> why biological weapons are even more useless ... they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control eit

> why biological weapons are even more useless ... they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing back on you. That's only true if all nations are identical. Which is another way of saying that it's never true. Unless it's a global extinction biological weapon, there would be winners and losers when it's over. It could be acceptable to use (risk vs reward) if you believed your nation would endure far better than your rivals. If you believed you could get back up faster; that it weakens your rivals long enough, and substantially enough, to give you a path to hegemony. If you believed you could lock your society down better to protect it while the rivals were ravaged. The US for example had that manner of booster path after WW2. It's not that the US didn't suffer in WW2, it suffered quite a bit, but far less than other major powers, particularly in terms of post war domestic conditions (vast manufacturing and export capabilities ready to go). It helped catapult the US to primary superpower status. Historically speaking, what major nations haven't wanted that position? Some even have cultural beliefs, like manifest destiny, that motivate the culture toward it.