Biological Warfare
Biological warfare involves the use of biological agents, such as bacteria, viruses, or toxins, as weapons to cause harm to humans, animals, or plants. This form of warfare can lead to widespread illness, death, and disruption of ecosystems. It poses significant ethical and security concerns and is regulated by international treaties to prevent its use.
5 Key excerpts on "Biological Warfare"
eBook - ePubNanotechnology in the Defense Industry
Advances, Innovation, and Practical Applications
- Madhuri Sharon, Angelica S. L. Rodriguez, Chetna Sharon, Pio Sifuentes Gallardo(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Wiley-Scrivener(Publisher)
...Such organisms alter unknown immunologic profiles so they cannot be diagnosed and may escape detection by antibody-based sensors. 6.2 What Is Biological Warfare? In a nutshell, Biological Warfare is the use of hazardous material of biogenic origin, such as toxins, and even infectious microbes like bacteria, virus, fungi or harmful insects. These microbes can kill all living beings, including plants. Biological materials that are used as weapon are called bioweapons, biological agents or sometimes weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These biological weapons can kill an entire population or destroy vegetation. There have been umpteen cases of biological war in the past (Table 6.1). Table 6.1 Biological war practiced in the past. When By whom Biological agents used References 1500–1200 BC Assyrians Poisoned enemy wells with ergot (a poisonous fungus), causing a deadly epidemic known as the Hittite Plague. Trevisanato [1] 600 BC Athenian legislator Solon Contaminated the Pleisthenes River with the roots of Helleborus plants to give his enemies severe diarrhea, leading to their defeat. Mayor [2] 300 BC Greeks Polluted wells used by their enemies for drinking water with animal corpses. Southern Illinois Univ. Report 2012 200 BC Carthaginian General Maharbal Left behind a large stock of wine that he treated with the toxic roots of the Mandragora plant which causes a narcotic effect...
eBook - ePubBiological Weapons
Coronavirus, Weapon of Mass Destruction?
- DR. U C Jha, K Ratnabali(Authors)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- VIJ Books (India) Pty Ltd(Publisher)
...It is difficult to say with certainty that such acts were a part of natural epidemic or planned biological attacks. The reason being, before the advent of modern microbiology at the end of the 19th century, little was known about the pathogens and truth might have been manipulated for political reasons. 4 Before discussing further on biological agents and the history of the Biological Warfare, a few basic terms need to be defined: Biological Agents : The 1969 United Nations study for the Secretary-General states, “Bacteriological (biological) agents of warfare are living organisms, whatever their nature, or infective material derived from them, which are intended to cause disease or death in man, animals or plants, and which depend for their effects on their ability to multiply in the person, animal or plant attacked.” 5 This definition does not include toxins in the term biological agents. Biological Weapons : Biological weapons refer to munitions, equipment or other means of delivery including bombs, aircraft spray tanks and other devices, intended for use in the dissemination of biological agents and toxins for hostile purposes. The principal means of dissemination are as an aerosol to be inhaled by a target population or as a spray to be deposited on crop plants. An aerosol is a suspension in air of particles so small that they travel with air currents instead of settling to the ground. Biological Warfare : Biological Warfare is a planned and deliberate military employment of pathogenic strains of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, 6 or their toxins to produce death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm in humans or to kill or damage animals or plants for a military objective. Bioterrorism : The US Centre for Disease Control has defined bioterrorism as the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria or other agents used to cause illness or death in people, and also in animals or plants by non-state actors...
eBook - ePub- P.J. Bert Hakkinen, Asish Mohapatra, Steven G. G. Gilbert(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
...Chapter 59. Terrorism and Warfare (Chemical, Biological, and Radioactive and Nuclear) Introduction Previous editions of Information Resources in Toxicology have not contained a chapter on Terrorism and Warfare (Chemical, Biological and Radioactive and Nuclear CBRN); but in fact, the use of chemicals, biological and toxin agents, and radiological materials as military weapons does not fall under conventional weapons. These materials, used in war and in terrorism, are often referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In many cases, this is a misnomer and in fact these weapons do not destroy as much as they cause fear, require extensive and intensive medical treatment that ties up civilian and military medical facilities and material, limit the use of areas contaminated with these agents (denial of material and terrain), and, require careful time-consuming decontamination. These WMD, especially radioactive agents, are sometimes more aptly referred to as weapons of mass disruption because although they can kill many people, their biggest effect is disruption of operations. Both the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Toxin Weapon Convention, although originally developed to deal with military use of CB agents, include sections that can be applied to civilian and terrorist use. However, this is not the main thrust for either convention. Terrorism is not always defined the same way by different groups or from the same perspective. Terrorism used here refers to attacks on civilians and non-military targets to incite fear among targeted groups to bend them to another’s political motives, whether that of an individual, a group, or a state. Distinguishing terrorist attacks from military attacks and even industrial accidents is not always straightforward. There may also be difficulties in proving a terrorist component to a military attack, especially if the collateral damage releases CBRN agents that can threaten civilian populations...
eBook - ePubBritain and Disarmament
The UK and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Arms Control and Programmes 1956-1975
- John R. Walker(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...This was done to allow purely defensive work against the use of BW. Moreover, while the earlier version only referred to biological agents, the paper was now changed to include a reference to the equipment that would be needed to deliver such agents. Fifth, although the group believed that while the WHO might reasonably be expected to investigate complaints that BW had been used, it was not the proper body to investigate complaints of infringements of obligations on the central prohibitions of an envisaged Biological Weapons Convention. 49 Alternatively, they thought it better to propose a ‘body of competent experts’ to investigate allegations that the BW prohibition had been breached. Finally, a brief definition of BW was introduced: ‘biological agents causing death or disease by infection in man, animals or crops.’ MOD, however, suggested that there was a danger in the UK taking an initiative, or becoming a party to a Convention, banning a field of warfare for which no means of verification were foreseen. Such an action might have adverse repercussions in other areas. There was, moreover, a possibility of damaging the UK’s close relationship with the US. A meeting of the sub-committee was arranged for 23 July to finalise the draft ENDC working paper considered by Zuckerman’s sub-group. 50 Foreign Office officials hoped that Mulley would sponsor the paper at the Cabinet DOPC meeting planned for 26 July, or in the week commencing 29 July...
eBook - ePub- Milton Leitenberg, Raymond A. Zilinskas, Jens H. Kuhn(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Harvard University Press(Publisher)
...offensive and defensive research in areas that related to biological weapons. 3 Though contrary to many assumptions, it was not a misguided exercise. Nineteen years later, David Huxsoll, then director of USAMRIID, presented an explicit schema that provided a distinction between the two in testimony to the US Senate. He explained the differences between offensive and defensive research, as well as between the development of vaccines and other defenses and biological weapons, as follows: From the outset, defensive research is based on different postulates and hypotheses than is research directed toward offensive ends, and the rationales for data collection and analysis are different. At the basic research level, the laboratory techniques used would be very similar, but the objectives are markedly different. Beyond the basic research level, there is a marked divergence in the type of work that would be done. If a vaccine were to be produced, one that would pursue ways of crippling, weaken, or lessening the virulence of the agent in question so that it could be used in humans without fear of inducing disease[; i]n fact, it may be completely inactivated, a killed vaccine. A vaccine would be produced under the stringent guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration regulations and would have to receive FDA approval before use. This type of work is permitted by the Biological Weapons Convention. If, however, the goal were to create a weapon, the opposite objectives would be pursued. Efforts to enhance virulence or toxicity and to produce enormous quantities of agent far larger than those required for vaccine production would be undertaken. In addition, the issues of stability, dissemination, and weapons delivery systems would have to be addressed. These activities are clearly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention. 4 Huxsoll then displayed a diagram based on laboratory work with a virus, one pathway of which led to a vaccine while the second led to a weapon...
