> the military assessed the risk [of including] a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city This does not seem as if it s

> the military assessed the risk [of including] a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city This does not seem as if it should have a very high risk... > Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did [...] they do these things without concern for the moral implications Which NSA activity do you mean? Bulk collection of phone metadata on US residents? If the legal folks said they have a way of defending it as long as certain internal checks are in place, I don't think there are many "moral implications" to collecting data as an agency devoted to signals intelligence does all over the world, aside from the moral implications of signals intelligence itself. > rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications Now you're really escalating. "The government doing atrocity" usually involves intentionally killing a lot of people, not spraying the equivalent of sugar water or collecting phone records.