Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on September 26, 2005, 07:13:07 am
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/26/anthrax_shopping_spree/
-
wtf are they doin.
-
probly studying ways of desposal and infection controle.
-
Quick, where's Hans Blix ?
-
You do not need large amount to practise sterilization procedure.
-
It's probably because the CIA accidentally mailed away their backstock 4 years ago.
-
Or sold it.
-
Actually it's pretty obvious what they're doing with it.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Plague.jpg)
:lol:
Seriously though this is a pretty worrying development. Studying how to contain Anthrax is a sensible enough idea but somehow I doubt that they need 3000 litres of the stuff to conduct tests.
-
given our conventional and nuclear arsenal (not to mention the *****(slap)ing we just did to Iraq) do you realy think we'd be makeing anthrax weapons?
-
Possibly one of GW's daughters likes Heavy Rock and he got the wrong end of the stick?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Actually it's pretty obvious what they're doing with it.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/Misc-Pics/Plague.jpg)
:lol:
Seriously though this is a pretty worrying development. Studying how to contain Anthrax is a sensible enough idea but somehow I doubt that they need 3000 litres of the stuff to conduct tests.
Maybe they're trying to work out how big and how many rockets they'd need to contain 3000 litres of Anthrax?
NB: must check; that Anthrax isn't to be sent care of Zalmay Khalilzad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad), is it?
-
Well, one liter of broth will yield about 3-4 grams of bugs. 3000 liters, they could have the warehouse stocked up pretty well.
-
We're ****ed.
Seriously, that is.
On the other hand, I'm not that concerned about biological stuff as I am about let's say, chemical or nuclear stuff. But still, this isn't making me any happier.
-
Why am I suddenly worried that Fragaria can recite the exact amount of anthrax you can get from a litre of broth from memory? :D
-
Not all too hard. I knew that **** when I was doing the school project. And back when Iraq was just starting, I read up on all the weapons and stuff. Good for debates.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
On the other hand, I'm not that concerned about biological stuff as I am about let's say, chemical or nuclear stuff. But still, this isn't making me any happier.
Ummm. Why? Biologicals can be far nastier than chemical weapons. We still haven't found a chemical more lethal than botox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botox) for instance.
It is possibly the most toxic substance known, with a lethal dose of about 300 pg/kg, meaning that somewhat over a hundred grams could kill every human living on the earth.
The problem with biologicals lies in weaponising them for maximum effect. Do that correctly and they're far nastier than chemicals weapons.
-
Add the fact that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of biology/ chemistry /biochemistry can make sort of biological weapons. Chemical and nuclear weapons are much harder to construct.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Not all too hard. I knew that **** when I was doing the school project. And back when Iraq was just starting, I read up on all the weapons and stuff. Good for debates.
What kind of school allows students work on such crazy bug? :nervous:
And I guess with all the reading you had done about weapons, you probably know how to build one huh ;7
-
Originally posted by Wanderer
Add the fact that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of biology/ chemistry /biochemistry can make sort of biological weapons. Chemical and nuclear weapons are much harder to construct.
You will still have to know the ratio of nutrients, temperature, air and CO2 ratio to grow any bug. Then you will have to know how to 'preserve' the culture so that it will stay active and not degraded for months and years. I don't think you get that type of info from Bio 101.
-
Basic Bio won't get you anywhere near the level of knowledge you need to grow anything worse then the flue.
Basic chemical knowledge, conventional explosives, and large amount of faithfull willing to die and go to heaven are a lot more effective, even as a weapon of terror. Hell, attach a big bag of flour to the bomb if you want to scare people once in a while. Use a thermite thingymagic if you want spectacular imagery and not much casualties. Hell, create HCN (hydrogen cyanide) if you want lethal gasses. All are easier to create in a school lab then a biological weapon. I can whip up a manual for thermite in a few minutes, and can probably think off some other things to go BANG instead of 'psssh' and burn through the floor as well. Biological stuff is just a lot more sensitive. And harder to controll.
Plus, the real problem is the dispersion. That sect in Tokyo had pretty good Anthrax, but couldn't get it delivered. If something is lethal enough to kill someone after 2mg or something, you'd need to inject him with those 2 mg. If you only have skin contact or breathing, you'll probably need ten to a thousand times that dose.
Media scares are more common then real threats, especially with nuclear and biological stuff.
@Kara: Chemical is a lot easier to dispearse, but a nuke is the most efficient method of killing of a lot of people quickly. Probably good ole TNT if you go for kills per dollar, actually. Seriously, if you look at the financial point, it's better to blow up a city then infect it with some disease. And as said above, dispersion is a ***** when trying to kill of a lot of people with biochem stuff.
-
I agree that biologicals are stupid in that they don't kill all the affected, are hard to weaponise and may mutate and come back at you and yours.
It's the latter part that scares me. Chemical weapons are local effect weapons. Biologicals can very easily spread beyond the intended target area.
-
Only if you get a lot of infections, and completely immobilise the defendants' army.
Really, if I were a terrorist, I'd start of with explosives, and perhaps chemical weapons.Biological only works if you get something like ebola, but then it's easier to sent a few blokes to Africa, catch it, and get them to the western world without them being detected. And AFAIK, there are mechanisms against that happening, intentionally or not.
-
Who the hell is talking about terrorists. This thread is about the US government doing something with anthrax and probably other biologicals. They certainly can do something more sophisticated than that.
-
After the high-school bit I was assuming the theory was now on terrorists.
As for the US government: They won't deploy biologicals. If they do, they're so utterly ****ed even Canada will try an invasion.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
After the high-school bit I was assuming the theory was now on terrorists.
As for the US government: They won't deploy biologicals. If they do, they're so utterly ****ed even Canada will try an invasion.
Depends whether or not they get caught, I suppose.
-
As a general rule, infecting enough people with biological weapons to make it worth the trouble will be noticeable.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
As a general rule, infecting enough people with biological weapons to make it worth the trouble will be noticeable.
Depends on the weapon. Imagine someone weaponized bird flu, for example.
-
Or Lime disease.
-
Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
Or Lime disease.
Not saying it can't be done but that would be a ***** to do (if by weaponize you mean spread it).
But my guess is that either teh anthrax we have now is starting to lose it's potency or something big is going to come up.
*Goes out and works more on bunker*
Plus they're aren't requesting weapons grade stuff.
-
It's simple enough, really; all you need is a single, highly contagious disease that doesn't kill the victim (or manifest crippling symptoms) before they can spread it. In some ways, it's better to have a crippling rather than lethal bomb, as that could paralyze hospital services even more.
Either way, if you can produce a suitable version of a naturally occuring virus (perhaps through genetic manipulation; I'm not sure how easy it is to hide markers for that sort of thing, of course), infect a single carrier in a populated area, and just stand back you'd see an epidemic which would be virtually untraceable back to you.
Hence the fear over the potential use of weaponized variants of smallpox made by the USSR during the cold war, which are either lost or sold on the black market. Weaponized, of course, meaning that the chemical or virus (etc) is processed in a form suitable for use in killing people. Like increasing virulency, or specifically creating the dry spores required in the CBW use of Anthrax.