Biological warfare

Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, insects, and fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war. Biological weapons (often termed "bio-weapons", "biological threat agents", or "bio-agents") are living organisms or replicating entities ( ⁠i.e. viruses, which are not universally considered "alive"). Entomological (insect) warfare is a subtype of BW.

"biological attack" redirects here. For the use of biological agents by terrorists, see bioterrorism. For other uses, see Bioattack.
"Germ Warfare" redirects here. For the M*A*S*H episode, see Germ Warfare (M*A*S*H).

Weapons of mass destruction
By type
By country
Proliferation
Treaties
  • Book
  • Category

Biological warfare is distinct from nuclear warfare, chemical warfare and radiological warfare, which together with biological warfare make up CBRN, the military initialism for nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). None of these are considered conventional weapons, which are deployed primarily for their explosive, kinetic, or incendiary potential.

Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments. Like some chemical weapons, biological weapons may also be useful as area denial weapons. These agents may be lethal or non-lethal, and may be targeted against a single individual, a group of people, or even an entire population. They may be developed, acquired, stockpiled or deployed by nation states or by non-national groups. In the latter case, or if a nation-state uses it clandestinely, it may also be considered bioterrorism.[1]

Biological warfare and chemical warfare overlap to an extent, as the use of toxins produced by some living organisms is considered under the provisions of both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Toxins and psychochemical weapons are often referred to as midspectrum agents. Unlike bioweapons, these midspectrum agents do not reproduce in their host and are typically characterized by shorter incubation periods.[2]

The use of biological weapons is prohibited under customary international humanitarian law,[3] as well as a variety of international treaties.[4] The use of biological agents in armed conflict is a war crime.[5]

Overview

Offensive biological warfare, including mass production, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons, was outlawed by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The rationale behind this treaty, which has been ratified or acceded to by 170 countries as of April 2013,[6] is to prevent a biological attack which could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastructure.[7] Many countries, including signatories of the BWC, currently pursue research into the defense or protection against BW, which is not prohibited by the BWC.

A nation or group that can pose a credible threat of mass casualty has the ability to alter the terms under which other nations or groups interact with it. When indexed to weapon mass and cost of development and storage, biological weapons possess destructive potential and loss of life far in excess of nuclear, chemical or conventional weapons. Accordingly, biological agents are potentially useful as strategic deterrents, in addition to their utility as offensive weapons on the battlefield.[8]

As a tactical weapon for military use, a significant problem with a BW attack is that it would take days to be effective, and therefore might not immediately stop an opposing force. Some biological agents (smallpox, pneumonic plague) have the capability of person-to-person transmission via aerosolized respiratory droplets. This feature can be undesirable, as the agent(s) may be transmitted by this mechanism to unintended populations, including neutral or even friendly forces. Worse still, such a weapon could "escape" the laboratory where it was developed, even if there was no intent to use it - for example by infecting a researcher who then transmits it to the outside world before realizing that they were infected. Several cases are known of researchers becoming infected and dying of Ebola,[9][10] which they had been working with in the lab (though nobody else was infected in those cases) - while there is no evidence that their work was directed towards BW, it demonstrates the potential for accidental infection even of careful researchers fully aware of the dangers. While containment of BW is less of a concern for certain criminal or terrorist organizations, it remains a significant concern for the military and civilian populations of virtually all nations.

History
Main article: History of biological warfare
Part of a series on
War

Antiquity and Middle Ages

Rudimentary forms of biological warfare have been practiced since antiquity.[11] The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded in Hittite texts of 1500–1200 BC, in which victims of tularemia were driven into enemy lands, causing an epidemic. Although the Assyrians knew of ergot, a parasitic fungus of rye which produces ergotism when ingested, there is no evidence that they poisoned enemy wells with the fungus, as has been claimed. Scythian archers dipped their arrows and Roman soldiers their swords into excrements and cadavers — victims were commonly infected by tetanus as result.[12] In 1346, the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged Crimean city of Kaffa. Specialists disagree over whether this operation may have been responsible for the spread of the Black Death into Europe, Near East and North Africa, resulting in the killing of approximately 25 million Europeans.[13][14][15][16]

Modern history

The British Army attempted use of smallpox against Native Americans during the Siege of Fort Pitt in June 1763.[17][18][19] A reported outbreak that began the spring before left as many as one hundred Native Americans dead in Ohio Country from 1763 to 1764. It is not clear, however, whether the smallpox was a result of the Fort Pitt incident or the virus was already present among the Delaware people as outbreaks happened on their own every dozen or so years[20] and the delegates were met again later and they seemingly hadn't contracted smallpox.[21][22][23] It is likely that the British Marines used smallpox in New South Wales, Australia, in 1789.[24] Dr Seth Carus[25] (2015) states: "Ultimately, we have a strong circumstantial case supporting the theory that someone deliberately introduced smallpox in the Aboriginal population."[26]

By 1900 the germ theory and advances in bacteriology brought a new level of sophistication to the techniques for possible use of bio-agents in war. Biological sabotage in the form of anthrax and glanders was undertaken on behalf of the Imperial German government during World War I (1914–1918), with indifferent results.[27] The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons.[28]

With the onset of World War II, the Ministry of Supply in the United Kingdom established a BW program at Porton Down, headed by the microbiologist Paul Fildes. The research was championed by Winston Churchill and soon tularemia, anthrax, brucellosis, and botulism toxins had been effectively weaponized. In particular, Gruinard Island in Scotland, was contaminated with anthrax during a series of extensive tests for the next 56 years. Although the UK never offensively used the biological weapons it developed, its program was the first to successfully weaponize a variety of deadly pathogens and bring them into industrial production.[29] Other nations, notably France and Japan, had begun their own biological weapons programs.[30]

When the United States entered the war, Allied resources were pooled at the request of the British and the U.S. established a large research program and industrial complex at Fort Detrick, Maryland in 1942 under the direction of George W. Merck.[31] The biological and chemical weapons developed during that period were tested at the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah. Soon there were facilities for the mass production of anthrax spores, brucellosis, and botulism toxins, although the war was over before these weapons could be of much operational use.[32]

Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731, which performed live human vivisections and other biological experimentation.

The most notorious program of the period was run by the secret Imperial Japanese Army Unit 731 during the war, based at Pingfan in Manchuria and commanded by Lieutenant General Shirō Ishii. This unit did research on BW, conducted often fatal human experiments on prisoners, and produced biological weapons for combat use.[33] Although the Japanese effort lacked the technological sophistication of the American or British programs, it far outstripped them in its widespread application and indiscriminate brutality. Biological weapons were used against both Chinese soldiers and civilians in several military campaigns.[34] In 1940, the Japanese Army Air Force bombed Ningbo with ceramic bombs full of fleas carrying the bubonic plague.[35] Many of these operations were ineffective due to inefficient delivery systems,[33] although up to 400,000 people may have died.[36] During the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Campaign in 1942, around 1,700 Japanese troops died out of a total 10,000 Japanese soldiers who fell ill with disease when their own biological weapons attack rebounded on their own forces.[37][38]

During the final months of World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon against U.S. civilians in San Diego, California, during Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. The plan was set to launch on 22 September 1945, but it was not executed because of Japan's surrender on 15 August 1945.[39][40][41][42]

In Britain, the 1950s saw the weaponization of plague, brucellosis, tularemia and later equine encephalomyelitis and vaccinia viruses, but the programme was unilaterally cancelled in 1956. The United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories weaponized anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever and others.[43]

In 1969, the UK and the Warsaw Pact, separately, introduced proposals to the UN to ban biological weapons, and US President Richard Nixon terminated production of biological weapons, allowing only scientific research for defensive measures. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was signed by the US, UK, USSR, and other nations, as a ban on "development, production and stockpiling of microbes or their poisonous products except in amounts necessary for protective and peaceful research" in 1972. However, the Soviet Union continued research and production of massive offensive biological weapons in a program called Biopreparat, despite having signed the convention.[44] As of September 2018, 182 countries have ratified the treaty, and none are proven—though nine are still suspected[45]—to possess offensive BW programs.[45]

As a means of terrorism
Main article: Bioterrorism

Biological weapons are difficult to detect, economical and easy to use, making them appealing to terrorists. The cost of a biological weapon is estimated to be about 0.05 percent the cost of a conventional weapon in order to produce similar numbers of mass casualties per kilometer square.[46] Moreover, their production is very easy as common technology can be used to produce biological warfare, like that used in production of vaccines, foods, spray devices, beverages and antibiotics. A major factor in biological warfare that attracts terrorists is that they can easily escape before the government agencies or secret agencies have even started their investigation. This is because the potential organism has an incubation period of 3 to 7 days, after which the results begin to appear, thereby giving terrorists a lead.

A technique called Clustered, Regularly Interspaced, Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR-Cas9) is now so cheap and widely available that scientists fear that the amateurs will start experimenting with them. In this technique, a DNA sequence is cut off and replaced with a new sequence or code that codes for a particular protein or characteristic, which could potentially show up in the required organism. Though this technique is a breakthrough and is commendable, it can cause serious issues and potential danger if used by people with wrong intentions. Concerns have emerged regarding do-it-yourself biology research organizations due to their associated risk that a rogue amateur DIY researcher could attempt to develop dangerous bioweapons using genome editing technology.[47]

In 2002, when CNN went through Al-Qaeda's (AQ's) experiments with crude poisons, they found out that AQ had begun planning ricin and cyanide attacks with the help of a loose association of terrorist cells.[48] The associates had infiltrated many countries like Turkey, Italy, Spain, France and others. In 2015, to combat the threat of bioterrorism, a National Blueprint for Biodefense was issued by the Blue-Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense.[49] Also, 233 potential exposures of select biological agents outside of the primary barriers of the biocontainment in the US were described by the annual report of the Federal Select Agent Program.[50]

Though a verification system can reduce bioterrorism, an employee, or a lone terrorist having adequate knowledge of the company facilities, can cause potential danger by injecting a deadly or harmful substance into the facility. Moreover, it has been found that about 95% of accidents that have occurred due to low security have been done by employees or those who had a security clearance.[51]

Entomological warfare
Main article: Entomological warfare

Entomological warfare (EW) is a type of biological warfare that uses insects to attack the enemy. The concept has existed for centuries and research and development have continued into the modern era. EW has been used in battle by Japan and several other nations have developed and been accused of using an entomological warfare program. EW may employ insects in a direct attack or as vectors to deliver a biological agent, such as plague. Essentially, EW exists in three varieties. One type of EW involves infecting insects with a pathogen and then dispersing the insects over target areas.[52] The insects then act as a vector, infecting any person or animal they might bite. Another type of EW is a direct insect attack against crops; the insect may not be infected with any pathogen but instead represents a threat to agriculture. The final method uses uninfected insects, such as bees, wasps, etc., to directly attack the enemy.[53]

Genetic warfare

Theoretically, novel approaches in biotechnology, such as synthetic biology could be used in the future to design novel types of biological warfare agents.[54][55][56][57]

  1. Would demonstrate how to render a vaccine ineffective;
  2. Would confer resistance to therapeutically useful antibiotics or antiviral agents;
  3. Would enhance the virulence of a pathogen or render a nonpathogen virulent;
  4. Would increase the transmissibility of a pathogen;
  5. Would alter the host range of a pathogen;
  6. Would enable the evasion of diagnostic/detection tools;
  7. Would enable the weaponization of a biological agent or toxin

Most of the biosecurity concerns in synthetic biology, however, are focused on the role of DNA synthesis and the risk of producing genetic material of lethal viruses (e.g. 1918 Spanish flu, polio) in the lab.[58][59][60] Recently, the CRISPR/Cas system has emerged as a promising technique for gene editing. It was hailed by The Washington Post as "the most important innovation in the synthetic biology space in nearly 30 years."[61] While other methods take months or years to edit gene sequences, CRISPR speeds that time up to weeks.[61] However, due to its ease of use and accessibility, it has raised a number of ethical concerns, especially surrounding its use in the biohacking space.[61][62][63]

BW by target

It has been argued that rational state actors would never use biological weapons offensively. The argument is that biological weapons cannot be controlled: the weapon could backfire and harm the army on the offensive, perhaps having even worse effects than on the target. An agent like smallpox or other airborne viruses would almost certainly spread worldwide and ultimately infect the user's home country. However, this argument does not necessarily apply to bacteria. For example, anthrax can easily be controlled and even created in a garden shed; the FBI suspects it can be done for as little as $2,500 using readily available laboratory equipment.[64] Also, using microbial methods, bacteria can be suitably modified to be effective in only a narrow environmental range, the range of the target that distinctly differs from the army on the offensive. Thus only the target might be affected adversely. The weapon may be further used to bog down an advancing army making them more vulnerable to counterattack by the defending force. Note that these concerns generally do not apply to biologically-derived toxins - while classified as biological weapons, the organism that produces them is not used on the battlefield, so they present concerns similar to chemical weapons.

Anti-personnel
The international biological hazard symbol

Ideal characteristics of a biological agent to be used as a weapon against humans are high infectivity, high virulence, non-availability of vaccines and availability of an effective and efficient delivery system. Stability of the weaponized agent (the ability of the agent to retain its infectivity and virulence after a prolonged period of storage) may also be desirable, particularly for military applications, and the ease of creating one is often considered. Control of the spread of the agent may be another desired characteristic.

The primary difficulty is not the production of the biological agent, as many biological agents used in weapons can be manufactured relatively quickly, cheaply and easily. Rather, it is the weaponization, storage, and delivery in an effective vehicle to a vulnerable target that pose significant problems.

For example, Bacillus anthracis is considered an effective agent for several reasons. First, it forms hardy spores, perfect for dispersal aerosols. Second, this organism is not considered transmissible from person to person, and thus rarely if ever causes secondary infections. A pulmonary anthrax infection starts with ordinary influenza-like symptoms and progresses to a lethal hemorrhagic mediastinitis within 3–7 days, with a fatality rate that is 90% or higher in untreated patients.[65] Finally, friendly personnel and civilians can be protected with suitable antibiotics.

Agents considered for weaponization, or known to be weaponized, include bacteria such as Bacillus anthracis, Brucella spp., Burkholderia mallei, Burkholderia pseudomallei, Chlamydophila psittaci, Coxiella burnetii, Francisella tularensis, some of the Rickettsiaceae (especially Rickettsia prowazekii and Rickettsia rickettsii), Shigella spp., Vibrio cholerae, and Yersinia pestis. Many viral agents have been studied and/or weaponized, including some of the Bunyaviridae (especially Rift Valley fever virus), Ebolavirus, many of the Flaviviridae (especially Japanese encephalitis virus), Machupo virus, Marburg virus, Variola virus, and yellow fever virus. Fungal agents that have been studied include Coccidioides spp..[44][66]

Toxins that can be used as weapons include ricin, staphylococcal enterotoxin B, botulinum toxin, saxitoxin, and many mycotoxins. These toxins and the organisms that produce them are sometimes referred to as select agents. In the United States, their possession, use, and transfer are regulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Select Agent Program.

The former US biological warfare program categorized its weaponized anti-personnel bio-agents as either Lethal Agents (Bacillus anthracis, Francisella tularensis, Botulinum toxin) or Incapacitating Agents (Brucella suis, Coxiella burnetii, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B).

Anti-agriculture

Anti-crop/anti-vegetation/anti-fisheries
See also: United States herbicidal warfare research

The United States developed an anti-crop capability during the Cold War that used plant diseases (bioherbicides, or mycoherbicides) for destroying enemy agriculture. Biological weapons also target fisheries as well as water-based vegetation. It was believed that the destruction of enemy agriculture on a strategic scale could thwart Sino-Soviet aggression in a general war. Diseases such as wheat blast and rice blast were weaponized in aerial spray tanks and cluster bombs for delivery to enemy watersheds in agricultural regions to initiate epiphytotic (epidemics among plants). When the United States renounced its offensive biological warfare program in 1969 and 1970, the vast majority of its biological arsenal was composed of these plant diseases.[67] Enterotoxins and Mycotoxins were not affected by Nixon's order.

Though herbicides are chemicals, they are often grouped with biological warfare and chemical warfare because they may work in a similar manner as biotoxins or bioregulators. The Army Biological Laboratory tested each agent and the Army's Technical Escort Unit was responsible for the transport of all chemical, biological, radiological (nuclear) materials. Scorched earth tactics or destroying livestock and farmland were carried out in the Vietnam war (cf. Agent Orange)[68] and Eelam War in Sri Lanka.[69]

Biological warfare can also specifically target plants to destroy crops or defoliate vegetation. The United States and Britain discovered plant growth regulators (i.e., herbicides) during the Second World War, and initiated a herbicidal warfare program that was eventually used in Malaya and Vietnam in counterinsurgency operations.

Anti-livestock

During World War I, German saboteurs used anthrax and glanders to sicken cavalry horses in U.S. and France, sheep in Romania, and livestock in Argentina intended for the Entente forces.[70] One of these German saboteurs was Anton Dilger. Also, Germany itself became a victim of similar attacks — horses bound for Germany were infected with Burkholderia by French operatives in Switzerland.[71]

During World War II, the U.S. and Canada secretly investigated the use of rinderpest, a highly lethal disease of cattle, as a bioweapon.[70][72]

In the 1980s Soviet Ministry of Agriculture had successfully developed variants of foot-and-mouth disease, and rinderpest against cows, African swine fever for pigs, and psittacosis to kill the chicken. These agents were prepared to spray them down from tanks attached to airplanes over hundreds of miles. The secret program was code-named "Ecology".[44]

During the Mau Mau Uprising in 1952, the poisonous latex of the African milk bush was used to kill cattle.[73]

Defensive BW operations
Main article: Biodefense

Research and development into medical counter-measures

In 2010 at The Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction in Geneva[74] the sanitary epidemiological reconnaissance was suggested as well-tested means for enhancing the monitoring of infections and parasitic agents, for the practical implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005). The aim was to prevent and minimize the consequences of natural outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases as well as the threat of alleged use of biological weapons against BTWC States Parties.

Role of public health and disease surveillance

It is important to note that most classical and modern biological weapons' pathogens can be obtained from a plant or an animal which is naturally infected.[75]

Indeed, in the largest biological weapons accident known—the anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg) in the Soviet Union in 1979—sheep became ill with anthrax as far as 200 kilometers from the release point of the organism from a military facility in the southeastern portion of the city and still off-limits to visitors today, (see Sverdlovsk Anthrax leak).[76]

Thus, a robust surveillance system involving human clinicians and veterinarians may identify a bioweapons attack early in the course of an epidemic, permitting the prophylaxis of disease in the vast majority of people (and/or animals) exposed but not yet ill.[77]

For example, in the case of anthrax, it is likely that by 24–36 hours after an attack, some small percentage of individuals (those with the compromised immune system or who had received a large dose of the organism due to proximity to the release point) will become ill with classical symptoms and signs (including a virtually unique chest X-ray finding, often recognized by public health officials if they receive timely reports).[78] The incubation period for humans is estimated to be about 11.8 days to 12.1 days. This suggested period is the first model that is independently consistent with data from the largest known human outbreak. These projections refine previous estimates of the distribution of early-onset cases after a release and support a recommended 60-day course of prophylactic antibiotic treatment for individuals exposed to low doses of anthrax.[79] By making these data available to local public health officials in real time, most models of anthrax epidemics indicate that more than 80% of an exposed population can receive antibiotic treatment before becoming symptomatic, and thus avoid the moderately high mortality of the disease.[78]

Common epidemiological clues that may signal biological attack

From most specific to least specific:[80]

  1. Single cause of a certain disease caused by an uncommon agent, with lack of an epidemiological explanation.
  2. Unusual, rare, genetically engineered strain of an agent.
  3. High morbidity and mortality rates in regards to patients with the same or similar symptoms.
  4. Unusual presentation of the disease.
  5. Unusual geographic or seasonal distribution.
  6. Stable endemic disease, but with an unexplained increase in relevance.
  7. Rare transmission (aerosols, food, water).
  8. No illness presented in people who were/are not exposed to "common ventilation systems (have separate closed ventilation systems) when illness is seen in persons in close proximity who have a common ventilation system."
  9. Different and unexplained diseases coexisting in the same patient without any other explanation.
  10. Rare illness that affects a large, disparate population (respiratory disease might suggest the pathogen or agent was inhaled).
  11. Illness is unusual for a certain population or age-group in which it takes presence.
  12. Unusual trends of death and/or illness in animal populations, previous to or accompanying illness in humans.
  13. Many affected reaching out for treatment at the same time.
  14. Similar genetic makeup of agents in affected individuals.
  15. Simultaneous collections of similar illness in non-contiguous areas, domestic, or foreign.
  16. An abundance of cases of unexplained diseases and deaths.

Identification of bioweapons

The goal of biodefense is to integrate the sustained efforts of the national and homeland security, medical, public health, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement communities. Health care providers and public health officers are among the first lines of defense. In some countries private, local, and provincial (state) capabilities are being augmented by and coordinated with federal assets, to provide layered defenses against biological weapon attacks. During the first Gulf War the United Nations activated a biological and chemical response team, Task Force Scorpio, to respond to any potential use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians.

The traditional approach toward protecting agriculture, food, and water: focusing on the natural or unintentional introduction of a disease is being strengthened by focused efforts to address current and anticipated future biological weapons threats that may be deliberate, multiple, and repetitive.

The growing threat of biowarfare agents and bioterrorism has led to the development of specific field tools that perform on-the-spot analysis and identification of encountered suspect materials. One such technology, being developed by researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), employs a "sandwich immunoassay", in which fluorescent dye-labeled antibodies aimed at specific pathogens are attached to silver and gold nanowires.[81]

In the Netherlands, the company TNO has designed Bioaerosol Single Particle Recognition eQuipment (BiosparQ). This system would be implemented into the national response plan for bioweapon attacks in the Netherlands.[82]

Researchers at Ben Gurion University in Israel are developing a different device called the BioPen, essentially a "Lab-in-a-Pen", which can detect known biological agents in under 20 minutes using an adaptation of the ELISA, a similar widely employed immunological technique, that in this case incorporates fiber optics.[83]

List of BW institutions, programs, projects and sites by country

United States
Main article: United States biological weapons program

United Kingdom
Main article: United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction § Biological weapons

Soviet Union and Russia
Main article: Soviet biological weapons program

Japan
U.S. authorities granted Unit 731 officials immunity from prosecution in return for access to their research.

Iraq
Main articles: Iraqi biological weapons program and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction

(passim)

South Africa
Main article: South Africa and weapons of mass destruction § Biological and chemical weapons

Rhodesia
Main article: Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction

Canada
  • Grosse Isle, Quebec, site (1939–45) of research into anthrax and other BW agents
  • Experimental Station Suffield, Suffield, Alberta

List of people associated with BW

Bioweaponeers:

Includes scientists and administrators

Writers and activists:

Main article: Biological warfare in popular culture
gollark: Clearly not.
gollark: <@!202992030685724675> So it's been a while; how's your plan to increase CC popularity gone?
gollark: It does ask if you want to authorize the desktop client which generated the QR code. This is overblown.
gollark: I like to edit the file to say "By changing this value to `true` you do not agree with the EULA".
gollark: No, IC2 is probably better.

See also

References
  1. Wheelis M, Rózsa L, Dando M (2006). Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945. Harvard University Press. pp. 284–293, 301–303. ISBN 978-0-674-01699-6.
  2. Gray C (2007). Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare. Phoenix. pp. 265–266. ISBN 978-0-304-36734-4.
  3. Rule 73. The use of biological weapons is prohibited. Archived 12 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Customary IHL Database, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)/Cambridge University Press.
  4. Customary Internal Humanitarian Law, Vol. II: Practice, Part 1 (eds. Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Louise Doswald-Beck: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 1607–10.
  5. Alexander Schwarz, "War Crimes" in The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law Archived 12 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine (eds. Frauke Lachenmann & Rüdiger Wolfrum: Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 1317.
  6. Biological Weapons Convention
  7. "Show Treaty". disarmament.un.org. Archived from the original on 14 February 2018. Retrieved 5 February 2018.
  8. Archived 30 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  9. Borisevich, I. V.; Markin, V. A.; Firsova, I. V.; Evseey, A. A.; Khamitov, R. A.; Maksimov, V. A. (2006). "Hemorrhagic (Marburg, Ebola, Lassa, and Bolivian) fevers: Epidemiology, clinical pictures, and treatment". Voprosy Virusologi. 51 (5): 8–16. PMID 17087059.
  10. [Akinfeyeva L. A., Aksyonova O. I., Vasilyevich I. V., et al. A case of Ebola hemorrhagic fever. Infektsionnye Bolezni (Moscow). 2005;3(1):85–88 [Russian].]
  11. Mayor A (2003). Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Duckworth. ISBN 978-1-58567-348-3.
  12. Croddy, Eric; Perez-Armendariz, Clarissa; Hart, John (2002). Chemical and biological warfare : a comprehensive survey for the concerned citizen. Copernicus Books. p. 219. ISBN 0387950761.
  13. Wheelis M (September 2002). "Biological warfare at the 1346 siege of Caffa". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 8 (9): 971–5. doi:10.3201/eid0809.010536. PMC 2732530. PMID 12194776.
  14. Barras V, Greub G (June 2014). "History of biological warfare and bioterrorism". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 20 (6): 497–502. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12706. PMID 24894605.
  15. Andrew G. Robertson, and Laura J. Robertson. "From asps to allegations: biological warfare in history," Military medicine (1995) 160#8 pp: 369-373.
  16. Rakibul Hasan, "Biological Weapons: covert threats to Global Health Security." Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (2014) 2#9 p 38. online Archived 17 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  17. Calloway CG (2007). The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America (Pivotal Moments in American History). Oxford University Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-0195331271.
  18. Jones DS (2004). Rationalizing Epidemics. Harvard University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0674013056.
  19. McConnel MN (1997). A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724-1774. University of Nebraska Press. p. 195.
  20. King, J. C. H. (2016). Blood and Land: The Story of Native North America. Penguin UK. p. 73. ISBN 9781846148088.
  21. Ranlet, P (2000). "The British, the Indians, and smallpox: what actually happened at Fort Pitt in 1763?". Pennsylvania History. 67 (3): 427–441. PMID 17216901.
  22. Barras V, Greub G (June 2014). "History of biological warfare and bioterrorism". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 20 (6): 497–502. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12706. PMID 24894605. However, in the light of contemporary knowledge, it remains doubtful whether his hopes were fulfilled, given the fact that the transmission of smallpox through this kind of vector is much less efficient than respiratory transmission, and that Native Americans had been in contact with smallpox >200 years before Ecuyer’s trickery, notably during Pizarro’s conquest of South America in the 16th century. As a whole, the analysis of the various ‘pre-micro- biological” attempts at BW illustrate the difficulty of differentiating attempted biological attack from naturally occurring epidemics.
  23. Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare. Government Printing Office. 2007. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-16-087238-9. In retrospect, it is difficult to evaluate the tactical success of Captain Ecuyer's biological attack because smallpox may have been transmitted after other contacts with colonists, as had previously happened in New England and the South. Although scabs from smallpox patients are thought to be of low infectivity as a result of binding of the virus in fibrin metric, and transmission by fomites has been considered inefficient compared with respiratory droplet transmission.
  24. Christopher W (2013). "Smallpox at Sydney Cove – Who, When, Why". Journal of Australian Studies. 38: 68–86. doi:10.1080/14443058.2013.849750. S2CID 143644513. See also History of biological warfare#New South Wales, First Fleet#First Fleet smallpox, and History wars#Controversy over smallpox in Australia.
  25. Distinguished Research Fellow, Center for the Study of WMD, National Defense University, Ft. McNair, Washington.
  26. Carus WS (August 2015). "The history of biological weapons use: what we know and what we don't". Health Security. 13 (4): 219–55. doi:10.1089/hs.2014.0092. PMID 26221997.
  27. Koenig, Robert (2006), The Fourth Horseman: One Man's Secret Campaign to Fight the Great War in America, PublicAffairs.
  28. Baxter RR, Buergenthal T (28 March 2017). "Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925". The American Journal of International Law. 64 (5): 853–879. doi:10.2307/2198921. JSTOR 2198921. Archived from the original on 27 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  29. Prasad SK (2009). Biological Agents, Volume 2. Discovery Publishing House. p. 36. ISBN 9788183563819.
  30. Garrett L (2003). Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. Oxford University Press. pp. 340–341. ISBN 978-0198526834.
  31. Covert NM (2000). A History of Fort Detrick, Maryland (4th ed.). Archived from the original on 21 January 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
  32. Guillemin J (July 2006). "Scientists and the history of biological weapons. A brief historical overview of the development of biological weapons in the twentieth century". EMBO Reports. 7 Spec No (Spec No): S45-9. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400689. PMC 1490304. PMID 16819450.
  33. Williams P, Wallace D (1989). Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World War II. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-935301-1.
  34. Gold H (1996). Unit 731 testimony (Report). pp. 64–66.
  35. Barenblatt D (2004). A Plague upon Humanity. HarperCollins. pp. 220–221.
  36. "The World's Most Dangerous Weapon". Washington Examiner. 8 May 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  37. Chevrier MI, Chomiczewski K, Garrigue H, Granasztói G, Dando MR, Pearson GS, eds. (July 2004). "Johnston Atoll". The Implementation of Legally Binding Measures to Strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, held in Budapest, Hungary, 2001. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-4020-2096-4.
  38. Croddy E, Wirtz JJ (2005). Weapons of Mass Destruction. ABC-CLIO. p. 171. ISBN 978-1-85109-490-5.
  39. Baumslag N (2005). Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus. pp. 207.
  40. "Weapons of Mass Destruction: Plague as Biological Weapons Agent". GlobalSecurity.org. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014. Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  41. Stewart A (25 April 2011). "Where To Find The World's Most 'Wicked Bugs': Fleas". National Public Radio. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
  42. Russell Working (5 June 2001). "The trial of Unit 731". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 21 December 2014. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
  43. Clark WR (15 May 2008). Bracing for Armageddon?: The Science and Politics of Bioterrorism in America. USA: Oxford University Press.
  44. Alibek K, Handelman S (2000). Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World – Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran it. Delta. ISBN 978-0-385-33496-9.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  45. "26 Countries' WMD Programs; A Global History of WMD Use - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org". Usiraq.procon.org. 29 May 2009. Archived from the original on 19 April 2012. Retrieved 5 September 2013.
  46. "Overview of Potential Agents of Biological Terrorism | SIU School of Medicine". SIU School of Medicine. Archived from the original on 19 November 2017. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
  47. Millet, P., Kuiken, T., & Grushkin, D. (2014, March 18). Seven Myths and Realities about Do-It-Yourself Biology. Retrieved from http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/6676/ Archived 14 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine
  48. "Al Qaeda's Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 14 November 2017. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
  49. "A NATIONAL BLUEPRINT FOR BIODEFENSE: LEADERSHIP AND MAJOR REFORM NEEDED TO OPTIMIZE EFFORTS" (PDF). ecohealthalliance.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 March 2017. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
  50. "Federal Select Agent Program". www.selectagents.gov. Archived from the original on 24 November 2017. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
  51. Wagner D (2 October 2017). "Biological Weapons and Virtual Terrorism". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 4 November 2017. Retrieved 3 November 2017.
  52. "An Introduction to Biological Weapons, Their Prohibition, and the Relationship to Biosafety Archived 12 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine", The Sunshine Project, April 2002. Retrieved 25 December 2008.
  53. Lockwood JA (2008). Six-legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War. Oxford University Press. pp. 9–26. ISBN 978-0195333053.
  54. Kelle A (2009). "Security issues related to synthetic biology. Chapter 7.". In Schmidt M, Kelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A, de Vriend H (eds.). Synthetic biology. The technoscience and its societal consequences. Berlin: Springer.
  55. Garfinkel MS, Endy D, Epstein GL, Friedman RM (December 2007). "Synthetic genomics: options for governance" (PDF). Industrial Biotechnology. 3 (4): 333–65. doi:10.1089/ind.2007.3.333. hdl:1721.1/39141.
  56. "Addressing Biosecurity Concerns Related to Synthetic Biology". National Security Advisory Board on Biotechnology (NSABB). 2010. Retrieved 4 September 2010.
  57. Buller M (21 October 2003). The potential use of genetic engineering to enhance orthopoxviruses as bioweapons. International Conference “Smallpox Biosecurity. Preventing the Unthinkable. Geneva, Switzerland.
  58. Tumpey TM, Basler CF, Aguilar PV, Zeng H, Solórzano A, Swayne DE, et al. (October 2005). "Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus" (PDF). Science. New York, N.Y. 310 (5745): 77–80. Bibcode:2005Sci...310...77T. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.418.9059. doi:10.1126/science.1119392. PMID 16210530. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 June 2013. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
  59. Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E (August 2002). "Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template". Science. 297 (5583): 1016–8. Bibcode:2002Sci...297.1016C. doi:10.1126/science.1072266. PMID 12114528. S2CID 5810309.
  60. Wimmer E, Mueller S, Tumpey TM, Taubenberger JK (December 2009). "Synthetic viruses: a new opportunity to understand and prevent viral disease". Nature Biotechnology. 27 (12): 1163–72. doi:10.1038/nbt.1593. PMC 2819212. PMID 20010599.
  61. Basulto D (4 November 2015). "Everything you need to know about why CRISPR is such a hot technology". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
  62. Kahn J (9 November 2015). "The Crispr Quandary". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 19 February 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
  63. Ledford H (June 2015). "CRISPR, the disruptor". Nature. 522 (7554): 20–4. Bibcode:2015Natur.522...20L. doi:10.1038/522020a. PMID 26040877.
  64. "Loner Likely Sent Anthrax, FBI Says". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 7 April 2008. Retrieved 30 March 2008.
  65. "Anthrax Facts | UPMC Center for Health Security". Upmc-biosecurity.org. Archived from the original on 2 March 2013. Retrieved 5 September 2013.
  66. Hassani M, Patel MC, Pirofski LA (April 2004). "Vaccines for the prevention of diseases caused by potential bioweapons". Clinical Immunology. 111 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2003.09.010. PMID 15093546.
  67. Franz D. "The U.S. Biological Warfare and Biological Defense Programs" (PDF). Arizona University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 14 June 2018.
  68. "Vietnam's war against Agent Orange". BBC News. 14 June 2004. Archived from the original on 11 January 2009. Retrieved 17 April 2010.
  69. "Critics accuse Sri Lanka of using scorched earth tactics against Tamils". The National. Retrieved 18 March 2019.
  70. "Biowarfare Against Agriculture". fas.org. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 15 February 2020.
  71. Croddy, Eric; Perez-Armendariz, Clarissa; Hart, John (2002). Chemical and biological warfare : a comprehensive survey for the concerned citizen. Copernicus Books. p. 223. ISBN 0387950761.
  72. "Chemical and Biological Weapons: Possession and Programs Past and Present" (PDF). James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Retrieved 17 March 2020.
  73. Verdcourt B, Trump EC, Church ME (1969). Common poisonous plants of East Africa. London: Collins. p. 254.
  74. European Union cooperative Initiatives to improve Biosafety and Biosecurity (12 August 2010). "Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction" (PDF).
  75. Ouagrham-Gormley S. Dissuading Biological Weapons Proliferation. Contemporary Security Policy [serial online]. December 2013;34(3):473–500. Available from: Humanities International Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed 28 January 2015.
  76. Guillemin J (2013). The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History. Politics & The Life Sciences. 32. pp. 102–105. doi:10.2990/32_1_102.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  77. Ryan CP (2008). "Zoonoses likely to be used in bioterrorism". Public Health Reports. 123 (3): 276–81. doi:10.1177/003335490812300308. PMC 2289981. PMID 19006970.
  78. Wilkening DA (2008). "Modeling the incubation period of inhalational anthrax". Medical Decision Making. 28 (4): 593–605. doi:10.1177/0272989X08315245. PMID 18556642.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  79. Toth DJ, Gundlapalli AV, Schell WA, Bulmahn K, Walton TE, Woods CW, Coghill C, Gallegos F, Samore MH, Adler FR (August 2013). "Quantitative models of the dose-response and time course of inhalational anthrax in humans". PLOS Pathogens. 9 (8): e1003555. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003555. PMC 3744436. PMID 24058320.
  80. Treadwell TA, Koo D, Kuker K, Khan AS (March–April 2003). "Epidemiologic clues to bioterrorism". Public Health Reports. 118 (2): 92–8. doi:10.1093/phr/118.2.92. PMC 1497515. PMID 12690063.
  81. "Physorg.com, "Encoded Metallic Nanowires Reveal Bioweapons", 12:50 EST, 10 August 2006". Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
  82. "BiosparQ features". Archived from the original on 13 November 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
  83. Genuth I, Fresco-Cohen L (13 November 2006). "BioPen Senses BioThreats". The Future of Things. Archived from the original on 30 April 2007.
  84. "Shyh-Ching Lo". Archived from the original on 31 December 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  85. "Pathogenic mycoplasma". Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
  86. "Interview: Dr Kanatjan Alibekov". Frontline. PBS. Archived from the original on 8 June 2010. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
  87. "Dr. Ira Baldwin: Biological Weapons Pioneer". American History. 12 June 2006. Archived from the original on 10 April 2009. Retrieved 8 March 2009.
  88. Ute Deichmann (1996). Biologists Under Hitler. Harvard University Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-674-07405-7.
  89. Leyendecker B, Klapp F (December 1989). "[Human hepatitis experiments in the 2d World War]". Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Hygiene und Ihre Grenzgebiete. 35 (12): 756–60. PMID 2698560.
  90. Maksel R (14 January 2007). "An American waged germ warfare against U.S. in WWI". SF Gate. Archived from the original on 11 May 2011. Retrieved 7 March 2010.
  91. Chauhan SS (2004). Biological Weapons. APH Publishing. p. 194. ISBN 978-81-7648-732-0.
  92. Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel for the American Military Tribunals at Nurember, 1946. http://www.mazal.org/NO-series/NO-0124-000.htm Archived 1 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  93. "Obituary: Vladimir Pasechnik". The Daily Telegraph. London. 29 November 2001. Archived from the original on 3 March 2010. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
  94. "Anthrax attacks". Newsnight. BBC. 14 March 2002. Archived from the original on 7 April 2009. Retrieved 16 March 2010.
  95. "Interviews With Biowarriors: Sergei Popov" Archived 18 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine, (2001) NOVA Online.
  96. "US welcomes 'Dr Germ' capture". BBC. 13 May 2003. Archived from the original on 19 October 2006. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
  97. Jackson PJ, Siegel J (2005). Intelligence and Statecraft: The Use and Limits of Intelligence in International Society. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-275-97295-0.
  98. "Jamie Bisher, "Baron von Rosen's 1916 Anthrax Mission," 2014". Baron von Rosen's 1916 Anthrax Mission. Archived from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 24 October 2014.
  99. Yazid Sufaat works on anthrax for al-Qaeda Archived 2 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine, GlobalSecurity.org
  100. "MIT Security Studies Program (SSP): Jeanne Guillemin". MIT. Archived from the original on 28 November 2009. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
  101. Lewis P (4 September 2002). "Sheldon Harris, 74, Historian Of Japan's Biological Warfare". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 May 2011. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
  102. Miller J (2001). Biological Weapons and America's Secret War. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-684-87158-5.
  103. "Matthew Meselson – Harvard – Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs". Harvard. Archived from the original on 5 September 2008. Retrieved 8 March 2010.

Further reading
Library resources about
Biological warfare
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.