3 ms·

> It would be far more reasonable to assume they were working from a reference species Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? >

by jmull 3y ago

> It would be far more reasonable to assume they were working from a reference species Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? > Again, consistent with the theory that there is a weaponized strain in the wild alongside less harmful natural strains. Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. > This thesis is in fact wholly refuted by the fact that the CIA plotted to use tuberculosis as a bioweapon to neutralize Fidel Castro in the '60s You must have read the footnote you cite… so you know the plan was to use a gifted scuba equipment as a delivery mechanism as a kind of soft assassination attempt on a specific individual. Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. > but those arguments against all seem totally specious, Frankly, I don’t think you’ve really addressed them.

strbean 3y ago
Of course all speculation, but: > Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? Perhaps a novel bacterium they found in a known disease carrying parasite in their back yard. Doesn't seem remotely outlandish. If I was looking for a stealth bioweapon, I would try that avenue as well. And there is precedent for significant discoveries being kept under wraps for extended periods before being independently discovered and released to the public. See public key cryptography, which was discovered secretly at GCHQ and only became public 6 years later with Diffie-Hellman. > Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. I suppose in the wild in the northeast, and presumed to be a natural variant? > Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. Moving goalposts. Different weapons have different characteristics which make them useful for different things. The fact that a biological agent would not be good for "bioweapon use-case A" is not an argument that it isn't a bioweapon. The anecdote is proof positive that the US has planned to use biological agents with similar attributes to this hypothetical biological agent as a weapon. The whole argument here amounts to saying "The army would never use knives as weapons, they are so ineffective. You have to be close range, and you can't kill that many people effectively with them!" And when I point out that they do, in fact, use knives as weapons, you just reiterate the same line? > (which was not executed) (stated reason: because the would-be assassin had already given Castro a dive suit, and another would arouse suspicion)
friendzis 3y ago
> The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. Why do we keep on insisting that the sole goal of a weapon (bio or otherwise) is to 1. kill 2. fast? There is this whole thing as information warfare which is specifically slow.
- jmull 3y ago
  Well, information warfare is warfare by analogy, not actual warfare. It’s useful, so could be a motive of a kind… But if you think Lyme was developed as a weapon of information warfare, what’s your argument? To induce fear and terror, I think it doesn’t necessarily have to be fast, but it needs to be terrible and, to some extent, inexorable. Lyme, as something that’s mild and easy to treat is neither.
  - friendzis 3y ago
    I don't want to argue for Lyme being developed as bioweapon. I'm debating the argument that Lyme is not a weapon due to mild and slow action. IMO that's a bad argument in itself. Deploy a deterrent from venturing into the wilderness, deploy disinformation campaign blowing effects out of proportion and in merely a generation you will drastically reduce wilderness survival capability of the population and in turn capability to organize guerilla style insurgency. That's a very far fetched argument for Lyme in particular, but a solid argument for deterrent weaponry in general. Warfare is not necessarily about lethal precision strikes, that's the argument.

by jmull 3y ago

strbean 3y ago

Of course all speculation, but: > Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? Perhaps a novel bacterium they found in a known disease carrying parasite in their back yard. Doesn't seem remotely outlandish. If I was looking for a stealth bioweapon, I would try that avenue as well. And there is precedent for significant discoveries being kept under wraps for extended periods before being independently discovered and released to the public. See public key cryptography, which was discovered secretly at GCHQ and only became public 6 years later with Diffie-Hellman. > Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. I suppose in the wild in the northeast, and presumed to be a natural variant? > Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. Moving goalposts. Different weapons have different characteristics which make them useful for different things. The fact that a biological agent would not be good for "bioweapon use-case A" is not an argument that it isn't a bioweapon. The anecdote is proof positive that the US has planned to use biological agents with similar attributes to this hypothetical biological agent as a weapon. The whole argument here amounts to saying "The army would never use knives as weapons, they are so ineffective. You have to be close range, and you can't kill that many people effectively with them!" And when I point out that they do, in fact, use knives as weapons, you just reiterate the same line? > (which was not executed) (stated reason: because the would-be assassin had already given Castro a dive suit, and another would arouse suspicion)

friendzis 3y ago

> The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. Why do we keep on insisting that the sole goal of a weapon (bio or otherwise) is to 1. kill 2. fast? There is this whole thing as information warfare which is specifically slow.

jmull 3y ago
Well, information warfare is warfare by analogy, not actual warfare. It’s useful, so could be a motive of a kind… But if you think Lyme was developed as a weapon of information warfare, what’s your argument? To induce fear and terror, I think it doesn’t necessarily have to be fast, but it needs to be terrible and, to some extent, inexorable. Lyme, as something that’s mild and easy to treat is neither.
- friendzis 3y ago
  I don't want to argue for Lyme being developed as bioweapon. I'm debating the argument that Lyme is not a weapon due to mild and slow action. IMO that's a bad argument in itself. Deploy a deterrent from venturing into the wilderness, deploy disinformation campaign blowing effects out of proportion and in merely a generation you will drastically reduce wilderness survival capability of the population and in turn capability to organize guerilla style insurgency. That's a very far fetched argument for Lyme in particular, but a solid argument for deterrent weaponry in general. Warfare is not necessarily about lethal precision strikes, that's the argument.