2 ms·
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 weap
by 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 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.