• NK Tests Loading Anthrax Onto ICBMs, Report Says
    43 replies, posted
[B][U]North Korea Begins Tests to Load Anthrax Onto ICBMs, Report Says[/U][/B] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/north-korea-begins-tests-to-load-anthrax-onto-icbms-asahi-says[/url] [QUOTE] North Korea has begun tests to load anthrax onto intercontinental ballistic missiles, Japan’s Asahi newspaper reported Tuesday, [B]citing an unidentified person connected to South Korea’s intelligence services.[/B] [B]The report said the testing involves ensuring the anthrax survives the immense temperatures generated during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere.[/B] North Korea has a stockpile of between 2,500 tons to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, [B]and is capable of producing biological agents such as anthrax and smallpox,[/B] South Korea has previously said. The Asahi report comes a day after the White House published its National Security Strategy, a document that said Pyongyang is "pursuing chemical and biological weapons which could also be delivered by missile." [/QUOTE]
The soviet union's reckless export of their biological weapon programs is one of the least covered bits of the cold war. They were trying to combine ebola and smallpox, and weaponized plague, anthrax, smallpox and more and we never even caught wind of it all until fucking 1991. This could very easily backfire on them though, even moreso than say nuclear weapons because while it would cause a massive deathtoll in south korea and japan, they are both pretty healthy countries, with resources to at least contain and treat any attacks, North korea though, its the exact place you don't want an extremely virulent strain of anything getting released. People there are suffering from malnutrition, parasites, poor sanitation, all resulting in very poor immune systems, and the state itself could never even hope to contain an outbreak of any of their weaponized strains.
...okay? So they drop a bomb with smallpox. Great. Enjoy the nuclear response. This is functionally no different from nuclear warheads.
I hope this doesn't end up being The North Korean Missile Crisis
[QUOTE=GunFox;52991473]...okay? So they drop a bomb with smallpox. Great. Enjoy the nuclear response. This is functionally no different from nuclear warheads.[/QUOTE] I'm curious what their actual delivery strategy is though, like does the RV slam into the ground and release it, or does it explode aresolizing it above a city, or does it go off above the ground? Either way its actually easier for the CDC to contain it since its epicenter is pretty well defined. the scary as shit part about bioweapons isn't that you can load them into shells and icbms its that you can walk into any major city pretty undetected and drop it off and leave without anyone being alerted.
Surely this violates the Geneva Protocol?
[QUOTE=Gary D;52991763]Surely this violates the Geneva Protocol?[/QUOTE] North korea wont mind? Or have singed it
[QUOTE=Sableye;52991510]I'm curious what their actual delivery strategy is though, like does the RV slam into the ground and release it, or does it explode aresolizing it above a city, or does it go off above the ground? Either way its actually easier for the CDC to contain it since its epicenter is pretty well defined. the scary as shit part about bioweapons isn't that you can load them into shells and icbms its that you can walk into any major city pretty undetected and drop it off and leave without anyone being alerted.[/QUOTE] The clean up is awk tho
[QUOTE=Gary D;52991763]Surely this violates the Geneva Protocol?[/QUOTE] you have to first give a fuck about the geneva protocol or actually take action for it to apply to you
[QUOTE]citing an unidentified person connected to South Korea’s intelligence services.[/QUOTE] Would his name happen to be Dick Cheney?
[QUOTE=GunFox;52991473]...okay? So they drop a bomb with smallpox. Great. Enjoy the nuclear response. This is functionally no different from nuclear warheads.[/QUOTE] But it is strategically a lot different than nukes. They're having a hard time dealing with nukes as it stands, weaponizing anthrax however is something that doesn't take a whole lot and is something that NK is very likely familiar with. They may still have some of the old stocks from the USSR but I doubt it would be functional. I will say this, weapons such as these have no other use than to target civilians. Extreme retaliation would be guaranteed. Washington would have no other choice besides this and just outright abandoning the Korean theatre. To let the Norks get away with that would diminish our Military standing globally. Should North Korea elect to do such an act it would most definitely be met with a heavy nuclear response likely followed by an immediate invasion. China / Russia would likely remain neutral and stay out of it. They'd rather deal with the US being in their backyard vs the possibility of being pitted against the majority of Western Nations + NATO in a war that has already escalated to DEFCON 1 (Nuclear War imminent / on going).
I don't really understand how this is scarier than loading nukes. Unless they failing to miniaturize their warheads and are turning to bioweapons? Seems like it'd be more effective to smuggle bioweapons into the country you with to harm compared to loading them on ICBMs. Unless, of course, the purpose is simply to intimidate with no intention of actually launching.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52991905]I don't really understand how this is scarier than loading nukes. Unless they failing to miniaturize their warheads and are turning to bioweapons? Seems like it'd be more effective to smuggle bioweapons into the country you with to harm compared to loading them on ICBMs. Unless, of course, the purpose is simply to intimidate with no intention of actually launching.[/QUOTE] Nuke sounds like something a state would use to stave off foes with the threat of mutually assured destruction. Anthrax sounds like something a loony terrorist would use on a spiteful whim.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52991441]The soviet union's reckless export of their biological weapon programs is one of the least covered bits of the cold war. They were trying to combine ebola and smallpox, and weaponized plague, anthrax, smallpox and more and we never even caught wind of it all until fucking 1991. This could very easily backfire on them though, even moreso than say nuclear weapons because while it would cause a massive deathtoll in south korea and japan, they are both pretty healthy countries, with resources to at least contain and treat any attacks, North korea though, its the exact place you don't want an extremely virulent strain of anything getting released. People there are suffering from malnutrition, parasites, poor sanitation, all resulting in very poor immune systems, and the state itself could never even hope to contain an outbreak of any of their weaponized strains.[/QUOTE] Wow the Soviet Union really was an "evil empire"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52992097]Wow the Soviet Union really was an "evil empire"[/QUOTE] Anything the Soviet Union was doing, you can be 95% sure the US was doing too. Anthrax for sure is well-documented to be weaponized by the US.
If it's just anthrax, I wouldn't be too worried.
So, uh, when did North Korea get smallpox? Anthrax, sure, that's relatively easy to obtain, although much harder to weaponize as effectively. But smallpox is supposed to be eradicated, save for two small, heavily-secured samples, one each in Russia and America, for use in developing vaccines. Where did North Korea get theirs? [QUOTE=Gary D;52991763]Surely this violates the Geneva Protocol?[/QUOTE] Yes, although both DPRK and US have "reservations", claiming they will regard the treaty as non-binding against any state that themselves use bio/chemical weapons. More relevant is the Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibits the production or stockpiling of biological weapons, not just the use of them. North Korea [I]is[/I] a party to that treaty, and possessing bioweapon stockpiles is a violation. [QUOTE=Riller;52992107]Anything the Soviet Union was doing, you can be 95% sure the US was doing too. Anthrax for sure is well-documented to be weaponized by the US.[/QUOTE] Sure, we had tons of biological weapons. But we didn't go handing them out to every "ally", and we verifiably destroyed all of our weaponized stocks when we implemented the BWC.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52991920]Nuke sounds like something a state would use to stave off foes with the threat of mutually assured destruction. Anthrax sounds like something a loony terrorist would use on a spiteful whim.[/QUOTE] Nuclear weapons have valid strategic military uses against valid military targets. For most nuclear capable countries they would do their best to hit those and not civilian unless it was full blown endgame. Bioweapons have no other use than to target civilians. Most militaries train against these weapons and are prepared to deal with it, civilians are not. To achieve effective damage you'd have to go for them.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;52992437][B]Nuclear weapons have valid strategic military uses against valid military targets. For most nuclear capable countries they would do their best to hit those and not civilian unless it was full blown endgame.[/B] Bioweapons have no other use than to target civilians. Most militaries train against these weapons and are prepared to deal with it, civilians are not. To achieve effective damage you'd have to go for them.[/QUOTE] The entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like to have a word with you.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52992481]The entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like to have a word with you.[/QUOTE] How does those cases disagree with the fact that they do have strategic uses against military targets? Ignoring that both cities being valid targets, given that they were untouched industrial centres in Japan. This is like saying that regular munitions don't have any strategic value because Cologne.
[QUOTE=Riller;52992496]How does those cases disagree with the fact that they do have strategic uses against military targets? Ignoring that both cities being valid targets, given that they were untouched industrial centres in Japan. This is like saying that regular munitions don't have any strategic value because Cologne.[/QUOTE] Those two incidents are literally [I]the only two cases[/I] in our human history where Nuclear Weapons were used in time of war, inflicting almost [I]exclusively[/I] civilian casualties, mayhem, suffering, and agony. The strategy was literally to nuke Japan's people until they gave up and surrendered, and it worked. This is the strategy behind nuclear warfare - killing lots and lots and lots of people and doing lots and lots and lots of damage, which we did.
[QUOTE=Riller;52992107]Anything the Soviet Union was doing, you can be 95% sure the US was doing too. Anthrax for sure is well-documented to be weaponized by the US.[/QUOTE] Eh their bioweapons program was lightyears ahead of our programs, mainly because our programs were to design defenses against these things. Theres a really detailed chapter on it in the book "The Pentagon's Brain" [editline]20th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Quark:;52992731]Those two incidents are literally [I]the only two cases[/I] in our human history where Nuclear Weapons were used in time of war, inflicting almost [I]exclusively[/I] civilian casualties, mayhem, suffering, and agony. The strategy was literally to nuke Japan's people until they gave up and surrendered, and it worked. This is the strategy behind nuclear warfare - killing lots and lots and lots of people and doing lots and lots and lots of damage, which we did.[/QUOTE] Yes and no, as far as the civilian deaths were concerned we did way worse in the tokyo firestorm, its just the instantaneous nature of a nuclear weapon that is what is so scary Nuclear weapons in the cold war were developed for either counter force or counter value, but most of the nukes we and everybody else for that matter possess today are counter force since nobody is rocking the megaton bombs that can level entire states
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52992209]So, uh, when did North Korea get smallpox? Anthrax, sure, that's relatively easy to obtain, although much harder to weaponize as effectively. But smallpox is supposed to be eradicated, save for two small, heavily-secured samples, one each in Russia and America, for use in developing vaccines. Where did North Korea get theirs? [/QUOTE] Considering how many times samples have been found otherwise I doubt this is actually the case.
war... war never changes
[QUOTE=Quark:;52992731]Those two incidents are literally [I]the only two cases[/I] in our human history where Nuclear Weapons were used in time of war, inflicting almost [I]exclusively[/I] civilian casualties, mayhem, suffering, and agony. The strategy was literally to nuke Japan's people until they gave up and surrendered, and it worked. This is the strategy behind nuclear warfare - killing lots and lots and lots of people and doing lots and lots and lots of damage, which we did.[/QUOTE] Just because that's how it has always been in the past, doesn't mean that's how it is now. The weapons and strategy have evolved [I]a lot[/I] since then, and saying nuclear warfare then would be the same as nuclear warfare now is the same as saying mechanized warfare in WW1 is the same as mechanized warfare now. [t]https://crisisboom.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nuke-targets-48.jpg[/t] This is a map of nuclear strike targets in the US that an aggressor (Russia in this case I think) would consider. Every black dot represents a target for a single ICBM in a pre-emptive [I]first[/I] strike, while every purple triangle is a target in a [I]retaliatory[/I] strike. Notice how most of the first strikes are centered around a bunch of nowhere-states and counties adjacent to population centers. That's because the aim of nuclear warfare against another nuclear-capable nation is to take out their means of retaliation and general functioning, whether that be against their chain of command (hence the blob around cheyenne mountain and DC) or against their nuclear launch sites themselves (the other middle-of-nowhere blobs), or against factories and highways connecting and supplying the nation. There are still civilian targets and there would still be millions of civilian lives lost, there's no doubt, but they are [I]in minority to[/I] actual strategic military targets. The retaliatory strike, however, [I]is[/I] what you're describing. Retaliatory strikes are less of a legitimate strategy and more of a bargaining chip. Because retaliatory strikes only happen when the situation is doomed and nukes are already flying, they target cities and civilians almost exclusively. The reasoning behind this is that by now, the nuke silos would already be empty so what's the point in hitting those, and the command structure has clearly prepared for a response so what's the point in trying to take that out. [I]That's[/I] when you aim for maximum death toll, or at least you say you will while you sue for peace. So you're half right. Killing all the people ever [I]is[/I] a nuclear strategy and it [I]is[/I] the only one that's ever been tried. But what Riller, Michael haxz, and I are arguing is that it's not the sole reason nukes exist, especially not now when the entire industry has been redefined. In WW2 it was two nukes in the entire war. Nowadays, as the map says, it would be upwards of 2,000 per salvo. At least two of those are going to hit nothing but civilians, that doesn't mean the other 1,998 aren't hitting something the military actually wants to hit. Now the difference with biological weapons is that they don't do shit to any of the strategic targets nukes would. Nuke silos are bunkers, and so are command centers. Tanks, planes, ships, and even most of the soldiers running them aren't going to be affected by bio-weapons. Instead, bio-weapons are exclusively a weapon of terror. They are the retaliation used as a first strike. They are among the only weapons that, in a modern war, [I]can only[/I] seriously impact civilians.
^ Damn thats a lotta nukes aimed at cleveland, we don't even have any military stuff. I mean columbus only gets 3 bombs, wth they have all the fancy roads and all the highways of ohio go through there, and one for toledo just because, jokes on them though nobody lives there anyways.
I've got four warheads aimed at me for that chart, that's a little scary.
I guess that's another flaw of living in NY. We're always a target.
[QUOTE=Adelle Zhu;52993983]I guess that's another flaw of living in NY. We're always a target.[/QUOTE] I mean if you're south dakota everything's fine, just don't look up north or south, or east.... they're not even wasting a nuke on the capital. Hey Idaho's also fine
[QUOTE=GunFox;52991473]...okay? So they drop a bomb with smallpox. Great. Enjoy the nuclear response. This is functionally no different from nuclear warheads.[/QUOTE] A nuclear response would be incredibly stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.