 |
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001 time: 05:25
|
|
Ebola is bad, but as has been said is in general not airborne. If someone sequences the Reston and the Zaire strains, finds out the genetic differences between them, then compares the predictive genes/transmembrane region etc. Then start mixing and matching genes and testing on monkeys/humans (for the unscrupulous dictator). It is fairly tricky no doubt (especially in a Cat4 suit, I did some work in a Cat3 and it was right royal pain the arse), but if you don't really care if your researchers get infected too, it is possible, especially for a fairly small virus like Ebola.
I still think that weaponised smallpox would be worse than Ebola.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001 time: 05:25
|
|
Something along those lines, yeah. Always good for a laugh as long as you pick the right thread (anything US vs EU is good, as are the threads started by the notorious trolls).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JohnT
Optimus: read up on WW1 for further clarification. |
You mean this?
quote: Although gas claimed a notable number of casualties during its early use, once the crucial element of surprise had been lost the overall number of casualties quickly diminished. Indeed, deaths from gas after about May 1915 were relatively rare.
It has been estimated that among British forces the number of gas casualties from May 1915 amounted to some 9 per cent of the total - but that of this total only around 3% were fatal. Even so, gas victims often led highly debilitating lives thereafter with many unable to seek employment once they were discharged from the army.
In large part this was because of the increasing effectiveness of the methods used to protect against poison gas. Gas never turned out to be the weapon that turned the tide of the war, as was often predicted. Innovations in its use were quickly combated and copied by opposing armies in an ongoing cycle. |
Only the Russians suffered a substantial amount of fatalities from gas attacks (56,000); no other nation lost so much as 10,000 dead. Contrast that with approximately 1.7 million total Russian deaths in the war, and I think you can see where my skepticism comes from.
Chemical weapons might make for effective terror weapons (but, again, you've got to get proper delivery), but are nowhere near as effective military weapons as their conventional counterparts.
EDIT: Also, consider the high density of troops in the trenches in World War I, compared to modern conflicts where forces are more dispersed. Chemical weapons would be nowhere as effective today, even as they were back then, in a military sense. And -- bullets are cheaper.
Last edited by optimus2861 on 18-01-2003 at 00:49
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by optimus2861
^^ Something I've been pondering as well. Chemical weapons are so reliant upon proper dispersion in order to be effective -- wind, temperature, pressure, etc etc -- that to lump them in as a "weapon of mass destruction" with nukes (which are in a class of their own, no question) and biological agents (which share many of the same dispersion problems as chemicals, however can somewhat make up for it if they are infectious agents) has always puzzled me. |
There's several issues with chemical weapons. They are dependent on weather conditions for ideal dispersion, but VX is pretty damned effective whether it's ideally dispersed or not.
The classification of CW agents as WMD's is a correct one, since they can have extensive, severe and permanent health impacts well outside their lethal radius, and the hazard potential persists (with V-series many nerve agents such as VX) long after a direct attack.
Another reason for classification of CW agents as WMD's is that many of them are engineered to have adhesive qualities in liquid form, causing a thin film of the agent to stick to whatever it comes in contact with, then slowly evaporating off. This makes after-attack lethal potential much higher, and requires proper decontamination of all equipment, building surfaces, clothing, supplies, etc. in the area attacked.
Yet another reason is the overwhelming mass casualty potential: VX, for example, has an LD50 of about 10mg in liquid form. (meaning that it has a 50% probability of being lethal), and a much lower dosage would be lethal in gaseous form. This is thousands of times higher than any lethality from conventional missile or artillery rounds. Gaseous VX casualties can only be treated by injection of atropine directly into the heart (atropine itself is toxic and has long-term health problems, but it's far better than the alternative), within one to two minutes of exposure. This means that the vast majority of people exposed can not be treated at all before they die, even with atropine and trained personnel available - the specialized nature of the immediate treatment, along with the need for medics to be in protective suits, severely limits how many people could be reached and treated in time by a properly equipped medic. VX is the worst of the nerve agents, but older, less lethal agents don't give you a lot more slack.
BTW, lethality potential of a 130 or 152 mm arty round with even low-level nerve agents like GA or GB is from a few dozen to a few hundred times higher than a conventional munition, even with less than ideal dispersion. In both cases, it depends on the nature of the targets and density of personnel under the target area, but the Iraqis don't use airburst submunitions, so a ground impact 130 or 152 has a definite maximum potential lethal area (very small against buttoned mechanized forces), and a pretty good potential for inflicting zero fatalities. The GA or GB variant also could potentially have zero direct effect, but it would force all troops in a wide area to go to protective suits, decontamination procedures, etc. - this reduction in combat effectiveness (plus an incidental increase in heat related casualties and heat-fatigue related human error) would have a severe effect on movement, dispersal of forces, etc.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
of course MtG this just falls in line with the Administrations "could happen" justifcation of war with iraq.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|