There are many arguments in relation to biological warfare, most arguments are against biological warfare which is not surprising given how inhumane and dangerous they really are. In actual fact, arguments that support biological warfare are almost non-existent, or more or less invalid.
Arguments in support of biological warfare:
Of course there is the usual argument of self defence. The core reason that countries invest in building weapons is to defend themselves from potential attacks from other countries. However some countries build weapons for the sheer purpose of attacking and not so much defending, I do not want to delve into political debate though.
Another argument in support of biological weapons is that they are much cheaper to build and obtain then weapons with similar destructive power. Because of this, biological weapons have been labelled the “poor nation's atomic bomb”. Best of their financial benefits, biological weapons may be tempting for nations who want to reduce their defence budget and spend money on more productive tasks. This argument of cost effectiveness is as much a good thing as it is a bad thing.
Arguments against the use of biological warfare:
You might still be recovering from the shock after evidencing the lack of content in my 'arguments in support of biological warfare' section. No, I have done my homework and you will be relieved to find that this section of arguments against the utilisation of bioweapons is much fuller in content.
Firstly, the fact that the effects of biological weapons can last much longer than that of other weapons is quite frightening. With the use of diseases, biological weapons have the potential to go on and on, and on a large scale even cause an epidemic. With contagious diseases like smallpox that can spread on from person to person, the effects can continue long after the initial attack. Worst of all, it can affect people that weren't even targeted, thus killing or incapacitating innocent civilians. If it continues to keep on spreading, like I said it could end up in an epidemic.
I mentioned in my 'arguments in support of biological warfare' section that the cheap cost of bio-agents is as much a good thing as it is a bad thing. The bad thing about it is that the weapon is more accessible to terrorists and other non-beneficial uses. Large scale attacks would be easier with the use of biological weapons. This argument is amplified further my several past events that have shown how destructive biological weapons can really be. An event in Tokyo in March 1995 remains one of the most serious attack of any kind to occur in Japan since the end of World War II. A religious cultist group released the toxic nerve gas sarin at multiple locations in the Tokyo subway which resulted in 13 deaths, 50 severe injuries and caused temporary vision problems for 984 others. On a relative scale, the attack wasn't even that large and with more effort, it could have been much much worse.
Also, I suppose most people would agree that there are enough weapons today to warrant the existence of bioweapons unnecessary.
Another argument is that they're just more cruel and inhumane in comparison to more conventional weapons. Somehow, blowing people up and shooting them is a less cruel way of killing people than giving them contagious diseases and poisoning them. It's hard to describe why poisoning and diseasing your adversary is more cruel than blowing them up, but I'm sure it's the more obvious and prolonged suffering involved with bioweapons. Since poisons and diseases aren't fatal immediately the suffering that the victim goes through is really evident.
From a war perspective, biological weapons also aren't the best. As I have already described in the section of this site labelled 'Scientific Principles' biological weapons are incredibly hard to control and vegetative bacteria are easily damaged by the environment. Additionally the incubation period of a biological weapon is also something to consider and is most definitely disadvantageous.
From a war perspective, biological weapons also aren't the best. As I have already described in the section of this site labelled 'Scientific Principles' biological weapons are incredibly hard to control and vegetative bacteria are easily damaged by the environment. Additionally the incubation period of a biological weapon is also something to consider and is most definitely disadvantageous.
