Should we support biological weapons?

[Red Army]

Hi everyone,
im new here but im not new to communisme. i support communisme a long time now and i want to discuss about biobombs here. i support the usage of biobombs. lets have a discussion about this.

[Elect Marx]

They are not very controlable and kill indiscriminantly, often spreading. I don't see how such a weapon would help communists in most circumstances. It's just generelly a bad idea and a waste of time. There are much better weapons to use against the ruling class, though they often work to oppress the working class, so I am opposed to them.

[Red Army]

Yes i agree with that, we shouldn't kill the class we want to help. But maybe we can use bio weapons on a smaller scale, for example on a meeting of liberalisme people.

[The Children of the Revolution]

But maybe we can use bio weapons on a smaller scale, for example on a meeting of liberalisme people.

Ha Ha Ha Ha!! The poor buggers!! No, the use "BioBombs" is NOT the way forward. Violence in general solves little; chemical weapons are just another potential atrocity in the world.

Peace, man.

[monkeydust]

Just a few quick points here: Red army I assume English is not your first language remember communism has no 'e' on the end.



Anyway, I very much agree with TCOTR here, unless of course there is to be a widely supported revolution, violence is not the way forward for us. We will only invoke scorn from 'bombing' liberals and caitalists. I think that we need to prove how our left wing ideologies are rational and justified in order to achieve our aims.



For an example of how violence does not usually achieve wide support and in fact causes resentment, study the suffragettes in early 20th century Britian.

[mia wallace]

i agree with Left. i'd support it only if it would be used for defense.

[mia wallace]

when i said i'd use it only for defense, i ment if there was a attack with chemical or biological weapons, otherwise i wouldn't...

[apathy maybe]

It depends on what your aims are. If you are a eco-warrior or similar, then biological weapons are a Good Thing. This is because they don't leave nasty things around like nucks and chemical weopons. They also only target humans (if made correctly, some viruses target primates in general and thus get chimps etc as well as humans).

If you are a communist/anarchist however, I would recomend against these weapons, for generally they are indiscriminate. They kill everyone (depending on the virus they may not), who gets infected, unless you have a vacine.

If your a capitalist or stalinist, well these are perfect weapons, (and have been used by them before (Japan in China during WW2 and the USA during the Korean War)). If you vacinate your population you don't have to worry about side effects, and you leave all the structures in place for when you invade.

http://www.ampef.org/Files/Files.cfm?ID=383&c=68

In the 1970s there was a group called R.I.S.E. with an extreme ecocentric ideology that acquired biological pathogens with the intention of causing large numbers of casualties. Luckily the group was ill-equipped to do so. Tim Daley, A United Kingdom member of the ALF is also quoted as having stated: "In a war, you have to take up arms and people will get killed ... I can support that kind of action by petrol bombings, bombs under cars, and probably, at a later stage, shooting (researchers)... on their doorsteps."

http://specials.ft.com/countercap/FT3RGQRLUSC.html

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/american2.html

Have domestic terrorists used weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. In 1984, followers of the Indian-born guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Oregon tried to disrupt a local election by poisoning salad bars with salmonella bacteria. No one died, but 751 people became ill. And some experts speculate that the fall 2001 anthrax letters were sent by an American scientist. Domestic terrorists have become increasingly interested in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, experts say, and right-wing extremists have been prosecuted for possessing ricin, a biological toxin derived from the castor-bean plant.

http://www.edcnews.se/Reviews/Chalecki2001.html

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think we should support having them, but definately not using them. Weapons of mass destruction serve as the only truely effective deterrent against war, and it is the world's only defence against Bush.

[Xuix]

possibly small scale bio weapons, but still i condone it because it may have hazardous effects to the enviroment and could unwantingly kill innocent civilians.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Weapons of mass destruction serve as the only truely effective deterrent against war, and it is the world's only defence against Bush.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction". The name says it all really. They are not military weapons, but tools of annihilation. Their use cannot be condoned in ANY situation; all stockpiles ought to be destroyed. And War should be abolished, taken out of the dictionary.

But this, unfortunately, is the real world.

[shakermaker]

Originally posted by mia wallace@Jan 27 2004, 06:58 PM
when i said i'd use it only for defense, i ment if there was a attack with chemical or biological weapons, otherwise i wouldn't...

attack?
what would be target then? if enemy has a city in target, would you bomb their citys?

anyway, anykind of mass destruction weapons are bad, and we should get rid of them!!! i won't accept them!

[Soviet power supreme]

Huoh

If your a capitalist or stalinist, well these are perfect weapons,

Now when have "stalinists" use these weapons?As I remember those things weren't even invented in 1953.

Now why these weapons would be needed?
I dont even get it to whom against would you use them?Us army has prepared for the chemical attack and it's soldiers have safe suits.Are you talkin about terrorism or some hypothetical socialist state which would defend or attack to another country?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I think conventional weapons are good enough for acheiving objectives;
but simple chemical weapons such as acids, soporific drugs and poison gas (such as chlorine and carbon monoxide) are useful for reducing the enemy's effectiveness.

all stockpiles ought to be destroyed. And War should be abolished, taken out of the dictionary.

In your dreams mate. humans will always fight, and will always use weapons to increase their effectiveness.

[The Children of the Revolution]

but simple chemical weapons such as acids, soporific drugs and poison gas (such as chlorine and carbon monoxide) are useful for reducing the enemy's effectiveness.

Reducing the enemies effectiveness. What a stupid phrase to use, considering the context. I think a nuclear weapon would be slightly better at doing this, don't you?? Annihilate the enemy, the enemy civvies, the enemy wildlife, the enemy buildings... Hell, why not just eradicate the land they're standing on?

"Reducing effectiveness" is a metaphor for causing pain. And death.

Read 'Dulce Et Decorum Est', a WWI poem. It is remarkable. Perhaps it'll make you reconsider.

humans will always fight, and will always use weapons to increase their effectiveness.

By this logic we are all doomed. As I mentioned, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ARE the most "effective". So whoever uses them will have a significant advantage over their "enemies". Thankfully, no-one has been stupid enough to begin a nuclear holocaust. But it only takes one moron (who's got their finger on the button again? Bu$h, is it?) to press a button and at least half the world's population will vanish.

This is why WMD's are a bad plan.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Reducing the enemies effectiveness. What a stupid phrase to use, considering the context. I think a nuclear weapon would be slightly better at doing this, don't you?? Annihilate the enemy, the enemy civvies, the enemy wildlife, the enemy buildings... Hell, why not just eradicate the land they're standing on?

Because that would be a foolish waste of resources... no, I was talking 'battle-field level' chemical weaponry, not terrorist attacks directed against unarmed civilians.
Annihilating the enemy's civilians (if they haven't run already) and buildings (If they haven't destroyed them already) would be a very bad decision tactically... you're destroying the means of production, which mean your army will effectively stop after the first conquered city.
As for the wildlife, I think wilful destruction of wildlife is simply sadistic. If you really need to kill defenceless soft targets like that, I think you have a problem.

A well-prepared army will have defences against poison gas and airborne drugs. (I'm not so sure about corrosives) and it's not only the troops who are affected by chemical attacks; Acids can rot a tank, EMP can knock vehicles out (But still leave troops and some weapons operating) and incendiaries can make a tank feel like an oven (Which is why napalm is useful as an area-denial weapon)

"Reducing effectiveness" is a metaphor for causing pain. And death.

Read 'Dulce Et Decorum Est', a WWI poem. It is remarkable. Perhaps it'll make you reconsider.

Ah yes, psychology... that's also useful in war too.
Nukes could be considered as psychological weapons...
Superheavy tanks and giant walking war machines would be pretty scary, no?

and the euphemism for death is 'neutralisation'

By this logic we are all doomed. As I mentioned, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ARE the most "effective". So whoever uses them will have a significant advantage over their "enemies". Thankfully, no-one has been stupid enough to begin a nuclear holocaust. But it only takes one moron (who's got their finger on the button again? Bu$h, is it?) to press a button and at least half the world's population will vanish.

Like I said, armies can be prepared against a lot of NRBC attacks, and I don't condone their use against civvies.
I personally don't like bacteriological warfare; it's indiscriminate, can spread from the battlefield to ANY civilian populations... but more esoteric uses of biological weapons is interesting... attack dogs and barrels full of angry hornets come to mind... (Would they count as biological weapons?)

Would you be against these weapons also?:

Napalm
Soft metal accelerators
High power lasers
Particle weapons
Quick-setting foam
Hydrogen Plasma
Wormholes/Black Holes
Massive gravity increase
Sonic resonance weapons
Supernovae-inducing missiles
Antimatter
meteorite showers/diverted comets
Hornet guns
Genetically Engineered Fighting Machines
Radiation-emitting weaponry
Pulsars
Artificial Gamma-Ray Bursters
Meteorological weapons

This is why WMD's are a bad plan

I agree. They have no practical battlefield applications.

[RedAnarchist]

Left-wingers should always pressure the governments of the world to get rid of these evil weapons, such as biological, chemical, nuclear weapons and ICBMs