Ethics of Biological warfare.

[UnslaadKrosis]

Biological warfare has been a thing for a long time. From the Assyrians using poisonous fungi to poison wells to the use of Plague bacteria by the Imperial Japanese Army during the Second World War, it has often proved to be one of the most effective non-conventional weapons of warfare. So, what are your thoughts about the ethics of using biological agents as a weapon? Should it be considered as a possible weapon during an ongoing war? Or should it be, even as an idea, buried three feet under?

 

[djdefense]

Well, biological weapons are the most sinister weapons on the planet. Its not about the idea, its about the reasons. It may be illegal, but that doesn't stop dictators from using such weapons. I think that biological weapons or even the idea of them is pretty sinister. But then, nuclear weapons aren't exactly nice either. So, I am on both horses about it too. To me, nukes are way more sinister, because generations get damaged by their use.

 

[Corzhens]

Is there an ethics on biological warfare? To me, statements to that effect is plain hipocrisy. Have you heard of operation Orange (some call it agent orange)? That is a biological weapon in the form a herbicide to kill the greenery. Although I have no proof, I'm sure some chemicals that can be potent for a biological war is being tested clandestinely. Weaponry is always progressing and chemicals are included in the list.

 

[vegito12]

It can be interesting as I have not seen any direct laws on the use of biological weapons and I think there needs to be a clear definition of what the law says and also how it will affect the countries who use this in warfare and it can be harmful even though it may seem harmless to some people who may think the biological weapon does not look like it will cause harm to anyone when used. I reckon that this is something that can be harmful as chemicals are used and that can poison people very easily and when this is used in war than the people in the war will have to wear face masks, which can protect the face and hope the masks are good and nice as well when wearing them for war. I think that it will be interesting to see what will happen when laws are in the place and also it will be good if we see laws in place which can help people in the war and using this in a safe manner may be a hard thing to do as most people will misuse it.

 

[Redheart]

While it certainly is easy for nations to agree that they all won't use biological weapons in war fact is should a war break out and all those caught in want is to win then there is nothing they won't do to win and if that involves using biological weapons then they most certainly will use them. Ethics and war don't go together IMHO. You play by the rules, you lose. It's that simple.

 

[SirJoe]

It certainly is a tricky subject, while in the past as you have mentioned certain biological agents where used. Now days we have the capacity to whip out whole nations. It will not distinguish between the innocent or the guilty. Everyone saw it in action when Saddam Hussein started doing his tests on the Kurds.

 

[UnslaadKrosis]

While it certainly is easy for nations to agree that they all won't use biological weapons in war fact is should a war break out and all those caught in want is to win then there is nothing they won't do to win and if that involves using biological weapons then they most certainly will use them. Ethics and war don't go together IMHO. You play by the rules, you lose. It's that simple.

I completely agree on that 'You play by the rules, you lose.' part. It's classic Sun Tsu.

But what I'm asking is whether you consider bioweapon a greater (and more unethical) threat than other weaponry like chemical or nuclear warfare. Many people I've met have this extreme hatred towards the whole idea of 'breeding life to kill life'. Even more than generations after generations suffering from terrible consequences of a nonsensical war.

 

[Redheart]

But what I'm asking is whether you consider bioweapon a greater (and more unethical) threat than other weaponry like chemical or nuclear warfare.

Biological weapons certainly are a greater threat than any other weapons because they can be extremely cheap to make and even more easier to use against enemies. All your enemy has to do is send an infected person to any city they target and the disease will spread and kill millions. The reason I say they are worse is because no country will be using nukes or chemical weapons any time [in the near future] but since terrorists can hire someone to make them biological weapons or get one of their own trained to do that, bioweapons definitely are a greater threat.

 

[ipm_zipedia]

Although the show is watered down, Richard from Future Weapons gave a perfect explanation on why biological weapons are such a threat; because of the terror they present. Just the very act of announcing the existence of a bio-weapon could cause ultimate paranoia and a great reaction among your enemy, and even moreso if you are deploying them. Modern disease control technology has stepped up, so I doubt that a bio-weapon has the ability to steamroll a state. It may cause mass panic, however, and a great paradigm shift of how the enemy operates.