biological warfare

[mahalia]

in life sciences (SA education's new name for bio) we had to construct a debate with the following topic:

THBT biological warfare is an acceptable means of neutralizing the international terror threat.

your opinions? will give ours later.

 

[Steezie]

Thats kinda like using a grenade to clear the gunk out of your engine.

 

[Lugus]

It sounds like you are talking about biological warfare, in general, and not race-based weapons.

Both are devastating. My understanding is that biological weapons could be developed and used by countries that do not have the capability of developing a nuclear program. They would be an inexpensive Weapon of Mass Destruction.

As for the race-based weapon -- in the hands of the country that first develops it, this type of biological weapon may appear to be a gift from heaven. These weapons could eliminate millions of people in a few days with no harm to buildings, livestock etc.

Impossible? Science fiction? May be not.

 

[mahalia]

okay, we had the proposing side. i can't say i agreed with it completely, but htis is what we said and we won.
also, please remember that i'm not treating any of you as stupid, the fact that the debate sounds like it is because it was a model debate in front of a class of extremely ignorant teenagers. i'm just gonna copy and paste the content of my debate here:

THBT Biological Warfare is an Acceptable Way​

of Neutralizing the International Threat of Terrorism​

​

“Biological Warfare” is no modern term. In the dark ages, the Crusaders were stopped at the gates of Jerusalem by plague; in the 14th century Britain was protected by the Bubonic Plague and years later, Napoleon’s ranks would finally be thinned out by dysentery – it was intentionally used for protection.

So what is a biological weapon? It is any organism, like a virus, bacterium or toxin that occurs naturally, used in the case of war.

Now, at first glance the motion might seem coldhearted, but one must focus on not only the first half, but also the second half, stating that biological warfare is only acceptable as a means to put a stop to a terrorist threat.

It has become clear that negotiation is not working in the case of terrorists and they are becoming increasingly destructive – not only 9/11 and the London attacks, but also the daily attacks in Iraq and Israel and the speculations that a next attack is planned on either Australia or France.

The question then arises, why biological warfare, as opposed to chemical-, nuclear or just plain send-soldiers-to-the-battlefield warfare?

Fact: biological weapons are cheap in relation to atom- or chemical bombs. The atom bomb’s research cost millions of dollars and what makes it worse is that a lot of the research was done during the Great Depression, while the American population was already suffering. The soldiers in Iraq are costing billions of dollars, while a large portion of Americans are already living in poverty. If you have to spend money on neutralizing terrorism, choose the cheaper option.

Fact: biological weapons don’t damage infrastructure, chemical- and nuclear weapons most certainly do! If one bombs a certain area, one would want to build it up again after the problem has been taken care of. Once again, it is a case of doing what has to be done as cheaply and effectively as possible.

Fact: when used with the proper precautions and knowledge, certain biological weapons can be contained to an individual, a building, city or country and will not, contrary to popular belief, spread through the world like wildfire.

I am not proposing the use of biological weapons left and right. I am proposing the use of biological weapons against thorns to society like Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaida. It is a question of, risking a few more lives (however hard that might sound), as opposed to risking the lives of soldiers and the population of many major cities. And yes, this risk is very small, as the countries who desire to neutralize the terror threat are the countries with some of the best scientists in the world. There are 43 known biological weapons, and these scientists will see to it that the one used is effective, but not damaging to the people or environment in the long run.

…In the long run, terrorism could kill millions of people… it already has. It’s time to make a stand against this, targeting those who are the real culprits, instead of bombing in the hope of success and, in so doing, wrecking the lives of innocent civilians.

War remains awful and gruesome and should be avoided at all costs. However, when, like in the case of terrorism, it is necessary, let us do it as cheaply, effectively and safely to civilians as possible.

 

[Bombila]

It's my opinion that all indiscriminate weapons are immoral, and that includes conventional bombing of mostly civilian targets.

Biological weapon is a vastly inclusive term - it could include anything from a fast acting vomit inducing virus dropped on an advancing army to a killer disease that wipes out entire populations.

Your faith in Western science is endearing, but a touch misplaced, I'm afraid. Western scientists experimenting with plant engineering have not even been able to contain genetically engineered strains of grass, corn, and canola, to name something that come to mind quickly. Expecting scientists in conjunction with the military to contain and control biological agents would be foolhardy.