Jump to content

Ebola bomb for ISIS


Torr.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Several reasons, the largest of which is that the user of bio weapons would cause a huge backlash against any country that used it/was in any way related to its use.

 

Other reasons include ebola's poor ability to aerosol, meaning that spreading it out over large areas would actually be more effective with a fire fighting plane than a bomb, ebola's inability to withstand the sort of explosion that would be needed to spread large amounts of bodily fluids over a substantially large area and in general regular bombs are more effective.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realised. If Ebola is so deadly, why don't we make an ebola bomb for ISIS or am I just dumb..

Thoughts?

 

It would be a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention treaty and would be considered a war crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the victims of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, and you will know why this isn't even a feasible idea. In fact, this is such an irresponsible statement to make.

 

It's like saying since US have nuclear bombs, why don't we just nuke them?

 

ISIS are a militant group, they are scattered everywhere, even in places where innocent ppl live. How many innocent lives are we going to have to take along just because of such reckless thoughts and actions?

 

ISIS actions were barbaric and inhumane. Why lower ourselves to their level and do similar barbaric things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transmissibility of the virus is so low, it wouldn't do anything. If this virus was so infectious, the whole world would have it by now given how long it's been prevalent in Africa. This does NOT make for an effective way to kill people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention treaty and would be considered a war crime.

Yet Syria gets nothing for using chemical weps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transmissibility of the virus is so low, it wouldn't do anything. If this virus was so infectious, the whole world would have it by now given how long it's been prevalent in Africa. This does NOT make for an effective way to kill people.

that's a nonsensical statement. if your benchmark for "highly infectious" is "the entire world must get it because there is an outbreak in one part of one continent for a few months" then nothing is highly infectious.

 

ebola is not airborne, that's the main point. it's transmitted through bodily fluids mixing. however, this means that it can be sexually transmitted, or via contact with infected animals, or through saliva (so that rules out kissing or sharing food and drink), et cetera ad nauseam. my point is that there are so many potential methods of infection that it's incredibly infectious in certain circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Syria gets nothing for using chemical weps.

because it's politically awkward to punish syria because they're currently fighting ISIS too, and also because we don't want to topple another corrupt dictatorship just for killing their own people because that's the Iraq 2003 model of intervention which demonstrably fails and allows insurgency to grow rife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Syria gets nothing for using chemical weps.

Syria have their own stupid law that goes against most of ours.

 

Ebola travels through fluids, not air. Besides, like grimdercell said, why degrade ourselves to their level? We're trying to look like the moral center of the war here (haha we're still horrible people anyways). Furthermore, look at what Agent Orange did. I can link you some nasty pics of stillborn deformed babies caused by that stuff if you want.

 

No, an Ebola bomb is a horrible idea, both ethically and practically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's a nonsensical statement. if your benchmark for "highly infectious" is "the entire world must get it because there is an outbreak in one part of one continent for a few months" then nothing is highly infectious.

 

ebola is not airborne, that's the main point. it's transmitted through bodily fluids mixing. however, this means that it can be sexually transmitted, or via contact with infected animals, or through saliva (so that rules out kissing or sharing food and drink), et cetera ad nauseam. my point is that there are so many potential methods of infection that it's incredibly infectious in certain circumstances.

 

I was only responding to, "why don't we make an ebola bomb for ISIS." Ebola does not make any sense to use as a biological weapon.

 

Being highly infectious "in certain situations" =/= highly infectious. A virus must be viable outside the host to be a viable biological weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only responding to, "why don't we make an ebola bomb for ISIS." Ebola does not make any sense to use as a biological weapon.

 

Being highly infectious "in certain situations" =/= highly infectious. A virus must be viable outside the host to be a viable biological weapon.

 

Being transmissible doesn't make something a good bio-weapon either. In fact, a disease that is deadly but not extremely contagious is probably the best option anyway. 

 

Anthrax is not a very contagious bacteria. With modern technology, we are able to spread it over a huge area and kill many, but avoid killing innocents.

 

If you were to use Ebola as a weapon against ISIS, you would kill far more civilians that ISIS. It's pretty much unavoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were to use Ebola as a weapon against ISIS, you would kill far more civilians that ISIS. It's pretty much unavoidable.

 

The virus is not viable outside a living host. Who are you going to kill like that?

 

Yes, transmissibility AND lethality are both important. But I didn't go into that because the most important factor to consider in Ebola is transmissibility and the fact that it isn't viable outside a living host like spores for anthrax or other known biological weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, it would kill a lot of civilians to use ebola or other chem weapons!

and just a question? is napalm a bio weapon?

No. Napalm only kills when it is ignited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...