Schneier’s blog points to analysis of biological weapons and claims he has found “some reality to counter the hype”.
Unfortunately, when I read the “reality” I found statements such as this one:
Biological weapons programs were abandoned because they proved to be not as effective as advertised and because conventional munitions proved to provide more bang for the buck.
I’m not sure I understand their argument. Aside from having a lack of citation or any examples, it seems to lack historical and political context.
If someone’s goal is to create a major catastrophe, then these weapons have been proven (in WWI for example) to be very effective. Hundreds of thousands were killed with millions injured.
It is clear to me that countries refused to agree on a ban throughout the 1930s and production continued through the 1940s because effectiveness was tangible. In fact chemical weapons were invented in 1936, many years after biological weapons were used.
Even by the 1970s President Nixon had ordered a review of both chemical and biological weapons but he only agreed to ban the latter, not the former.
Why did America reserve the right to maintain and use chemical weapons if they were ineffective? The President only “renounced first use of lethal or incapacitating chemical agents and weapons”.
The Soviets balked at first to an exception made for chemical weapons, but later agreed to the biological-only ban. The Chinese walked away and highlighted the failure of the US to ban chemical weapons.
Strange to me that the authors fail to mention how chemical weapons have been separated from biological and preserved by states in this context. And that is not even to mention extensive use of “herbicide” such as Agent Orange (similar to 2,4-D) by the US during the Vietnam War, which I have discussed before.
Another distinction from biological is that chemical weapons are supposed to kill people, whereas biological variants seem to be about intense suffering and are said to spread more easily. Why shouldn’t we factor that as a reason for banning biological if chemical alternatives exist?
When “effectiveness” is compared with nuclear weapons, nukes obviously have no known countermeasures other than deterrence — more nuclear weapons of your own. However, chemical and biological attacks have a host of potential countermeasures such as filters, antidotes, etc. (NBC suits) and fail to achieve “mass” status without new delivery mechanisms. I dare say complicated, but nuclear weapons also have highly complicated delivery mechanisms.
This seems to be why chemical and biological weapons fail to get classified as WMD, even though they can and have been used for acts of genocide — not a WMD, but it can still kill an entire nation…seems effective in a different kind of way.
Finally, in terms of effectiveness, Corporations (increasingly non-state agents) that produce and use biological and chemical substances have proven more than capable of causing significant harm to anyone in proximity to even controlled use as well as accidents.