technology, but might not be for ever. 50 years from now, a virus that could wipe out 60% of the Han Chinese population might come in handy. :eek: :eek: :eek:
It would not work. Looking at the history of humanity, there have been countless migrations, invasions, cross marrying, etc. No race is “pure” enough" to have a reliable and unique DNA marker. Think of Australia or the USA, where everyone came from somewhere else. In the Middle East, we are looking at people who built empires and sailed oceans back when the rest of us were still hunter gatherers. With all the “cross pollination”, any disease that attacks them would also turn on us. Then too there is a “war ethic” in which you try not to kill people who are not the enemy, or are not combatants. Germs don’t make any distinction.
Advocating genocide on the SDMB?
Why is it that when I talk about using a Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear threat of reprisal against Muslim religious shrines to deter Al Qida from destroying an American city with a terrorist a-bomb, I’m a villain, but when RandomLetters advocates a genocide-specifical bioweapon, everybody gives him/her/it a pass?
I want to use a threat to deter an attack that would kill millions, RandomLetters want to make “Death Camp In A Jar”, and that’s cool with all of you. :smack: :mad:
As bad as it is, nuke is not nearly as horrible as a rampant disease. Once you detonate a nuke, it goes off and that’s it. It is relatively localized. It doesn’t keep spreading. There is an end to its affects. The shock wave kills, the return wave kills, the radiation kills. But, it doesn’t leapfrog from one carrier to another. With air travel, any bio weapon could spread globally like wildfire and become a pandemic. Having said that, I would not use either one. No nukes, no germs. Strange how during a war to supposedly “liberate”, we are having a discussion on how best to do a genocide on the same people, isn’t it?
We’ve supposely been out of the bioweapons business since 1969. If it weren’t for Watergate, Tricky Dick might be fondly remembered now for officially ending the US bioweapons programs. I suppose he still should be. I think the “8-Ball” in Fort Dietrich was shut down then for good.
That said, we do research bioweapons for defense; and I’m sure all our earlier work has been well documented. I don’t doubt we could scale up to a full-blown offensive capability in months to years. But what for? If we want mass destruction, we can destroy the world with nuclear weapons. Even a few 100kt bombs would render entire cities uninhabitable for decades and poison people with fallout for thousands of square miles downwind. Nukes are a bioweapon of sorts, filling the environment with mutagens. What more could we need?
I did say that the idea was evil, and in no way do I think that such a weapon should ever be used, except in the most dire of circumstances, like those that would require a massive nuclear strike. And this type of ethno-plague should only be considered if the full type of nuclear strike could cause the whole nuclear winter thing, or the enemy has an effective missile defense system.
And I agree with your “nuke Mecca if Islamic terrorist nuke New York” type of MAD plan - I don’t think you are a villain for that. No more villainous than suggesting we nuke Moscow or Beijiang or Paris, if those countries nuke D.C.
No. It should never be considered under any circumstances. There is no ethical justification for the utter destruction of a people. (I suppose that if one could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every person in a particular situation (culture, society, whatever) was actively engaged in ritual slaughter of infants, you might make such a case. However, fantasy–actually, absurdist–scenarios do nothing to promote critical thinking on these topics.)
As was, I suspect, pointed out to Bosda at the time of his original offering, you have just now justified the WTC/Pentagon attack. If you say that it is reasonable to attack an innocent population center because many of its population support actions that you consider reprehensible, then al Qaida’s attack on New York for the purpose of beginning the actions to eliminate U.S. interference with holy Muslim lands is justified.
In the view of al Qaida, the U.S. was an unholy secularist state propping up a corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia and further desecrating with military bases the land in which Mecca and Medina are found. “We” impose defilement on the Saudi people, so “we” are legitimate targets.
Threatening the sacred shrines of a billion people (and the homes and lives of over half a million people) for the purpose of warning off a couple of thousand zealots makes no sense.
Please note that I was criticising, not endorsing, RandomLetters.
I continue to support the idea of deterrent by threat of retaliation.
But a weapon designed solely to kill a certain racial group–HELL NO!