As compared to the last page, there's actually quite a few pages that warn and proclaim against biological warfare and all its consequences. These cons include:
Uncontrollable: The affects of a biological attack can last for much longer, as it has the potential to continue and grow as a disease. Eventually it could gain the possibility of becoming a serious epidemic in many countries, not just the target, and like the plague in Europe, it could seriously affect human population on Earth. Along with all this, the use of biological warfare won't immediately affect the end of the war, and is dependent on many things in order for it to really have any impact. These include: weather condition, placement of dispersion, determining the lethality and exposure to the target, the agent must be toxic - but not enough to affect the user, relatively resistant to atmospheric water and oxygen, it must be able to be contained for periods of time, agent must be able to withstand explosions if dispersed via explosive devices, etc.
Slower and less practical in comparison: Essentially, when dealing with weapons of mass destruction, using a virus or other biological agent could show to be much slower depending on what agent it is. For example, though botulism can kill 10 million people, it wouldn't be as easy as it seems. Botulism is spread mainly via contaminated food, so if you really wanted to kill 10 million people, you would have to locate every food source in the country and contaminate each one. And even then, once people realize that their food is being poisoned, the situation would immediately be taken into control. So, yes, while you can send a country into panic and kill perhaps a few people, that's about all you can do. Also, transporting a biological agent via long range-missiles will face heavy difficulties concerning efficient dispersion - if any at all.
When comparing this method to other weapons of mass destruction such as atomic or nuclear bombs, the latter few would be taken into more consideration. Especially in the context of war. In war, you would want your enemies gone fast, and nuclear and atomic weapons can get that done a lot faster than finding a strategic way to contaminate a rice farm and wait for the results.
Besides, we already have many weapons to shoot at people with or to blow up countries.
Bioterrorism: Along with issues of using it, there's also issues of defending against it. As previously mentioned, we're not completely ready for any attacks via biological agents. A good example of bioterrorism and how prepared we were when it happened, was the attack after 9/11, when anthrax was mailed out and killed five people. If we have more access to biological agents, then it's more likely for them to fall in the wrong hands and be used in more terrorist attacks.
Possibility of Backfire: One seemingly obvious issue is the fact that diseases spread. And when diseases spread,
it can get to anybody with a weak enough immune system, and that can include the very people who released the virus. It's happened in history once and it can happen again if we continue to pursue the concept of using Biological Warfare. So, yes, you may be able to kill the target, but you could also end up killing yourself through the exact same method.
- Uncontrollable
- Slower and less practical than nuclear/atomic when comparing
- Bioterrorism
- Possibility of backfire
Uncontrollable: The affects of a biological attack can last for much longer, as it has the potential to continue and grow as a disease. Eventually it could gain the possibility of becoming a serious epidemic in many countries, not just the target, and like the plague in Europe, it could seriously affect human population on Earth. Along with all this, the use of biological warfare won't immediately affect the end of the war, and is dependent on many things in order for it to really have any impact. These include: weather condition, placement of dispersion, determining the lethality and exposure to the target, the agent must be toxic - but not enough to affect the user, relatively resistant to atmospheric water and oxygen, it must be able to be contained for periods of time, agent must be able to withstand explosions if dispersed via explosive devices, etc.
Slower and less practical in comparison: Essentially, when dealing with weapons of mass destruction, using a virus or other biological agent could show to be much slower depending on what agent it is. For example, though botulism can kill 10 million people, it wouldn't be as easy as it seems. Botulism is spread mainly via contaminated food, so if you really wanted to kill 10 million people, you would have to locate every food source in the country and contaminate each one. And even then, once people realize that their food is being poisoned, the situation would immediately be taken into control. So, yes, while you can send a country into panic and kill perhaps a few people, that's about all you can do. Also, transporting a biological agent via long range-missiles will face heavy difficulties concerning efficient dispersion - if any at all.
When comparing this method to other weapons of mass destruction such as atomic or nuclear bombs, the latter few would be taken into more consideration. Especially in the context of war. In war, you would want your enemies gone fast, and nuclear and atomic weapons can get that done a lot faster than finding a strategic way to contaminate a rice farm and wait for the results.
Besides, we already have many weapons to shoot at people with or to blow up countries.
Bioterrorism: Along with issues of using it, there's also issues of defending against it. As previously mentioned, we're not completely ready for any attacks via biological agents. A good example of bioterrorism and how prepared we were when it happened, was the attack after 9/11, when anthrax was mailed out and killed five people. If we have more access to biological agents, then it's more likely for them to fall in the wrong hands and be used in more terrorist attacks.
Possibility of Backfire: One seemingly obvious issue is the fact that diseases spread. And when diseases spread,
it can get to anybody with a weak enough immune system, and that can include the very people who released the virus. It's happened in history once and it can happen again if we continue to pursue the concept of using Biological Warfare. So, yes, you may be able to kill the target, but you could also end up killing yourself through the exact same method.