Why Biological Weapons Shouldn’t Be Used The question has arisen whether or not biological weapons should be used in warfare or should be gotten rid of completely. To answer this question, an in-depth analysis should be conducted as to the cost and benefits of said weapons. On one hand, the benefits of these weapons are numerous with the cost of the weapons being low and the potential loss of life high. On the other hand, using these weapons in times of war could prove to cause problems for the side that unleashed them with potential outbreak of disease not only affecting the target, but eventually spreading across the world like a plague. Both sides of the argument present valid points as to why they feel the way they feel about the weapons, but I feel that the side that has the best viewpoint is that these weapons should be discontinued and destroyed. I will first start with the benefits to using biological weapons in warfare. One of the biggest benefits in using these weapons is the cost in which these weapons can be produced. In comparison to many of the other weapons being produced, no other weapon comes close. According to Raymond Murray Dawson and Chun-Qiang Liu, a 1969 expert United Nations panel “estimated the cost of operations against civilian populations at $US1 per square kilometer for biological weapons, versus $600/km2 for chemical weapons, $800/km2 for nuclear weapons, and $2000/km2 for conventional armaments” (89). As you can see by the statement, the financial aspect, from the standpoint of cost per kilometer wiped out, leans greatly to using these weapons for, literally in this case, more bang for your buck. With that being said, since these weapons will cost relatively cheaper than the other weapons produce, then less money will have to be put into the military and more can be spent in other areas such as helping the poor. Another benefit that can be attributed to biological weapons is, like all weapons, it can be used as a form of intimidation. This can be achieved without even launching a single missile at an opposing force. All that has to be done is produce the weapons, use Cold War tactics, and launch only if threatened. Since these weapons are less expensive than many other weapons but provide massive damage, these weapons can be more easily produced and stockpiled. Since the element of surprise provides a clear advantage to whoever wields it, the fact that what biological weapons carry is invisible can cause many problems for the enemy. This is a benefit of biological weapons with “the efficient dissemination of biological weapons needing to be done in aerosols with particles of 1 to 5 microns, which are absolutely invisible to the human eye” (Galamas 316). When the weapon is detonated, the effect of the weapon will not be determined by the explosion like nuclear weapons, but by the amount of people affected. This tactic employs a maneuver that will keep the initial paranoia over the weapon at bay until the pathogens released by the weapon take effect. Giant explosions cause panic where as smaller ones cause less. The last benefit of biological weapons is their delay effect on their victims. It takes several days or weeks for the weapons pathogens to incubate in the subject before the effects of the pathogen are made known. By this time, retaliation to this initial attack will subside leaving the victim wanting justice while the aggressor will be ready to take action against the victim when the time comes and retaliation occurs. With other weapons, the effects of the weapon are made known through the immediate loss of life and the imminent retaliatory action coming from the side attacked as soon as it can possibly be made. The delay that is provided gives the aggressor more time to prepare for retaliation; therefore, giving them an edge on their opponent. With all these benefits, you may be wondering why I feel that these weapons should be dismantled and gotten rid of. To start off, each of the benefits I have stated have a drawback that could be costly in the grand scheme of things. Let’s start with the cost benefit. Though this may be very beneficial to the economic side of producing these weapons, the fact that these weapons are so cheap allows governments and organizations who want to cause harm to everyone and anyone the opportunity to kill for little money out of their pockets. When this weapon is in the wrong hands, there is no telling what could happen. These weapons could come into the hands of terrorist and be relinquished unto unsuspecting civilians. Since the cost of the weapon is relatively low, when it falls in the wrong hands, the benefits previously stated become detrimental to their victims. A big reason that these weapons should be gotten rid of is due to their overall unpredictability. Not a single one of these biological weapons have been used in warfare before and, therefore, we do not know the implications that could follow after releasing one of these weapons. Winds play a key factor in the efficiency of these weapons since the weapon is airborne and will travel where ever the wind takes it. Having that in mind, the weapon could be very inaccurate. The target population could be completely missed causing people, who were not supposed to be harmed, to become in danger. Going hand-in-hand with the uncertainty of the weapon is the possible eradication of the human population due to pathogens spreading around the world killing everything they touch. This is the largest and most extreme reason why these weapons should not be used. These weapons are like a can of worm; once it is opened, there is no going back. The pathogens could be spread in a number of ways. The pathogens, when released have to go through an incubation time in which their victim could unknowingly travel to another country or another continent where the pathogen could spread due to exposure with other humans. Another possibility is that the wind could carry these airborne pathogens from country to country infecting the people of those countries until the whole world is infected. These are just a few of the number of ways in which these pathogens could travel around and infect everyone on this planet. Though the number of benefits of this weapon may seem to outnumber the costs, the possibility of total human annihilation should be enough reason why we should no longer pursue our efforts in creating biological weapons. The risks outweigh the benefits; therefore, these weapons should be dismantled and never used. Works Cited
Dawson, Raymond Murray, and Chun-Qiang Liu. "Properties And Applications Of Antimicrobial
Peptides In Biodefense Against Biological Warfare Threat Agents." Critical Reviews In
Microbiology 34.2 (2008): 89-107. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Mar. 2012.
Galamas, Francisco. "Biological Weapons, Nuclear Weapons And Deterrence: The Biotechnology
Revolution." Comparative Strategy 27.4 (2008): 315-323.Academic Search Premier. Web.
6 Mar. 2012.