Spike Jones wrote:
>
> "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> > ...He lists the primary reason that states have chosen to
> > get out of the bioweapons business -- bioweapons are
> > simply lousy weapons... Robert
>
> There is an interesting chapter in Rhode's Making of the
> Atomic Bomb where Oppenheimer is doing some soul
> searching during the test phase. He realizes the atom
> bomb is a lousy weapon, for many of the same reasons
> bioweapons fail, assuming one is making war for some
> specific political aim.
>
That is interesting. Actually a suitcase nuke would make an
altogether too effective terror weapon. It is one of my worse
nightmares.
> Bioweapons are the terrorists dream come true however;
> they are cheap and perfect for accomplishing the clearly
> stated goal of the terrorists, i.e. to slay as many people as
> humanly possible, and keep doing so until all infidels and
> unbelievers are dead.
>
Are you claiming the above is a blanket goal of all terrorists
or some terrorists? Clearly not all terrorism is done for any
religious goal whatsoever and not all terrorism has the intent
to slay as many people as possible and especially not all
terrorism wishes to slay all who do not think and believe like
the terrorists do. So I don't see why you wrote this
paragraph. What is it you want to say here?
Unless you have a bioweapon that is real deadly and fast acting
but not too much so unless it self-check its own spread and can
manage to distribute it really well and keep it from backfiring
on your own population, a bioweapon is a really poor choice for
wiping out all of a particular people or type of people. Even
if that is your goal.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT