The debate "Biowarfare can be powerful than a nuclear warfare. look at ebola" was started by
December 26, 2016, 10:28 am.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Blue_ray posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Blue_ray, PoliticsAsUsual, BlackRavan, deezmofonutz and 4 visitors agree.
thereal, TheExistentialist, carrieunderwood007 disagree.
you'd have to modify it so that it can be infectious through that vector. Getting an organism to survive outside of a host, survive ingestion, heat, and possibly even cooking would be pretty difficult. You'd have to figure out how to transform it into spores so that it can survive. Again, very complicated, time consuming, and you'd be left with a virus that must be ingested to be infectious so it wouldn't be very effective as a weapon of mass destruction....perhaps as a form of assassination, but things like ricin would be far easier and more effective for that purpose.
what about mixing them in the food? that wouldnt need much of effort
That means you'd have to have a way to aerosolize the disease and you'd have to make sure it can actually be transmitted through the air. Ebola for example, would have to be heavily modified in order to be infectious in this way. So you'd have to figure out how to completely change the disease. This is no small project. It would require significant research, time, and resources. This means that it would take a government to create such a weapon.
Chemical weapons only take a basement and some basic knowledge. Creating mustard gas is relatively simple if you know how. So it's much more accessible to the average person.
Nuclear weapons, are also relatively simply to make now. It's the delivery system and scale where things get complicated. However, a "dirty" bomb is pretty easy to make. If you don't need a delivery system, and only need a small warhead, a nuclear weapon is also relatively easy to manufacture.
The fact that biological weapons are limited to governments and the other two are not, make then much scarier in my book.
Biological weapons also don't destroy whole areas and make them unlivable for centuries like nuclear weapons can. We could literally eradicate most forms of life through nuclear weapons, while at worst, we'd kill a ton of people with biologicals. So on scale and availability, biologicals are trumped by nuclear weapons.
You dont even have to use vectors, just spray the disease through aircrafts. Just like agent orange and napalm
Biological warfare can be devastating, but only once for each pathogen. Once there is a treatment, that agent is useless and all the time and energy that went into making it cannot be recouped. As has already been said, you also cannot control the vectors for transmission, so it is very likely you would end up exposing your own people to the agent as well.
Chemical warfare is far more geographically limited, the effectiveness depends on weather conditions, and is easier to rapidly detect and guard against. Gas masks are small enough to be carried by all troops where there is a risk and can be rapidly deployed.
Nuclear weapons are limited geographically (though less so than chemical weapons) but the primary effects are not dependent on weather conditions. They are also impossible to protect against unless you can prevent the explosion.
I'd say that chemical warfare is much more dangerous than most biological weapons. Biological weapons take a lot of time, money, and knowledge to create. usually an organism has to be modified to make it infectious enough. Ebola, for example, would make a terrible weapon as it is and would have to be heavily modified in order to be effective. Ebola is spread through contact and thus makes it really easy to quarantine. You'd have to modify it to be spread through the air, like the flu. Ebola is also a relatively simply virus to treat in the western world. So you'd have to make it more resilient, modify it's infection pathway, you'd likely have to make it quicker acting. All of this and we already have a vaccine for it....
Then dont allow them to migrate. Simple.
the problem with this line of reasoning is that you can't control infectious desease. the world is globalized. if you unleash a terrible desease then it is going to blow back on you when people travel from that country to yours.