does the US have a secret biological weapons program?

[PLOlover]

afaik the US signed treaty not to pursue chem/bio weapons, and/or I think since nixon have voluntarily ceased all chem/bio weapons. I think US unilaterally stopped first and then worked out a mutual treaty with USSR and others.

anyway, on to PNAC, rebuilding america's defenses.
[ QUOTE ]
Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes.
...
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
...
This is merely a glimpse of the possi-
bilities inherent in the process of transfor-
mation, not a precise prediction. Whatever
the shape and direction of this revolution in
military affairs, the implications for con-
tinued American military preeminence will
be profound. As argued above, there are
many reasons to believe that U.S. forces
already possess nascent revolutionary capa-
bilities, particularly in the realms of intel-
ligence, command and control, and long-
range precision strikes. Indeed, these capa-
bilities are sufficient to allow the armed
services to begin an “interim,” short- to
medium-term process of transformation
right away, creating new force designs and
operational concepts – designs and concepts
different than those contemplated by the
current defense program – to maximize the
capabilities that already exist. But these
must be viewed as merely a way-station
toward a more thoroughgoing transfor-
mation.


[/ QUOTE ]

given the above, how can the US not have a bioweapons or counterbiow. program?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0824/p11s3-coop.html
[ QUOTE ]
from the August 24, 2001 edition

Bioweapons treaty - still a good idea
By Elisa D. Harris
COLLEGE PARK, MD. - Six years of negotiations to add enforcement provisions to the 1972 treaty outlawing biological weapons have halted. The reason: The Bush administration vetoed going ahead with a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would have given states the right to obtain information about and inspect sites where biological weapons were suspected of being developed, produced, or used.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.disarm.wilpf.org/Jan-Feb%...ortdetrick.htm
[ QUOTE ]
The other major function planned for the DHS facility is referred to as “bio-threat characterization.” Task areas for biothreat-agent (BTA) analysis and technical-threat assessment have been summarized as “Acquire, Grow, Modify, Store, Stabilize, Package, Disperse.” Classical, emerging, and genetically engineered pathogens are to be characterized for their BTA potential. Aerobiology, aerosol physics, and environmental stability will be studied in wet-laboratory and computer-laboratory settings. “Computational modeling of feasibility, methods, and scale of production” will be undertaken, and “Red Team” operational scenarios and capabilities will be assessed. BTA use and countermeasure effectiveness will be studied “across the spectrum of potential attack scenarios” through “[h]igh-fidelity modeling and simulation.” These proclaimed (admitted) activities would appear to be in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), to the extent they serve offensive purposes.

...
The Bush Administration’s approach to nuclear weapons very clearly follows the same pattern. The Bush administration wasted no time in revoking the ABM treaty. In 2003, at the UN General Assembly, the US voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, was the only country besides India to vote against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, and was the only country besides Israel and Micronesia to vote against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The Bush administration has also declared opposition to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with regard to the obligation on the part of existing nuclear powers to work toward ceasing the nuclear arms race and achieving nuclear disarmament. Pledging not to use nuclear weapons in a “first strike” has also been rejected. The Bush administration’s next step has been to propose the creation of a whole new generation of “useable” nukes, including “bunker busters,” which in destructiveness and perniciousness are more than 10 times the magnitude of the Hiroshima Bomb.

What the “neocons” Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc. argued during the 1990s should be our goal has become our National Security Strategy – it is to achieve “full spectrum” dominance. This really means dominance in all military realms, including in the realm of biological weapons. The goal of security from attack is subordinated to this quest for global dominance. This explains choosing the creation of a whole new generation of bioweapons, despite its subversion of the BWC, just as we are about to choose a new generation of nukes, despite its subversion of non-proliferation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[qdmcg]

they do obv

[MuresanForMVP]

Quote:
from the August 24, 2001 edition

Bioweapons treaty - still a good idea
By Elisa D. Harris
COLLEGE PARK, MD. - Six years of negotiations to add enforcement provisions to the 1972 treaty outlawing biological weapons have halted. The reason: The Bush administration vetoed going ahead with a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would have given states the right to obtain information about and inspect sites where biological weapons were suspected of being developed, produced, or used.


-yea College Park whoo

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
afaik the US signed treaty not to pursue chem/bio weapons, and/or I think since nixon have voluntarily ceased all chem/bio weapons. I think US unilaterally stopped first and then worked out a mutual treaty with USSR and others.

anyway, on to PNAC, rebuilding america's defenses.
[ QUOTE ]
Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes.
...
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
...
This is merely a glimpse of the possi-
bilities inherent in the process of transfor-
mation, not a precise prediction. Whatever
the shape and direction of this revolution in
military affairs, the implications for con-
tinued American military preeminence will
be profound. As argued above, there are
many reasons to believe that U.S. forces
already possess nascent revolutionary capa-
bilities, particularly in the realms of intel-
ligence, command and control, and long-
range precision strikes. Indeed, these capa-
bilities are sufficient to allow the armed
services to begin an “interim,” short- to
medium-term process of transformation
right away, creating new force designs and
operational concepts – designs and concepts
different than those contemplated by the
current defense program – to maximize the
capabilities that already exist. But these
must be viewed as merely a way-station
toward a more thoroughgoing transfor-
mation.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No! That Hitler's approach could only happen among terrorists or maybe in some fascists countries.

[John Kilduff]

I would think so, and so does China.

[Nonfiction]

I would think every major power (US/UK/Russia/China/France) has them. Although lol @ france and UK being major powers.

[Jamougha]

They may have anti biowarfare programmes, but weaponization programmes? Unlikely. Biowarfare just isn't useful in practise, that's why no-one uses it.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
They may have anti biowarfare programmes, but weaponization programmes? Unlikely. Biowarfare just isn't useful in practise, that's why no-one uses it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the risk of self-destruction? Or because weaponizing the agents is prohibitively difficult?

[2/325Falcon]

Because the use of NBCR agents invites a response in kind.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the use of NBCR agents invites a response in kind.



[/ QUOTE ] Terrorists may not care much about a response in kind. Anyone with a $10,000 investment can conduct bio-tech experiments in his home and manipulate the genome of plants and animals. With a mere million dollar investment, you can build an entire biotech plant. Germ weapons are far easier and cheaper to develop then nuclear weapons.

It wouldn’t be a problem for terrorists to merge peanut genes with tomato genes, causing people with peanut allergies that eat tomato’s to die.

It should only be a matter of months or years before someone figures out how to make an airborne version of Ebola or HIV that could infect most of the planet within weeks or months.