How effective is biological warfare?

[nowayjose]

Has it ever worked?

[needs]

Not really on topic, but this is an excellent history of the connections between pesticides and chemical warfare:

http://assets.cambridge.org/052179/9376/cover/0521799376.jpg

Edmund Russell, War and Nature

[spejic]

Has it ever worked?I'd count the recent anthrax envelopes as a victory, depending on the needs of the guy that did it. Not that it killed a meaningful number of people, but that it caused a totally outrageous reaction by the government, costing $10 billion at the very least.

[nowayjose]

I'd count the recent anthrax envelopes as a victory, depending on the needs of the guy that did it. Not that it killed a meaningful number of people, but that it caused a totally outrageous reaction by the government, costing $10 billion at the very least.

Wasn't that an inside job?

[spejic]

Wasn't that an inside job?I don't think anyone knows. That kind of makes it hard to tell if the results really suited the goals of the criminal. Maybe he was trying to do something like cause a race war against Arabs, in which case he failed.

[Pauncho]

It was highly effective for the Spanish in the early 16th century. Whether they realized they were using it or not is another question.

[Bluto11]

It was highly effective for the Spanish in the early 16th century. Whether they realized they were using it or not is another question.
i think the early settlers knew about the Indian's and smallpox. Didn't colonists give Indians blankets that infected people used so that the germs could spread quicker among the Indians?

[Anthony]

I don't think anyone knows. That kind of makes it hard to tell if the results really suited the goals of the criminal. Maybe he was trying to do something like cause a race war against Arabs, in which case he failed.

My understanding is that the real purpose of biological warfare is not to kill, but to incapacitate. And not only those sick, but also those taking care of the sick.

As for the anthrax person, who knows. But I agree, we definitely caused a lot of mayhem diverting resources that could have been used to guard the coasts.

[CrewDust]

there was a study done from World War 1 that showed that on a shell per Shell basis, conventional High Explosives killed and wounded more troops than Gas weapons. Granted Chem and Bio weapons have become more effective since them

[topcatcole]

There are a lot of hard to control variables in the use of biologicals. The effective area is very much affected by temperature, humidity and wind direction for example. This makes their employment difficult and the results uncertain.

The threat of biologicals, on the other hand, can be effective in that it ties up the resources of your enemy, much like what was noted with the anthrax case on Capitol Hill. (I remember my mail showing up months later after going to Ohio to be irradiated)