Talk:Biological warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
I removed the yellow rain section, because it was chemical, not biological warfare.
---
I believe the following diseases are likely to be considered for use as biological weapons
tularemia, brucellosis, Q. fever, VEE, SEB, ricin, botulism toxin, mycotoxins
May you explain why you do think they should not ?
Besides, why did you remove low visibility, high potency, accessibility, and easy delivery, these are important
- There was an editting conflict, so I probably did not notice that you added the above to the list. My bad. I removed low visibility, high potency, accessibility, and easy delivery, first, because it is way to long for a section title, and second because "easy delivery" flatly contradicts the section below it which claims that delivery is the main difficulty in producing bio-weapons. Maybe it needs re-wording?
-
- You are confusing caracteristics of a "good" weapon and real situation, where delivery is indeed difficult. Ideally, the biological weapon sould be easy to deliver. Hence, it needs rewording, not deletion.
wikipedia:pages needing attention reckons this should be watched for NPOV - but I think it's probably ok at the mo. Opinions? Martin
Removed since this doesn't have much to do with bioweapons....
[edit] New technological threats
New technologies such as genetics, proteomics, molecular engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics led to new concerns. Robotics and (limited) artificial intelligence have been used in war, in particular by the United States. Proteomics and genetics have both been used in research into new chemical and biological weapons - again, the US has led the way here, researching "crowd control" chemical weapons that are permitted under the relevant treaties, and also pursuing "defensive" research into biological weapons. Molecular engineering has yet to be used in warfare, but has yet to be used in anything besides research into molecular engineering.
Supported by these concerns, some claim "NBC" weapons should now include genetic, proteomic, robotic and AI threats as well.
For example, one concern met with each of the "NBC" types is that the different treaties applicable had legal loopholes, due to confusion about the line between chemical and biological weapons (e.g. prions which are not organisms but simple single-molecule proteins, and could thereby be considered either chemical or biological), and the spread of "dual use" technology through commercial channels that could easily be put to military use.
Another concern was that most "NBC" treaties predated the ability to DNA-sequence and genetically modify biological entities (to be, make or carry poisonous substances, virus or prion), e.g. altering the well-understood e. coli bacterium to generate prions).[1]
[edit] Impact of new technologies of mass destruction
Some of these technologies could have impacts far beyond a single generation of the human species in one place on Earth, and so are generally considered to be wholly inappropriate for conflict between nation-states. The only use of such weapons seems to be threatening human extinction (as North Korea began to do starting early in 2003) or mutual assured destruction of an opponent who attacks first - perhaps including other populations innocent in the conflict.
Miniaturization, mastery of genomes and proteomes, and adaptive software, all seem to have the potential to be combined to create pseudo-life-forms that may compete successfully with natural life. Indeed, some scientists in the artificial life field believe it is desirable to do so. The dangers of these technologies in combination, and of loss of human control over biological or robotic runaways, is a major reason that the United Nations seek to control their spread, especially to non-state actors such as terrorist groups, that typically have no population to defend, and so can be quite reckless, and are not concerned with the threat of retaliation against a nation.
- In a small town in Oregon, followers of the Rajneesh Yoga attempted to control a local election by infecting a salad bar with salmonella. The attack caused about 900 people to get sick, and was thus quite effective.
So how did the election turn out? --Andrew 20:30, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Historical bio-warfare and smallpox
Dropped this paragraph:
- Several colonists settling in North and South America are now infamous for waging biological warfare by distributing items infected with smallpox to indigenous populations. Francisco Pizarro distributed clothing infected with smallpox to South American peoples in the 16th century; Hernán Cortés infected the Aztec population in the early 16th century; Jeffrey Amherst distributed smallpox infected blankets to Native Americans sympathetic to France during the French and Indian War; and Captain Ecuyer of the Royal Americans distributed blankets and handkerchiefs to Native Americans in 1763.
This is disputed, see smallpox. Ellsworth 23:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks. Courtland 12:58, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
[edit] French and Indian War Smallpox attack
Dropped this sentence:
- During the French and Indian War, British troops handed out smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans aligned with the French. It is estimated that up to 20,000 Native Americans died from smallpox, as the disease was unknown in North America previously, and the natives therefore had no natural immunity.
This is in conflict with the smallpox article - the French and Indian war began in 1756, and smallpox was certainly not "unknown in North America" before then. Ellsworth 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From article on Pontiac's Rebellion: On 24 June 1763, in a now infamous incident, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, in hopes of spreading the disease to the Indians in order to end the siege. Modern polemical accounts of Indian/white relations often cite this incident as an example of genocide. However, although Indians in the area did contract smallpox, it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident; the disease was already in the area and may have easily reached the Indians through other vectors. Jeffrey Amherst’s name is usually associated with this incident, although the first record of Amherst suggesting trying to spread smallpox to the Indians is from the summer of 1764, after the commander at Fort Pitt had already made this attempt, apparently on his own initiative.
A number of discussion pages in Wiki have been debating this controversial issue. See Kevin Myers' recent edit on the Smallpox article. The paragraph above contains much the same information. WBardwin 04:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I added a {{fact}} tag to a portion of this text, which seems confused or confusing. The article mentions inoculation with chickenpox being met with suspicion, and that chickenpox was as dangerous to Native Americans as smallpox was. This may have been the case; but I was unaware that exposure to chickenpox conferred any immunity to smallpox, which the article now suggests is the case. Was cowpox intended? - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scary Choice
I really think pulmonary anthrax is an ideal choice for use in biological attacks. It is airborn and can have a mortallity rate of up to 90%! Biological weapons can be/are very scary. Subphreeky 17 July 2005
Read "Biohazard" and "Hot Zone" some time. The really scary agents are in the filovirus catigory and form hemorragic fevers. Militarizing Anthrax to acheave the particulate sizes and dispersion techneques in order to sufficently attack a large civilian population is a massive endevor. Spreading a readily transmissable virus like hemorragic Dengue Fever or Ebola Zaire is much more "low tech" and involves fewer rescorces and personnel. -NBCD Chief
[edit] Chronological List
Hello
I am considering compiling a list of Bio war incidents, I am looking for input on the proper name:
- Chronology of biological warfare
- Timeline of biological incidents
There could be several other choices, let me know what you think.
Yummy123 20:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-Plant Agents
Improved the section on "attacking plants" to be more encyclopedic (covers both herbicides and plant diseases) and related it to actual biological warfare efforts. --Reid Kirby 16:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] No mention of AIDS biowarfare theories?
I am wondering why there isn't even a casual mention of biowarfare theories involving the AIDS virus inside this article? Did you know nobel prize winning scientists have alleged that and there is a significant amount of information available? Would it be ok with the regular editors of this article if info on AIDS and biowarfare theories is added to this article? zen master T 04:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
can you be more specific- which nobel laureate claimed HIV and bio-warfare connection? Was it really a scientist? The only nobel laureate I can think of claiming this would be mr. Nelson Mandela Xmort 03:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- See the pejoratively titled AIDS conspiracy theories article which lists 2 Nobel laureates -- more than a handful of other scientists have various alternative origin theories too. zen master T 03:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No one watches this talk page? zen master T 01:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe add a link to the 'Aids Conspiracy Theories' page? Rakim
- I added the AIDS theories article to the category. That should cover it. Mirror Vax 05:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nixon sentence
- The United States maintains a stated national policy of never using biological weapons under any circumstances since November 1969 President Nixon.
What does this mean? Did Nixon create the policy? This is a bad sentence. I'm not changing it because I'm not sure what it means to say exactly. Someone who does please rewrite it. If no one changes it, I'll just delete the reference to Nixon, since it doesn't make any sense as written. Torgo 01:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Typhus in World War II
A link to the following article should be added: ...Even though it must be expected that the figures given in this report might be exaggerated, the fact that Polish underground fighters caused some casualties to the German occupational forces is indubitable, and even though such guerilla warfare against an occupational power is illegal, one cannot blame the Poles morally for waging such a war against what they conceived to be an illegal occupation. What is of interest here is the penultimate page of this report, which lists under "3. Activities of retaliation":
"Typhoid fever microbes and typhoid fever lice: in a few hundred cases"
Aspects of Biological Warfare During World War II -- contributed unsigned by 198.54.202.82 (11:54, 15 June 2006)
Typhus and Typhoid fever are two distinct diseases, but this article doesn't seem to understand the difference. The quotation above accurately reflects the web site quoted. I would say it is not dependable enough, without reference to another source. WBardwin 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] US Germ Warfare and Korea
The sentence that ends in "...though it is generally believed that such weapons were never used." Should be backed up by a source proving the most believe that such weapons where never used by the U.S. military. Also the sentence "This view was challenged by China and North Korea, who accused the United States of large-scale field testing of biological weapons against them during the Korean War (1950-1953)." is not completely accurate as more then just China and North Korea made such a claim. Their was even those in the US who claimed this also such as reporter named John W. Powell who supported the bio-weapons use claim in an article he wrote in the early 1950's, which led to the government attempting unsuccessfully to try him for sedition [2]. The statement "Their accusation is substantiated by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman in 'The United States and Biological Warfare: secrets of the early Cold War and Korea' (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1998)." seems to contradict the claim that it is widely believed that such weapons were never used. Is this section trying to claim the majority of people live in denial over the claim despite it being substantiated or maybe the book is not believed by most to substantiate the claim to the degree the statement seems to claim? --Cab88 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this paragraph should be removed. First, all references cited there are not accessible (they ask for a password), so a reader can not verify if these claims are supported by anything. Second, see this: [3]. It says: "The first effective disinformation campaign was during the Korean Conflict. This was a major Soviet disinformation campaign that generated media attention. The Americans were accused of going into Korean villages during the Korean conflict (1950–1953) and shooting villagers, or killing them with biological weapons and chemical warfare. In fact, the Soviets used anthrax in Korea to kill men, women, and children, and then blamed it on the Americans. An attempt is now underway with the Cold War History Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, DC, to counter this account, especially through the work of Katherine Weathersby who discovered that Soviet documents obtained through a Japanese researcher belied these rumors and accusations. The issue re-surfaced in the book United States and Biological Weapons: Secrets of the Early Cold War and Korea (Indiana University Press, 1999) by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman. Endicott was the son of one of the men who helped to disseminate the disinformation campaign, James Endicott." Biophys 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Treatments
I corrected the "5% sodium hypochlorite solution" comment in the "Protective Measures" section to reflect the modern standards per MCWP 3-37.3 w/change 1. I could flush out this section with more information, but it would just end up needing to have its own section. I am not exactly sure why there is a treatment section at all in an encyclopedic entry about bio Weapons in the first place - NBCD Chief
[edit] List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Natural Agents
Some of the agents listed above this heading are also naturally occuring. Anthrax, for example, occurs naturally in sheeps wool. Having this listing below the list of possible agents gives the idea that those agents not on the sub list are not naturally occuring. Ideas on how to clean this up? Dwade21 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese Use of Biological Agents
However, new information has surfaced within the last decade, which alleges a more active Japanese usage. For example, firsthand accounts testify the Japanese infected civilians through the distribution of plagued foodstuffs, such as dumplings and vegetables. There are also reports of contaminated water supplies. Such estimates report over 580,000 victims, largely due to plague and cholera outbreaks. In addition, repeated seasonal outbreaks after the conclusion of the war bring the death toll much higher.
This section either needs to be footnoted with a reference to a credible source or else removed. It is irresponsible to make revisionist claims of "estimates" of over half a million people being killed and then not even bother to include a source for such dramatic claims. It's one thing to neglect references to facts that can be corroborated by checking any of the standard works on the subject but this is obviously well outside the scope of such cases.
UPDATE: Added the "weasel" tag to flag the section in question. Lexington50 08:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
