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

[tomsnowman123]

I don't think killing off part of the population is right. Nobody wants to be subjected to a biological attack, war or not. To say it is right to have people potentially die who, in most cases, probably don't want to, is wrong on many levels.

Secondly, who's to say the virus could actually be contained in the first place.

So I am definately against it.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

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

True, but the people firing those weapons do. An artillerist will not intentionally fire on his comrades, nor will an infantryman. They will fire at enemy soldiers. If they do fire on friends, it is likely a case of mistaken identity. But a biological weapon cannot tell the difference and will readily kill people on both sides of the war regardless of who they are and regardless of which country released the weapon. Once released it has no guidance and will do what all diseases do, spread to everyone it can infect. Which will include the citizens of the country that released it and the citizens of neutral nations as well as the target nation.

 

[sanabas]

True, but the people firing those weapons do. An artillerist will not intentionally fire on his comrades, nor will an infantryman. They will fire at enemy soldiers. If they do fire on friends, it is likely a case of mistaken identity. But a biological weapon cannot tell the difference and will readily kill people on both sides of the war regardless of who they are and regardless of which country released the weapon. Once released it has no guidance and will do what all diseases do, spread to everyone it can infect. Which will include the citizens of the country that released it and the citizens of neutral nations as well as the target nation.

Anyone releasing a biological weapon is going to be aiming it only at enemies. Exactly the same as someone firing some sort of projectile weapon. Once released, the virus has no guidance. Once released, the bullet has no guidance. Once detonated, the explosive has no guidance. The problem isn't that the weapon doesn't discriminate, it's that a biological weapon is much harder to aim properly than a projectile weapon is.

Personally, I'm not a fan of them, but I don't see a moral difference between using biological weapons and other weapons. Once you've decided that killing an enemy is justified, it's simply a case of picking a weapon that will kill that enemy most effectively, and deciding what's an acceptable chance for the weapon killing non-enemies that you don't particularly care about, and what's an acceptable chance for killing friends that you do care about. If a gun and a virus both meet the standards you've set, then I don't see the two weapons as morally different.

 

[Perfection]

I suppose I can think of some wild possibilities, but realistically I highly doubt it.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Anyone releasing a biological weapon is going to be aiming it only at enemies. Exactly the same as someone firing some sort of projectile weapon. Once released, the virus has no guidance. Once released, the bullet has no guidance. Once detonated, the explosive has no guidance. The problem isn't that the weapon doesn't discriminate, it's that a biological weapon is much harder to aim properly than a projectile weapon is.

Personally, I'm not a fan of them, but I don't see a moral difference between using biological weapons and other weapons. Once you've decided that killing an enemy is justified, it's simply a case of picking a weapon that will kill that enemy most effectively, and deciding what's an acceptable chance for the weapon killing non-enemies that you don't particularly care about, and what's an acceptable chance for killing friends that you do care about. If a gun and a virus both meet the standards you've set, then I don't see the two weapons as morally different.

I see your point. I suppose it is the matter of aiming that I chiefly object to with them. There is no point in using a weapon that will destroy your nation at the same time it destroys an enemy's.

 

[Leonel]

Well there's some conspiracy theory floating around that says the Black Death was really biological warfare that were snuck into Europe from India via trading routes. Whether or not it's true, the disease killed enough people to cause labor shortages and this allowed ordinary people to earn a decent pay since there was no one else that'd do it for less.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is disgusting, and anyone who uses BCNs is a coward

 

[Moss]

No, war although I don't like war, can have an impact in many ways...

Disease, has no such impact besides destruction and death...it has no economic advantages or anything...and to say it could be a population control is...well...lame because there are many other ways to do that. That, and diseases kill enough people on their own without adding to the problem by releasing more.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Would the prospects for humanity be much brighter if there were a few billion less people putting a strain on resources? Yes. Does that mean that a killer plague should be manufactured and released 'into the wild'? No. Are there people out there who disagree, and believe it would be perfectly ok to release such a plague? Yes.

 

[Sidhe]

Well there's some conspiracy theory floating around that says the Black Death was really biological warfare that were snuck into Europe from India via trading routes. Whether or not it's true, the disease killed enough people to cause labor shortages and this allowed ordinary people to earn a decent pay since there was no one else that'd do it for less.

Even in medievil times they had conspiracy theories.

As far as I'm aware the theory of choice for the plague is that it was first bought into Europe by the crusaders returning from war, Disease carrying cows were flung into crusader castles, an idea the saracens got from us incidently (the first example of biological warfare) This sounds a bit better than some clandestine attempt to infiltrate a disease into the west.

I love flinging bovines with trebuchets it's great fun Stronghold style.

If you live by the cow you die by the cow

 

[Eukaryote]

The disese would probably spread to like 50 other freakin' countries who would get totally pissed at you for starting the pandemic, so they'd all nuke you and then the Dictator, Prime Minister or President of whatever country you live in would be underground in his bomb shealter trying to ride out the nuclear winter saying, oh cr-p I'm such a moron.

So unless you want that fate for your country it's not a good idea.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Sweden needs a crises

 

[Sidhe]

The disese would probably spread to like 50 other freakin' countries who would get totally pissed at you for starting the pandemic, so they'd all nuke you and then the Dictator, Prime Minister or President of whatever country you live in would be underground in his bomb shealter trying to ride out the nuclear winter saying, oh cr-p I'm such a moron.

So unless you want that fate for your country it's not a good idea.

Actually say spanish flu would maybe and do more harm to all rather than the target because it has a relatively low mortality rate and therefore it spreads very quickly, what you need is something that has a high mortality rate but not so high it doesn't spread too effectively, Ebola's out but anthrax is very much in as are diseases like botulism which can kill hundreds of thousands, if it's effectively carried by the wind, with just a teaspoon of the bacteria.

 

[Kozmos]

This is disgusting, and anyone who uses BCNs is a coward

As opposed to White Phospourous?

With the coming of new technologies, plagues will be able to designed with various effects and only to target specific population or parts of it. It will be same as a sattelite-guided bomb of today.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Would the prospects for humanity be much brighter if there were a few billion less people putting a strain on resources? Yes. Does that mean that a killer plague should be manufactured and released 'into the wild'? No. Are there people out there who disagree, and believe it would be perfectly ok to release such a plague? Yes.

This is basically everything you need to know about this subject. The majority of people would not support the release of a chemical weapon anyways.

 

[Xenocrates]

If you don't know about the biggest use of bacterial WMD's in history then read this link:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/bw/

It might make you think that the Chinese are more tolerant and forgiving than you would be.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well, someone might think so.

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

Good point.

Is it O.K. to use biological weapons against aliens?

What about non-hostile aliens?

What about intelligent non-hostile aliens?

What if we just don't want the non-hostile aliens (intelligent or non-intelligent) to spread and maybe risk upsetting our eco-system, would it be O.K. to use biological weapons to exterminate them? Why?

Are we that special that we deserve some special ethical and moral treatment?

 

[Sidhe]

If you don't know about the biggest use of bacterial WMD's in history then read this link:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/bw/

It might make you think that the Chinese are more tolerant and forgiving than you would be.

I had no idea this stuff had been used, how sad, thanks for the info, I think

would Japan forgive the allies for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No better still should they?

 

[Tulkas12]

Simply stated, anything can net a positive effect. It depends what your after and how long you're willing to wait.

 

[Tycoon101]

Let us set logs on fire and trample our enemies beneath our horses! I have no need for biological warfare when I have the Ultimate weapon! (Read the entire OP )