You think calculated release of disease can have a net positive effect on the world?

[Narz]

I noticed that the majority think there is a time and a place for war.

So, how about a biological attack? A disease that could be targeted towards one's enemies making war much less messy for the initiator.

What do you think?

 

[Olleus]

If war is right, then ANY methods used to achieve victory with the minimum amount of casualties is right. I would make friendly casualties count a lot more than enemy casualties.

 

[Kozmos]

Well if you are fighting China then an engineered infectious flesh eating bacteria is the way to go.

 

[Sidhe]

If your fighting China then you have already screwed up big time, Nuke them and then get nuked in return kill of the whole planet you aint going to win this one.

Never fight a land war in Kamchatka and all that.

The majority of people think there is a time and place for war because they are seriously misguided, plus it's all they've ever known. War's pointless did you learn nothing from the 20th century, loads of big winners there

And as for releasing disease my God are you sick in the head or what, that's just cowardly and wrong on so many levels it's not even funny? Honestly what?

 

[Urederra]

I think it is completely wrong.

And I prefer the old positive Narz questions. That is not a good change.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, someone might think so.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173260

 

[C~G]

No. If even only single person is killed the net gain cannot be positive.

However this doesn't shut away the possibility that such measures sometimes couldn't be used in order to make the world turn.

 

[bathsheba666]

Well, what is a vaccination if not a carefully graded biological attack?

Designed to improve immune system, and usually does.

So, I guess it's all down to the grade of the attack.

--

edit:

ok I just read the entries instead of the title.
Strike this input as irrelevant.

 

[7ronin]

Biological weapons are hideous. Let's stick to swords... or rocks.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

The problem with biological weapons is their unreliability. A virus or bacteria does not distinguish between friend and foe, and can do just as much damage to your own side as it does to your enemy.

 

[Shaihulud]

If we can design the virus to attack a specific group who had a series of vacinnation or immunology. Im sure we can engineer a disease by studying the group that we want to attack.

 

[azzaman333]

Biological weapons are in the same boat as Nukes. You could use them for a positive effect, but everyone will hate you for it and there will be many unnessacary casualties.

 

[sanabas]

The problem with biological weapons is their unreliability. A virus or bacteria does not distinguish between friend and foe, and can do just as much damage to your own side as it does to your enemy.

High explosive doesn't distinguish between friend & foe either. Neither do bullets.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

High explosive doesn't distinguish between friend & foe either. Neither do bullets.

A shot fired in Shanghai is unlikely to drop a person in NYC a week later, but a killer virus is likely to do just that.

Biological weapons are hideous. Let's stick to swords... or rocks.

You think running a man through with a sword and having his blood spurt all over you isnt hideous?

 

[sanabas]

A shot fired in Shanghai is unlikely to drop a person in NYC a week later, but a killer virus is likely to do just that.

Sure. But the problem isn't that the virus doesn't distinguish friend or foe, the problem is the virus is an ongoing, uncontrolled weapon. Bullets & bombs don't distinguish either, but they are short-acting weapons, not long-acting ones.

 

[nivi]

Then what about mines?

 

[Winner]

I think that our dilemma will soon be solved by the Mother Nature, who obviously doesn't have any moral problems with biological warfare

 

[YNCS]

The problem with biological weapons is their unreliability. A virus or bacteria does not distinguish between friend and foe, and can do just as much damage to your own side as it does to your enemy.

This is my problem with biological and chemical weapons.

During World War I, more than one gas attack caused problems for the attacker because the wind shifted and the gas was blown back towards the people firing the gas shells. I can easily see a biological agent getting loose in the attacker's forces or population.

 

[SupremeC]

Sure. But the problem isn't that the virus doesn't distinguish friend or foe, the problem is the virus is an ongoing, uncontrolled weapon. Bullets & bombs don't distinguish either, but they are short-acting weapons, not long-acting ones.

The shot fired at Archduke Ferdinand resulted in a lot more shooting.

 

[Narz]

I think it is completely wrong.

And I prefer the old positive Narz questions. That is not a good change.

Don't worry, I'll make some new positve ones soon just for you Urederra.