Biological Weapon and Bioterrorism Essay

Introduction

Technology is not the driving force which is behind the threat of biological weapons in the world today, the force that contributes to the development of biological weapons is political. “Since politics contributes to the development of biological weapons, biological weapons can cause mass damage if terrorists start developing them. A biological weapon is characterized by the use of residual pathogens and this has emanated from an old program in which nations used anthrax and infectious disease to weaken their enemies” (Homer-Dixon 2001, p.845). The politics behind biological weapons was confirmed in the United States response to a letter in 2001 with anthrax particles sent to two houses of Law. The media is a contributing factor that spreads the ideology of biological weapons.

History of weapons

In history the biological weapons were first used by the tart army when they invaded their enemies, they used to throw bodies of infected people in the enemies’ cities. As a result of that, their enemy was weakened and eventually they die. “In 1763 the British settlers in America distributed blankets which were infected with smallpox to Delaware Red Indian people and the Red Indians population was weakened with smallpox” (Shelby 2006, p.46).

“The first country to develop bio-weapons was Japan (1930-1940s) and these weapons were used extensively against China during World War ll, and this caused substantial mortality in China” (Shelby 2006, p.36). After World war ll (post-war period) the US, UK, and USSR were known to have had ambitions the develop biological weapons in the world. The biological weapons program for the US and the UK were discontinued in the early 60s and that of the USSR lasted until its break-up in the early 90s. The United States government has continued to develop bio-weapon since the early 90s. By 1999 the government of the United States have funded the program in the development of bio-weapon through its agency: US Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) to the tune of 40 million dollars yearly. “The budget was increased in 2002 due to pathogen countermeasures project which was being developed by DARPA director” (Shelby 2006, p.39).

Social Constructivism

The threat of biological weapons innovations will only depend on the government privacy and the compliance of countries’ scientists who are willing to dedicate their time to programs that are run by the military in a country for the defense of the country against external inversion. Many of these scientists in their countries of origin have defied the international Laws on biological weapons. In the past, we have seen that countries’ pursuits of advantageous knowledge on biological weapons, and those knowledges has made them be more offensive than defensive. For example, in the second World War based on the faulty estimates of the German army, the allies which were made up the United States and British had a germ weapon which they initially claimed they will only use during retaliation but in reality, that weapon had an inherent offensive potential to weaken the German Army. “During the cold war that happened in the late 70s and early 80s, mass production of anthrax took place in USSR and this was retaliation against the United States” (Shelby 2006, p.34).

In the past years, the US has invested heavily in biodefense research, the use of these exorbitant resources although bioterrorism has not happened in the world. One can only say that bioterrorism itself is a construct of politics. In the early 90s, the fear of bioterrorism has driven the county to start preparedness for any eventuality by mass germ weapons. The drum roll reached its maximum when the Bush administration in 2003 invaded Iraq because they thought Saddam Hussein had biological weapons and he wanted to attack the United States citizens with smallpox.

Objection to Biological Weapons

We can’t deny the fact that warfare will continue to exist in the world and nations will remain steady fast in developing biological weapons. When such situation happen, weapons which are intended to be used by the military will be used perpetrate “ethnic cleansing” which will be outside the military context. “Secondly those biological weapons in possession of few nations in the world will alter the balance of global power and this will favor ethnically heterogenous countries in the world over homogenous ones, for example United States over Iran” (Lederberg 2006,p.34).

The clever ethnic bio-weapons rely on propaganda as well as scientific engineered pathogens, in this case, the minority will blame the majority for creating a pandemic, for example, many African Americans in the United States believe that HIV/AIDs were a creation of the government to wipe them because they had bad sexual behaviors but such propaganda by the few is plausible. The most voiced objections by many leaders in the world are ethnic bio-weapons which have the capabilities of wiping a certain people, for example, the Iran president his goal is to wipe Jew State from the map of the Middle East. “Unlike the nuclear weapons which can be contained within a small area, the effect of biological weapons has the potential of spreading rapidly and cannot be contained once it is released on the people” (Chari 2007, p.56).

Media propaganda

In 2004 a report was released by the Center for International and Security Studies (CISS) on the role of the media’s coverage of Bio-weapon on three separate periods: India testing of a nuclear weapon in 1988; the United States announcing North Koreas was developing a nuclear weapon; and in 2002 Iraq was believed to possess bio-weapons. The findings were as a result of poor coverage for these events, there was less political bias among the media. The effects the reports and the influence the media houses in the United States had on the people’s mind was major. “It is believed the repetition of tentative news stories in the media houses even if those stories were not confirmed before going into the air, assists in the creation of false memories to the people in the US” (Chauhan 2004, p.56). For example, it through the media, the people of the US believed there was WMD in Ira and that led to an inversion of that country. “It is believed some media houses are pro-government any news the give to the public will try as much to favor the government side” (Robert 2006, p.35).

Conclusion

In order for people in the world to feel empowered against biological weapon threats in the world. The people should insist on two policies from their government, first is effective and equitable health care that will guarantee every citizen in the country the right to protection from any medical threats. “Secondly the people should ask the government to be accountable military or any other program that will violate the setup laws on biological weapons by the International community’s” (Pool 1997, p.65).

Reference List

1. Chari, P.R. (2007). Biological weapons: issues and threats. Michigan: India Research Press.
2. Chauhan, S. (2004). Biological Weapons. New York: APH Publishing.
3. Homer-Dixon, T. (2001). The ingenuity gap: How can we solve the problems of the future. London: Vintage Publisher.
4. Lederberg, J. (2006). Biological weapons: limiting the threat. New York: MIT Press.
5. Pool, R. (1997). Beyond engineering: how society shapes technology. London: Oxford University Press US.
6. Roberts, B. (2006). Biological weapons: weapons of the future. London: Center for Strategic and International Studies
7. Shelby, R.C. (2006). Biological Weapons: The Threat Posed by Terrorists – Congressional Hearing. New York: DIANE Publishing