3 ms·

Perhaps surprisingly the main problem with current warfare isn't the lack of options to kill enough people in some general area. Although if you were to go in

Perhaps surprisingly the main problem with current warfare isn't the lack of options to kill enough people in some general area. Although if you were to go in that direction COVID-19 would be a minor inconvenience when it comes to warfare so I'm not too sure what you're aiming at there. The Spanish "used" diseases that were a heck of a lot more severe.

Fnoord 5y ago
The point is to strike at the enemy the moment they are weakened. Western societies were severely weakened in March 2020 onward to summer 2020. They were on lockdown, there have been logistics problems, which had impact on things like police and secret service. I very much doubt military are exempt from it. Being in a good condition isn't a guarantee you remain unaffected, and the danger of being affected mildly is that you spread it further.
- nradov 5y ago
  Lockdowns were a political choice to minimize impact on healthcare systems, not something that governments necessarily had to do. Obviously guerilla movements aren't going to suspend operations just because of a respiratory virus. The vast majority of Taliban combatants are young and metabolically healthy enough to be at virtually zero risk from COVID-19. (And it should go without saying, but the concept of biological warfare is so abhorrent that it should never be considered as an option.)
- samatman 5y ago
  SARS2 made it to Afghanistan, you know. Did the Taliban lock down? Of course not. So we've done this experiment and you're simply wrong.
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    We've done the experiment indeed; see the historical example of the Spanish conquistadors. Other than that I'm not aware of it, so we don't know if such an attack could work. Its a hypothesis. The original SARS and MERS were too deadly to spread widely. In order for the attack to work, you don't need a disease which is lethal. All you need is a disease which makes your enemy ill enough to attack their infra, while you're immune (e.g. via full vaccination, or because of group immunity from antibodies). Right now, Israel is practically immune to COVID (and was the quickest to get vaccinated), while their surrounding regions are not. This could give them an advantage in warfare, should they decide to initiate such (legit or via proxy). Which, incidentally, is also why is was clever of Israel to pay large sums of money for the vaccines.
    - samatman 5y ago
      You're just not getting it. For one thing, the initial wave of smallpox wasn't an attack, it was just an ordinary infection. Incredibly deadly but it wasn't deliberately introduced. For another, comparing smallpox with covid is so thick-headed that I'm not interested in discussing things with you anymore.
      - Fnoord 5y ago
        > For one thing, the initial wave of smallpox wasn't an attack, it was just an ordinary infection. Incredibly deadly but it wasn't deliberately introduced. Irrelevant.

Fnoord 5y ago

The point is to strike at the enemy the moment they are weakened. Western societies were severely weakened in March 2020 onward to summer 2020. They were on lockdown, there have been logistics problems, which had impact on things like police and secret service. I very much doubt military are exempt from it. Being in a good condition isn't a guarantee you remain unaffected, and the danger of being affected mildly is that you spread it further.

nradov 5y ago
Lockdowns were a political choice to minimize impact on healthcare systems, not something that governments necessarily had to do. Obviously guerilla movements aren't going to suspend operations just because of a respiratory virus. The vast majority of Taliban combatants are young and metabolically healthy enough to be at virtually zero risk from COVID-19. (And it should go without saying, but the concept of biological warfare is so abhorrent that it should never be considered as an option.)
samatman 5y ago
SARS2 made it to Afghanistan, you know. Did the Taliban lock down? Of course not. So we've done this experiment and you're simply wrong.
- Fnoord 5y ago
  We've done the experiment indeed; see the historical example of the Spanish conquistadors. Other than that I'm not aware of it, so we don't know if such an attack could work. Its a hypothesis. The original SARS and MERS were too deadly to spread widely. In order for the attack to work, you don't need a disease which is lethal. All you need is a disease which makes your enemy ill enough to attack their infra, while you're immune (e.g. via full vaccination, or because of group immunity from antibodies). Right now, Israel is practically immune to COVID (and was the quickest to get vaccinated), while their surrounding regions are not. This could give them an advantage in warfare, should they decide to initiate such (legit or via proxy). Which, incidentally, is also why is was clever of Israel to pay large sums of money for the vaccines.
  - samatman 5y ago
    You're just not getting it. For one thing, the initial wave of smallpox wasn't an attack, it was just an ordinary infection. Incredibly deadly but it wasn't deliberately introduced. For another, comparing smallpox with covid is so thick-headed that I'm not interested in discussing things with you anymore.
    - Fnoord 5y ago
      > For one thing, the initial wave of smallpox wasn't an attack, it was just an ordinary infection. Incredibly deadly but it wasn't deliberately introduced. Irrelevant.