The majority of biological agents are bacteria. Very few of the substances used for biological weapons are immediately lethal, so it puts the victim in more pain and suffering before the die.
This is a picture of someone who has aaaa anthrax, even though it does not look all a
bad – it is, and even this small (what looks
like a bad cut) is fatal. asdfdfasdfdfadfasdf
These are fletchettes. The agent is either put
inside one of the fletchettes, or placed on the
ridges on the outside of them.
Biological weapons are more sinister than conventional weapons. The effects are less immediate and less obvious – by the time the first victim has been found out, the agent might have spread and might already be harming others without their knowledge.
Biological weapons generally do not harm buildings or physical surroundings, compared to conventional weapons, which can cause damage to the area, not only by blowing things up, but also by putting holes in things!
Also, biological weapons are cheaper than conventional weapons, not only in the making but also the materials used to ‘build’ them. Once a biological weapon has been ‘let off’, it can spread, thus, not being as expensive because it duplicates itself.
This is a short list of some advantages of biological weapons:
- Cost
- Availability
- Difficulty of detection
- Ability to cause mass destruction
One could argue whether the last point is an advantage – however from the point of view of someone wanting to cause destruction, biological warfare is a good way.
With everything, there are always disadvantages as well as advantages. With biological warfare, there are quite a lot of disadvantages. One of the main ones is that it can affect the health of the aggressor forces.
Also, weather conditions can play a large role in whether the biological weapon works. For instance, the wind can cause it to change direction, meaning that it doesn’t ‘hit’ the desired place. Sunlight and temperature can affect the biological agent, and if not in the right conditions could cause it to die.
A major disadvantage of biological warfare is that because it is viewed as a weapon of mass destruction, their use may increase the likelihood of war.
Another disadvantage is that it can’t discriminate between people, so everyone gets infected.
The information above is from the website - http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/medaspec/Ch-20electrvv699.pdf
UK ‘Unprotected against Bio-terrorism’
“Britain could never have a fully effective defence against a major bio-terrorist attack, doctors have warned.
The British Medical Association said the only real way to protect against a strike with biological weapons was to stop them being produced in the first place.
The BMA’s Dr Vivienne Nathanson warned of the ‘extremely worrying’ threat posed by a single self-infected terrorist who walked through a busy city spreading a disease such as smallpox.
In written evidence to the Common Science and Technology Committee, Dr Nathanson said civil contingency planning must continue.
But there was no medical response to major strikes with unknown biological weapons or untreatable diseases, said Dr Nathanson, the BMA’s head of science and ethics.
Speaking ahead of this afternoon’s select committee hearing, she said weapons of mass destruction was not an accurate description of biological agents.
“It is essential to recognise that they are weapons of mass killing and incapacitation,” she said.
“These weapons do not destroy physical infrastructure but kill people, spread fear, and interrupt the workings of society.”
She added: “It is important to understand why some states or terrorist groups use biological weapons.”
“The do so precisely because physical infrastructure is unaffected and because they are cheap to produce and disperse. The only real defence against biological warfare is to prevent these weapons being produced in the first place.””
Taken from the Daily Mail – 5th March 2003
The above pie chart is showing the difference in price between the different types of weapons. As you can see, biological weapons are the cheapest out of all of them – at the price of $1 per square kilometre. It is measured in kilometres because this is the area of which the agent will effect.
This method is meant to destroy the agents used for biological weapons – it is said to kill up to 99.9999% of the bacterial spores within one hour of exposure.
An aqueous decontamination formulation for use in the neutralization of a chemical or biological toxant, comprising: a cationic surfactant; a cationic hydrotrope; a reactive compound selected from the group consisting of nucleophilic compounds, oxidizing compounds, and combinations thereof; a fatty alcohol having a concentration from greater than 1 wt. % to 2 wt %; and water.
Tucker, Mark D.; Betty, Rita G.; Tadros, Maher E. (the inventors) claim that by using these compounds, they will neutralise the biological toxant.
Taken from the website - http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=US2002027724&DISPLAY=STATUS
During the 14th Century, biological weapons were used by armies; the method they used was to catapult bodies of corpses which were infected with the plague, into walled towns, causing the infectious disease to spread.
Also, during the 17th and 18th Centuries, there are accounts of Europeans spreading smallpox or measles when trading with Native Americans.
More recently (20th Century), there is evidence that many countries have researched into biological warfare to try and develop suitable biological weapon agents – there have been lots of times when biological weapons have been said to have been used, such as;
- During World War I, the German forces were said to have used biological weapons in order to cause more destruction. In World War II, the Japanese used biological weapons against the Chinese and also on the prisoners of war.
- The Americans are said to have used Biological Warfare substances against the Koreans and Chinese armies during the Korean War – 1950-1953. Also, they used ‘agent orange’ to defoliate large areas of Vietnam and Laos.
- The Soviet Union is said to have used biological agents in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
- One of the most recent discoveries of biological weapons is that of Iraq. In the 1990s, biological warfare laboratories were discovered, which Saddam Hussein had organised. Also, large supplies of anthrax, botulism and gas gangrene bacteria were found.
An example of a risk which could occur when testing the biological weapons is that of an experiment which Britain did involving the use of anthrax, led to the contamination of the Scottish island of Gruinard.
Some countries are known to have developed biological weapons using anthrax. So, the threat from anthrax is real. The Ministry of Defence are aware that terrorists could easily ‘invade’, using anthrax. The biggest threat is that of terrorists – they could easily get hold of the bacteria, which would cause a large risk of danger. Luckily, anthrax can be made harmless by immunisation, which is a safe and effective measure.
So the answer to, ‘Does UK defence include defence against these weapons’, is yes - it does. However, the UK defence system only really focuses on anthrax, so if another biological agent was ‘let off’ in the UK, it would be slightly harder to fight it off.
In the USA, they work with Russia, in order to safely destroy any attempts of biological warfare. As president Bush said; “The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program became the primary tool through which the United States works with Russia to safely destroy its massive nuclear, chemical and biological warfare capacity. Both sides recognized the importance of this endeavour to our mutual security.”
In Canada, they have come up with a biosensor, which detects biological agents that maybe used as weapons my terrorists. This shows that Canada is also taking into account that there are biological warfare agents around, and that they are one of the easier options for terrorists to take.
The UK, USA and Canada are taking biological warfare seriously and have taken into consideration that it is a serious option for terrorists.
These three countries and Russia, have addressed the subject of biological warfare more than most other countries.
There is a convention called the ‘Biological Weapons Convention’. It is a convention which bans the development, production and stockpiling of biological agents. As of 2001, 162 states have signed the BWC and 144 of these have agreed to it.
- In 1925, the use of biological weapons in war was prohibited.
- In 1972, the convention prohibited the development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons.
- In 1975, the previous point was put into force.
- In 2001, the USA weakened the verification provisions and undid their original agreements on the rules, arguing that the verification would be inadequate and overly intrusive.
In conclusion to ‘Should Biological Warfare Research Continue’, I don’t think that it should continue because it is illegal. Biological warfare is bad, due to the fact that it does not discriminate between “good” and “bad” people, and you can’t choose who you want to be infected. On the other hand, some could say it was justifiable to keep a stockpile, due to the fact that other countries have not destroyed their stockpiles and it is therefore a mutual deterrent.
There is a term called ‘mutually assured destruction’ – this means that a lot of countries have biological weapons due to the fact that other countries have them as well, and so if one country attacks, then the other can retaliate in the same way. In principal, it would be best not to have biological weapons, but until all countries have got rid of theirs, we ought to maintain our capability.
Information taken from these pages, but change of words.
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Bi-Ca/Biological-Warfare.html
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/medaspec/Ch-20electrvv699.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6723890.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1456414.stm
http://www.css.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/crti/invest/stories-exemplaires/02_0021rd-eng.asp
http://www.defenselink.mil/new/newsarticle.aspx?id=47225
http://www.acronym.org.uk/bwc/index.htm
