Thoughts on chemical weapons?
Necessary evil, or just evil?
>>30440850
When I went through basic this was the only shit that actually scared me, while most things just eviscerate you now this stuff just makes living complicated.
I'd say both, its just evil but its not like we can't have it now with everyone else using it.
>>30440850
Good and evil are subjective.
There's a time and a place for everything.
That said, I don't think that time or place has been for a long, long time re: chemical weapons.
>>30440850
I work in law enforcement and I fear Chem and biological weapons more than conventional terrorism due to lifelong mutilation. Fuck that and fuck you tac hood.
>>30440850
>get bomb dropped on city
>wasn't in the immediate blast radius
>be fine
>get chemical weapon dropped on city
>drink tap water
>eternally fucked
>>30440850
It's a good way to have multiple countries in NATO and the UN to invade.
For Britfags, there's a good doc here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07hx40t/inside-porton-down-britains-secret-weapons-research-facility
Pic is apparently enough VX to kill maybe 100,000 people.
>>30440850
What about bioweapons? Anthrax, SARS, etc
>>30440892
>>30440892
>nothing to show the relative size
Completely useless pic bruh
>>30440850
Unpleasant but the West needed them so they could respond to a Soviet chemical attack without escalating to tac nukes.
>>30440894
Those are just horrible as well.
That doc >>30440892 has a part at the end saying that weaponised ebola would probably work. Though I don't think the people who are mental enough to use it would understand how to in the first place.
>>30440897
It's in the documentary. That's about 50ml or something like that.
>>30440913
How would you weaponize ebola ? Sry bad internet I can't watch the vid
you'd have to find a way to force enemy population and soldiers not to wash themselves
>>30440850
>Evil/Necessary
Classifying it in moral terms is largely redundant now, the cat's out of the bag and any nation/faction of any size can put together a chemical weapons programme.
And regardless of the Chemical Weapons Convention, stockpiles can very quickly be repleted (though westernisation takes a little longer).
>>30440929
I guess longer Incubation time and an easier way to spread it
There's very little about chemical weapons that could be construed as "necessary."
>>30440892
Did somebody say VX?
>>30440957
ISH habbened again ssshtanly, I've feared dish day would comb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPtPxqTdkig&spfreload=10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPtPxqTdkig&spfreload=10
>>30440929
Just the scene of thousands of people quarantined, the dramatic symptoms of Ebola, and the fear and chaos would drive any city or population center into pure madness.
One of the problems with Ebola, iirc, was that because it was so "flashy", no one with basic hygiene knowledge is going to approach you. The ebola problem in Africa is also magnified due to how poor and badly educated the people are there, not to mention lack of a good medical infrastructure.
As >>30440940 stated, if you prolong the incubation period, giving the virus more time to hide coupled with making that sunvabitch spreadable airborne or at least through the aerospray from someone coughing or sneezing, things will get real bad, quick.
>>30440850
Tactically useful.
>>30440957
Pic related
>>30440943
This. They're perfect weapons, designed to exterminate living beings while having no other uses. Nukes are small time compared to chemical weapons since nuclear energy can be harnessed into useful and peaceful means as well.
Bioweapons on the other hand are just pure evil.
Viruses can mutate, adapt and even become completely immune to cures and won't stop until there's no-one to spread to.
It's hard to imagine why any scientist would want to take a part in creating a virus which could potentially wipe out 99% of life from this earth
>>30440929
read about chimera, Soviet supposedly managed to combine Ebola and small pox into a single organism.
>>30440850
For all the bad, chemical weapons are still geographic weapons. They will poison a certain area and kill everyone in it. But Biowepons are truly scary shit. Not least because the way science is progressing in decade or so we could easily see a group like ISIS developing its own biowepons program.
>>30441049
I remember reading somewhere that there is sufficient genetic diversity among humans that a virus would at most exterminate 95% of all humans, or something to that effect. That being said, with better understanding of genome its possible to design a weapon that targets only cretin gens, or combinations of gens. There are many disease that affect only one ethnic or racial group.
>>30441069
If it even reaches all humans. It's a big planet and plenty of places still have uncontacted groups of people.
>>30441069
I am sure after a certain point in mass global pandemic, either draconian enforcement of travel or NO-travel, borders closing up, or just not enough people left to maintain modern traveling methods will occur. And much like the Black Plague, if you limit the traveling of infected people and materials from one population center to another, you effectively cut off the virus from going 100% global.
>>30441243
A lot more people are traveling now than in XIII century. If one was to release small pox in Shanghai airport it would spread to every major country in the world. By the time anyone knew what was happening millions would be exposed. And if one makes something with infectivity of common cold and fatality of ebola one could infect millions before the first person dies and killed 10s of millions easily. And the biggest threat is that one wouldn't need large underground facilities and expensive and complex machinery like for a nuke or nerve agent but just a laboratory, expensive yes but certainly easier to acquire. And if one throws in human testing development would go rather quickly if you have someone smart leading the project.
>>30441056
>ISIS developing its own biowepons program.
Considering they can't even into aviation, that seems unlikely
A dirty bomb does not equal biochemical weapons
>>30440913
>>30440929
Haven't watched the video, but there was also an article on it on the BBC news site, yesterday I think. What they actually said was that whilst it's theoretically possible to weaponise ebola, the technology to actually do it doesn't exist.
>>30441345
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36606510
>An experiment I watched in a Category IV laboratory (the highest level of security) suggests that ebola does indeed have the potential to be used as a weapon, although fortunately there are currently significant technical and practical barriers to its use.
>>30441355
Aye the big problem with weaponizing ebola is that the virus itself is incredibly delicate. As vicious and destructive as it is, it currently can't survive out in the open for more than a few seconds, can't withstand any kind of sustained UV exposure, can't withstand dry air, etc etc etc.
It's got a long laundry list of limitations preventing its weaponization, many of which I'm sure are being eliminated/researched in some lab somewhere.
Chemical and biological weapons are abhorrent. They have no place being weaponized and people that use them should honestly get a swift death sentence.
I used the ever loving shit out of those tactical gas grenades in COD:black ops though that played more like CS gas in multiplayer games than the murder weapon it was suppose to be in campaign.
>>30440850
JUST levels for WMDS
Bioweapons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chemical > Nuclear.
>>30441430
Thing is, Nukes could stop the world from functioning. Chemical weapons are contained.
>>30441435
I'd rather have nuclear & chemical annihilation as opposed to things crawling out of my ass or my bones turning into sponge or something.
>>30441339
Not ISIS but group like ISIS, someone with territory and rather large pool of possible test subjects. And I think one needs a much larger industry and technical skill to produce an aircraft than to extract and stabilize Ebola. A small group of engineers can't build an aircraft and certainly not an air force but a small group of educated and committed bio engineers can certainly weaponize Ebola or some other virus to a level capable of killing a lot of people. Its probably harder to get all the things needed for a dirty bomb than for a simple bio weapon.
>>30441049
>creating a virus which could potentially wipe out 99% of life from this earth
That's impossible for so so many reasons. You've read The Stand too many times
>>30441039
Just tried it. Ended up making a McChicken sammich somehow.
>0/10
>>30441458
>M-O-O-N
That spells go fuck yourself.
>>30440850
In war there is no good or evil, just winners and losers.
>>30440894
>bioweapons
>SARS
What?
>>30441571
Worked for china
>No blanket joke yet
I am dissapoint.
Nuclear power plants in my country allow me to shitpost in this very moment. I doubt the medicine I take is made in the same facilities bioweapon are made (I hope), and I think medicine can progress without developping things that can fuck everyone eternally.
>>30440892
But a few tablespoons would do that if dispersed properly
>>30441496
Are you a mad man? You'll doom us all with that monster!
>>30440850
Fluoride.
>>30441453
Slow accumulation of rad poisoning will still yield that butt problem.
>>30440892
5ml of botulinum is enough to kill 10 million people.
Lethal dose is 1ng/kg of bodyweight.
>>30442081
Yeah, but it's not easily weaponised.
>>30442081
Problem is dispersing it that wide, in real world scenarios even water reservoir dispersion will yield localized results. But it's still pretty fascinating how good we are at conjuring up substances to kill ourselves.
>>30441345
Yes it does, it's called Meme Magic
>>30442095
Aerosol or poisoning water/food supplies. It isn't very difficult for a state at all...
>>30442116
Botulinum is a natural occuring protein, though not in the kind of quantities that we would consider lethal.
>>30440850
I don't give two shits.
it's going to be used by good guys and bad guys regardless of what you autists think
>>30440850
Nothing can be categorized as good and evil when it comes to weaponry. The question is whether such weapons are necessary or not.
In current state of world affairs and military conflicts such weapons are unnecessary as military formations are too wide spread on the battlefield for chemical attacks to be effective without destroying massive amounts of land uninhabitable and unaccessble. Area denial is only practical function I can think of for chemical weapons.
Ranges from tactical decision to pure evil
However some psycho out their will always have them at their disposal so training/knowledge should always be maintained
>>30440894
Not really as useful as chemical weapons since highly infectious agents are likely to inflict casualties on your own forces and agents like anthrax that require exposure to spores are much harder to effectively deliver.
Honestly they're more trouble than they're worth. May as well just use nerve gas.
>>30442145
Okay, learn something every day. I stand by my earlier statement of the human race being good and inventing things/substances with which to kill ourselves though.
>>30440877
That's the problem, we want the temporarily fucked, not permanently.
>>30440850
>Thoughts on chemical weapons?
Good way to kill civilians, slowdown military movement and spread terror. Can backfire in epic proportions as use weapons of mass destruction tend to be retaliated in kind.
>Necessary evil, or just evil?
Good.
>applying human concepts of good and evil to inanimate objects
They're tools which can be used for purposes by humans. Nothing more, nothing less.
