What's New in Life Science Research

What do you envision as the comparative harm that could be inflicted with a warfare based primarily on the use of biological weapons as opposed to traditional weapons? What are the positives and negatives of using these weapons as opposed to hand-to-hand combat or the use of firearms and explosives?

I see biological weapons as falling into four classes:

1. Genocidal. By this, I mean that the weapon is designed to indiscriminately murder large swaths of people. The deliberate introduction of smallpox-impregnated blankets to Native American tribes is one instance of such a strategy.

   What is key here is that the biological agent is able to reproduce and spread throughout the population. There is, of course, the danger of blowback to your own population or military forces...

2. Terrorist. Here, the damage in loss of life is relatively small (e.g., the U.S. anthrax cases). It also doesn't have to survive and reproduce--to a certain extent, it's a biological analog of chemical warfare. In the case of anthrax, it really isn't very communicable (although, as discussed next, it does have other 'desirable'* properties). Typically, civilian populations will be targeted.
3. Disabling. Here, the disease doesn't have to be deadly, but simply cause a lot of illness and be transmissible. The goal is to weaken military forces and civilian infrastructure by disabling personnel and overtaxing the untargeted manpower resources. This is probably the type that is most likely to have direct military implications, although the ability to wreck civilian 'human' infrastructure is also a very serious concern.
4. Salting the earth. Here, the agent is designed to make certain regions uninhabitable. Spore-forming bacteria such as anthrax that can persist in the environment (often for decades) are key. People who pass through or inhabit contaminated areas are at risk for disease. It also 'helps' if agricultural activities, both raising livestock as well as plant contamination, can't happen in the effected region. Gruinard Island is one example of this.

Obviously, these categories are not mutually exclusive and are overlapping constructs. But they all share one thing: they really aren't that effective in direct military conflict, particularly if protective mechanisms or vaccines are available to combatants. These weapons are mostly 'useful' against civilian populations and targets, many of whom simply will lack the resources to protect themselves. In the case of contaminating habitats, that's little more than a vengeance weapon that would lead to increased barbarism from the other side.

I would also bring up the Geneva and Hague Conventions but that's so 20th century.[/snark]

*That is, desirable if you're fucking evil.