3 ms·

Why aren’t biological weapons effective? I mean if US wanted to wipe out Its enemies or vice versa, if someone really hated the US army, biological bomb that wo

by nojvek 8y ago

Why aren’t biological weapons effective? I mean if US wanted to wipe out Its enemies or vice versa, if someone really hated the US army, biological bomb that would go off after a large part of army is already infected would be the most deadliest right?

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
I'd imagine it's for the same reason we don't drop nuclear warheads on everyone we come into conflict with even thought it's a pretty efficient way to wipe enemies out. Infectious diseases don't discriminate, they can mutate and spreading them means your enemy can get a sample to weaponize.
jandrese 8y ago
The biggest problem is that we have not managed (as far as I know) to make a virus that can identify friend or foe. Biological warfare is a step above nuclear warfare in the potential to kill all humans on the planet. Unlike chemical or nuclear weapons you can't be assured that it will remain in one area, or that it won't mutate in some fashion to become even more virulent/deadly. It's a weapon so dangerous to use that only the insane would even develop it in the first place.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
A traditional bomb is somewhat predictable. You can bomb places without it infecting your own people, save some accidents and things like that. It sets off in a controlled area, and when the damage is done, it stops. There is no real way someone could set off a biological bomb and promise it won't make its way back to their own people. If it is infectious enough to wipe out the enemy completely, it is enough to spread to your home country. I think some of this is because a biological bomb would almost need to be something that can be carried through the air. There are probably some that could dust an area requiring direct contact, but if the folks have good hygeine, it'll be less of a threat. Contaminating drinking water is harder still - and again, you have to get through hygiene and all available filtration and sanitation systems that the enemy could be using. You could infect animals, but animals being what they are they are likely to infect folks that aren't the enemy, including your own ground troops if you have any. Things that need direct contact with bodily fluids are even harder to use directly, and you are just as likely to kill slews of medical personell as you are the folks actually warring. Any accidents kill your own people first. In any case, the outcome and international response will likely be similar to using nuclear warheads on a people. It might work, but you are going to kill lots of innocent people as well with something that keeps on killing long after the initial sickness due to the infectious nature of the thing. Additionally, I highly doubt they'd mistake a biological for a traditional bomb: Any smart country with a scientific section would be looking at the components of bomb residue. If a biological agent is included, I think there is a chance of finding it and developing a cure before the kiling happened if it doesn't happen in a short timeframe. Now, this is just for diseases. Poisons (biological or synthetic) and other sorts of chemical weapons are probably easier to control these things, and international response seems to be unfortunately slow on this depending on where in the world it is happening.

by nojvek 8y ago

fucking_tragedy 8y ago

I'd imagine it's for the same reason we don't drop nuclear warheads on everyone we come into conflict with even thought it's a pretty efficient way to wipe enemies out. Infectious diseases don't discriminate, they can mutate and spreading them means your enemy can get a sample to weaponize.

jandrese 8y ago

The biggest problem is that we have not managed (as far as I know) to make a virus that can identify friend or foe. Biological warfare is a step above nuclear warfare in the potential to kill all humans on the planet. Unlike chemical or nuclear weapons you can't be assured that it will remain in one area, or that it won't mutate in some fashion to become even more virulent/deadly. It's a weapon so dangerous to use that only the insane would even develop it in the first place.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

A traditional bomb is somewhat predictable. You can bomb places without it infecting your own people, save some accidents and things like that. It sets off in a controlled area, and when the damage is done, it stops. There is no real way someone could set off a biological bomb and promise it won't make its way back to their own people. If it is infectious enough to wipe out the enemy completely, it is enough to spread to your home country. I think some of this is because a biological bomb would almost need to be something that can be carried through the air. There are probably some that could dust an area requiring direct contact, but if the folks have good hygeine, it'll be less of a threat. Contaminating drinking water is harder still - and again, you have to get through hygiene and all available filtration and sanitation systems that the enemy could be using. You could infect animals, but animals being what they are they are likely to infect folks that aren't the enemy, including your own ground troops if you have any. Things that need direct contact with bodily fluids are even harder to use directly, and you are just as likely to kill slews of medical personell as you are the folks actually warring. Any accidents kill your own people first. In any case, the outcome and international response will likely be similar to using nuclear warheads on a people. It might work, but you are going to kill lots of innocent people as well with something that keeps on killing long after the initial sickness due to the infectious nature of the thing. Additionally, I highly doubt they'd mistake a biological for a traditional bomb: Any smart country with a scientific section would be looking at the components of bomb residue. If a biological agent is included, I think there is a chance of finding it and developing a cure before the kiling happened if it doesn't happen in a short timeframe. Now, this is just for diseases. Poisons (biological or synthetic) and other sorts of chemical weapons are probably easier to control these things, and international response seems to be unfortunately slow on this depending on where in the world it is happening.