cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (08/24/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > From: Eric Price <sagpd1!eprice> > > With all the talk about the possible use of chemical wepons > in the Persian Gulf, can any one out there give me any information > on germ warfare. The B in CBR, ie what sort of nasty sh*t do > we, the USA, or any one else have, that is hi-tech type biological > weapons, not your everyday Anthrax type stuff. Here's some stuff from memory. Almost any good disease can be turned into a biological agent, depending on whether you want to kill or disable, and the target (human, animal, plant). Major targets of biologicals is the plant and animal life in an enemy country; wipe out the food supply. Anthrax is one I remember which will wipe out cattle; then there was rice blight (target obvious). People are a bit tougher, particularly if they are immunized (like troops). So what you do is to make the diseases more virulent. (Recomninant DNA would be good for this, no? Probably, but we have foresworn bio-war.) Some I remember are anthrax, plague, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, rabbit fever. Delivery can be airborne spores (anthrax), vectors (ticks, rats), aerosols, or covert contamination (water supply). Incidentally, don't put anthrax down; this is a very hardy organism, and the prognosis is really bad if the infection is pulmonary. Purpose against people is similar to chemicals; create a lot of casualties and make the enemy use up resources taking care of the casualties. Advantages: relatively cheap, high terror potential. Problems: difficult to deliver with precision, not very effective against immunized enemy, not effective if enemy has sophisticated health care and good public health; invites serious retaliation, obvious political problems. Takes too long to have an effect, thus can be countered;i.e. you have plenty of time to push the button before you croak. There are a couple of weapons which are somewhere in the gray area; not exactly chemical, not exactly biological; these are the psycho- agents: LSD-25, psylocibin(sp?), and my personal favorite, BZ. These make you crazy! BZ had some promise, as it sort of keeps you breathing, heart beating, but everything else goes into Charlie status. LSD was discarded because the effects were "unpredictable". Military weapons must be predictable. Recall also that US policy has always been that we would not put any chem/bio weapon in the arsenal that did not have a good defense. US development always had defense as a primary focus. Soviet policy stressed offensive capability, and they did at one time have agents for which they had not found a defense. I don't know if this is still the case.
rcorless@uwovax.uwo.ca (Rob Corless) (01/19/91)
From: Rob Corless <rcorless@uwovax.uwo.ca> Only two of all the news reports I have read or heard mentioned Iraq's biological weapons capability. One report just mentioned the words, while the other was a brief, sketchy account of some U.S. medical people being very skeptical that vaccines could be prepared in time for Jan 15. The diseases mentioned in the article included anthrax. (1st was CBC television interview, 2nd was a Denver Post article). I am naive, perhaps, but I am *much* more worried about biological weapons than nuclear ones -- according to the well-known principle of biology, "Under the most carefully controlled conditions, the organisms will do what they damn well please". Can anyone in this newsgroup provide an overview of the effectiveness of such weapons, with particular regard to Iraq's arsenal? That is a rather vague question, but I'm afraid I am too ignorant to phrase it more precisely. I am aware of the difference between biological weapons and biologically-produced chemical weapons, but although I see reports that Iraq has chemical weapons I don't know how they were produced, or if that is significant. It is the purely biological ones I am concerned with.
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (01/24/91)
From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) In article <1991Jan19.033623.765@cbnews.att.com> rcorless@uwovax.uwo.ca (Rob Corless) writes: >Can anyone in this newsgroup provide an overview of the effectiveness >of such weapons, with particular regard to Iraq's arsenal? Well, I didn't sign any documents on this and the distribution is limited to usa, and I suspect network and phone links to Iraq are limited. Basically, the "effectiveness" is a big unknown. We (the US), nor anyone, has fought a biological war. We have fought limited chemical wars with crude agents during WWI. WHAT we do know is that major epidemics have covered the world at times (the plague, the 1918 flu; note this last killed more people than WWI). The US and other countries have tried to understand how these weapons might work (aerobiology). Weapons fall into two basic categories (like chemical weapons): lethal and incapacitating agents. Because, we have not fought such a war, the latter are largely studied for "curiosity." The "science" studied manufacturing (simple), packaging, dispersal, vaccines (prevention), treatment (during infection), etc. Basically: 1) it doesn't take much, it's very cheap, 2) attributes like disperal, persistence, etc. are unknown. All this stuff is in libraries, and you used to be able to write the Pentagon and they would mail you public domain info. On anthrax specifically: virulent. Harty spores (boiling will kill the bacillus, but not the spores). Store it for years, can survive a dispersal explosion. Easily reproduced. Short infection time. Open air tested several times. Problems as a weapon: Can be treated if detected in time (depending on form). A vaccine exists (but crude), Iraq probably only has limited quantities. Possible contamination if facilities attacked, unknown. Also depends on the vector used to disseminate the agent. You can look up CBW books which will tell you the symptoms and treatments of diseases like anthrax. Basically, you can get sick and die in up to 24 hours without treatment (assuming proper agent identification). Basic bottom line: you don't want anyone starting a biological war if you can help it. Anthrax as developed and as would be theoretically contracted would be quite lethal. It would be a "doomsday" weapon, since the Iraqis would have little control. It is assumed any penicillin supplies and medical staff would be overwhelmed. There is another type of biological warfare. No one has talked about it. Using dogs, dolphins, etc. I am sure these are in use. BZ: BTW, de-commissioned, apparently had problems in hot environments. Check the non-classified literature. Napalm: (your poster who noted phosphorus was wrong (excepting the fuse)). I grew near the Torrance plant where its made. Basically, they mix gasoline and styrene. They stockpile the styrene (which is also a product of the plant, in waiting for the bombs. Two times during the Vietnam war, trucks carrying the bombs (silver things) had crashes, and a container or two would break open (fortunately not igniting, you need the fusing or open flame) spilling their contents. Demonstrators were a common sight at this plant. The question I would ask about the Gulf war (rhetorically, I don't expect an answer): how many flame throwers they have in the engineering battlions over there? That will determine how fast the war will be over. Reasoning: CS won't be effective. It is unclear to me how their chemical warfare units are organized in the Iraqi army. Enhanced radiation (neutron) weapons: See the "What Ever Happened to ...?" column in IEEE Spectrum, I think it was December, could have been November. Basically several hundred were made (shells and missile warheads). That is getting a little close. Enough said. --e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene AMERICA: CHANGE IT OR LOSE IT.
keeshu@nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Kees Huyser) (01/25/91)
From: Kees Huyser <keeshu@nikhefk.nikhef.nl> In article <1991Jan24.041304.23421@cbnews.att.com> Eugene N. Miya writes: #From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) #In article <1991Jan19.033623.765@cbnews.att.com> #rcorless@uwovax.uwo.ca (Rob Corless) writes: #>Can anyone in this newsgroup provide an overview of the effectiveness #>of such weapons, with particular regard to Iraq's arsenal? # #Well, I didn't sign any documents on this and the distribution is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #limited to usa, and I suspect network and phone links to Iraq are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #limited. ^^^^^^^^^ Think before you type. Maybe *you* limited distribution to the USA, but the moderator did not... Greetings from the Netherlands and many other countries. --kees -- /* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ /* keeshu@nikhefk.nikhef.nl or {...!uunet.uu.net}!mcsun!hp4nl!nikhefk!keeshu */ /* The National Institute for Nuclear Physics and High-Energy Physics, CSG/K */ /* P.O.Box 4395, 1009 AJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands, phone:+31205920124 */ /* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ /* Disregarding the metaphysical aspects of Schrodinger's cats, I must protest*/ /* at the use of (possibly live) animals for experiments such as these. */ /* I urge readers to boycott whatever product this research is leading to. */ /* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */