5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoI 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.