From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 09:43:40 MST
Eugen Leitl wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>
>>mentioned, Anthrax is a pretty ineffective bio-weapon. It
>>cannot credibly "kill millions".
>>
>>
>
>Some 100 tons of spores clandestinely dusting a sleeping large city under
>optimal conditions could kill a bignum of people.
>
Yes, but that's missing the point of a bioweapon. A good bioweapon is
difficult, but not impossible to cure. At least difficult to prevent.
Asymptomatic until after the infectious cycle is well under way. And
slowly fatal, with the first step being the degradation of the decision
making process. (Sort of like a combination of cocaine addiction and aids.)
P.S.: Note that hiv is not, itself, fatal. It depends on a weakened
immune system to create the horrific effects. If it were more
contagious (say, also by coughing or sneezing), and a bit faster, it
would be a nearly ideal...
Well, anthrax doesn't come close! (Smallpox, now, that has
possibilities.) I did hear a report that Iraq had been working on a
camelpox weapon, since many Iraqui already have immunity. (O, yes, an
ideal bio-weapon should be one that you are immune to, but which you
enemy isn't, and can't easily come, immune to.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:43 MST