- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
- Reaction score
- 31
Interesting article on the new focus on Biowarfare and Bioterror defense by the U.S. Government at the new National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) . Critics say research violates treaty obligations and international law, supporters say critics are splitting hairs over technicalities and that manufacture of a small amount of weaponized biological agents for defensive testing purposes is acceptable under the law.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14083374/
Personally, I think that we MUST produce some quantitities of potential weapons in order to learn how to defend successfully against them. However; excessive secrecy can do more harm than good and at the end of the article there is an example of an extremely useful report on likely weapons that was so highly classiffied as to be nearly worthless for decision making purposes - if you don't think people in Congress and bureaucracies won't block something simpley because they had no hand in planning it, then you don't understand human nature, IMO.
There are good points and bad about this new emphasis on Biodefense. True, it could start a new biowarfare arms race, but we know now that after the U.S. ceased it's offensive program in 1968, the Soviets, despite the treaty then recently signed prohibiting this, launched the most massive offensive biowarfare program in world history - one that is still dangerous today as its badly guarded stocks could end up in the hands of either terrorists or rogue states (if they haven't already).
Thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14083374/
Personally, I think that we MUST produce some quantitities of potential weapons in order to learn how to defend successfully against them. However; excessive secrecy can do more harm than good and at the end of the article there is an example of an extremely useful report on likely weapons that was so highly classiffied as to be nearly worthless for decision making purposes - if you don't think people in Congress and bureaucracies won't block something simpley because they had no hand in planning it, then you don't understand human nature, IMO.
There are good points and bad about this new emphasis on Biodefense. True, it could start a new biowarfare arms race, but we know now that after the U.S. ceased it's offensive program in 1968, the Soviets, despite the treaty then recently signed prohibiting this, launched the most massive offensive biowarfare program in world history - one that is still dangerous today as its badly guarded stocks could end up in the hands of either terrorists or rogue states (if they haven't already).
Thoughts?
