Biological warfare

"Biological attack" redirects here. For the use ofbiological agentsby terrorists, seebioterrorism.For other uses, seeBioattack.

"Germ Warfare" redirects here. For theM*A*S*Hepisode, seeGerm Warfare (M*A*S*H).For theDexter's Laboratoryepisode, seeGerm Warfare (Dexter's Laboratory).

Biological warfare,also known asgerm warfare,is the use ofbiological toxinsorinfectious agentssuch asbacteria,viruses,insects,andfungiwith the intent to kill, harm or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act ofwar.Biological weapons(often termed "bio-weapons", "biological threat agents", or "bio-agents" ) are livingorganismsor replicating entities (i.e. viruses,which are not universally considered "alive" ).Entomological (insect) warfareis a subtype of biological warfare.

Biological warfare is subject to a forcefulnormativeprohibition.Offensive biological warfare in international armed conflicts is awar crimeunder the 1925Geneva Protocoland severalinternational humanitarian lawtreaties.In particular, the 1972Biological Weapons Convention(BWC) bans the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological weapons.In contrast,defensive biological researchfor prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes is not prohibited by the BWC.

Biological warfare is distinct from warfare involving other types ofweapons of mass destruction(WMD), includingnuclear warfare,chemical warfare,andradiological warfare.None of these are consideredconventional weapons,which are deployed primarily for theirexplosive,kinetic,orincendiarypotential.

Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic ortacticaladvantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments. Like somechemical weapons,biological weapons may also be useful asarea denial weapons.These agents may be lethal ornon-lethal,and may be targeted against a single individual, a group of people, or even an entire population. They may be developed, acquired, stockpiled or deployed bynation statesor by non-national groups. In the latter case, or if a nation-state uses itclandestinely,it may also be consideredbioterrorism.

Biological warfare and chemical warfare overlap to an extent, as the use oftoxinsproduced by some living organisms is considered under the provisions of both the BWC and theChemical Weapons Convention.Toxins andpsychochemical weaponsare often referred to asmidspectrum agents.Unlike bioweapons, these midspectrum agents do not reproduce in their host and are typically characterized by shorter incubation periods.

Overview

A biological attack could conceivably result in large numbers ofcivilian casualtiesand cause severe disruption toeconomicand societal infrastructure.

A nation or group that can pose a credible threat of mass casualty has the ability to alter the terms under which other nations or groups interact with it. When indexed to weapon mass and cost of development and storage, biological weapons possess destructive potential and loss of life far in excess of nuclear, chemical or conventional weapons. Accordingly, biological agents are potentially useful as strategic deterrents, in addition to their utility as offensive weapons on the battlefield.

As a tactical weapon for military use, a significant problem with biological warfare is that it would take days to be effective, and therefore might not immediately stop an opposing force. Some biological agents (smallpox,pneumonic plague) have the capability of person-to-persontransmissionviaaerosolizedrespiratory droplets.This feature can be undesirable, as the agent(s) may be transmitted by this mechanism to unintended populations, including neutral or even friendly forces. Worse still, such a weapon could "escape" the laboratory where it was developed, even if there was no intent to use it – for example by infecting a researcher who then transmits it to the outside world before realizing that they were infected. Several cases are known of researchers becoming infected and dying ofEbola,which they had been working with in the lab (though nobody else was infected in those cases) – while there is no evidence that their work was directed towards biological warfare, it demonstrates the potential for accidental infection even of careful researchers fully aware of the dangers. While containment of biological warfare is less of a concern for certain criminal or terrorist organizations, it remains a significant concern for the military and civilian populations of virtually all nations.

History

Main article:History of biological warfare

Antiquity and Middle Ages

Rudimentary forms of biological warfare have been practiced since antiquity.The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded inHittitetexts of 1500–1200 BCE, in which victims of anunknown plague(possiblytularemia) were driven into enemy lands, causing an epidemic.The Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with the fungusergot,though with unknown results.Scythianarchers dipped their arrows and Roman soldiers their swords into excrements and cadavers – victims were commonly infected bytetanusas result.In 1346, the bodies ofMongolwarriors of theGolden Hordewho had died ofplaguewere thrown over the walls of thebesieged Crimean city of Kaffa.Specialists disagree about whether this operation was responsible for the spread of theBlack Deathinto Europe, Near East and North Africa, resulting in the deaths of approximately 25 million Europeans.

Biological agents were extensively used in many parts of Africa from the sixteenth century AD, most of the time in the form of poisoned arrows, or powder spread on the war front as well as poisoning of horses and water supply of the enemy forces.In Borgu, there were specific mixtures to kill,hypnotize,make the enemy bold, and to act as an antidote against the poison of the enemy as well. The creation of biologicals was reserved for a specific and professional class of medicine-men.

18th to 19th century

During theFrench and Indian War,in June 1763 a group ofNative Americanslaidsiegeto British-heldFort Pitt.The commander of Fort Pitt, Simeon Ecuyer, ordered his men to take smallpox-infested blankets from the infirmary and give it to a Lenape delegation during the siege.A reported outbreak that began the spring before left as many as one hundred Native Americans dead inOhio Countryfrom 1763 to 1764. It is not clear whether the smallpox was a result of the Fort Pitt incident or the virus was already present among theDelaware peopleas outbreaks happened on their own every dozen or so yearsand the delegates were met again later and seemingly had not contracted smallpox.During theAmerican Revolutionary War,Continental ArmyofficerGeorge Washingtonmentioned to theContinental Congressthat he had heard a rumor from a sailor that his opponent during theSiege of Boston,GeneralWilliam Howe,had deliberately sent civilians out of the city in the hopes of spreading theongoing smallpox epidemicto American lines; Washington, remaining unconvinced, wrote that he "could hardly give credit to" the claim. Washington had already inoculated his soldiers, diminishing the effect of the epidemic.Some historians have claimed that a detachment of theCorps of Royal Marinesstationed inNew South Wales,Australia, deliberately usedsmallpoxthere in 1789.Dr Seth Carus states: "Ultimately, we have a strong circumstantial case supporting the theory that someone deliberately introduced smallpox in the Aboriginal population."

World War I

By 1900 thegerm theoryand advances inbacteriologybrought a new level of sophistication to the techniques for possible use ofbio-agentsin war. Biological sabotage in the form ofanthraxandglanderswas undertaken on behalf of theImperial Germangovernment duringWorld War I(1914–1918), with indifferent results.TheGeneva Protocolof 1925 prohibited the first use of chemical and biological weapons against enemy nationals in international armed conflicts.

World War II

With the onset ofWorld War II,theMinistry of Supplyin theUnited Kingdomestablished a biological warfare program atPorton Down,headed by the microbiologistPaul Fildes.The research was championed byWinston Churchilland soontularemia,anthrax,brucellosis,andbotulismtoxins had been effectively weaponized. In particular,Gruinard Islandin Scotland, was contaminated with anthrax during a series of extensive tests for the next 56 years. Although the UK never offensively used the biological weapons it developed, its program was the first to successfully weaponize a variety of deadly pathogens and bring them into industrial production.Other nations, notably France and Japan, had begun their own biological weapons programs.

When the United States entered the war, Allied resources were pooled at the request of the British. The U.S. then established a large research program and industrial complex atFort Detrick, Maryland,in 1942 under the direction ofGeorge W. Merck.The biological and chemical weapons developed during that period were tested at theDugway Proving GroundsinUtah.Soon there were facilities for the mass production of anthrax spores,brucellosis,andbotulismtoxins, although the war was over before these weapons could be of much operational use.

Shiro Ishii,commander ofUnit 731,which performed humanvivisectionsand other biological experimentation

The most notorious program of the period was run by the secretImperial Japanese ArmyUnit 731during thewar,based atPingfaninManchuriaand commanded by Lieutenant GeneralShirō Ishii.This biological warfare research unit conducted often fatalhuman experimentson prisoners, and produced biological weapons for combat use.Although the Japanese effort lacked the technological sophistication of the American or British programs, it far outstripped them in its widespread application and indiscriminate brutality. Biological weapons were used against Chinese soldiers and civilians in several military campaigns.In 1940, the Japanese Army Air Force bombedNingbowith ceramic bombs full of fleas carrying the bubonic plague.Many of these operations were ineffective due to inefficient delivery systems,although up to 400,000 people may have died.During theZhejiang-Jiangxi Campaignin 1942, around 1,700 Japanese troops died out of a total 10,000 Japanese soldiers who fell ill with disease when their own biological weapons attack rebounded on their own forces.

During the final months of World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon against U.S. civilians inSan Diego,California,duringOperation Cherry Blossoms at Night.The plan was set to launch on 22 September 1945, but it was not executed because ofJapan's surrenderon 15 August 1945.

Cold War

In Britain, the 1950s saw the weaponization ofplague,brucellosis,tularemiaand laterequine encephalomyelitisandvacciniaviruses, but the programme was unilaterally cancelled in 1956. TheUnited States Army Biological Warfare Laboratoriesweaponizedanthrax,tularemia,brucellosis,Q-feverand others.

In 1969, US PresidentRichard Nixondecided tounilaterally terminatetheoffensive biological weapons program of the US,allowing only scientific research for defensive measures.This decision increased the momentum of the negotiations for a ban on biological warfare, which took place from 1969 to 1972 in the United Nation'sConference of the Committee on Disarmamentin Geneva.These negotiations resulted in theBiological Weapons Convention,which was opened for signature on 10 April 1972 and entered into force on 26 March 1975 after its ratification by 22 states.

Despite being a party and depositary to the BWC, theSoviet Unioncontinued and expanded its massiveoffensive biological weapons program,under the leadership of the allegedly civilian institutionBiopreparat.The Soviet Union attracted international suspicion after the 1979Sverdlovsk anthrax leakkilled approximately 65 to 100 people.

1948 Arab–Israeli War

According to historiansBenny MorrisandBenjamin Kedar,Israel conducted a biological warfare operation codenamed "Cast Thy Bread" during the1948 Arab–Israeli War.The Haganah initially used typhoid bacteria to contaminate water wells in newly-cleared Arab villages to prevent the population including militiamen from returning. Later, the biological warfare campaign expanded to include Jewish settlements that were in imminent danger of being captured by Arab troops and inhabited Arab towns not slated for capture. There was also plans to expand the biological warfare campaign into other Arab states including Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, but they were not carried out.

International law

Main articles:Geneva ProtocolandBiological Weapons Convention

The Biological Weapons Convention

International restrictions on biological warfare began with the 1925Geneva Protocol,which prohibits the use but not the possession or development of biological and chemical weapons in international armed conflicts.Upon ratification of the Geneva Protocol, several countries madereservationsregarding its applicability and use in retaliation.Due to these reservations, it was in practice a "no-first-use"agreement only.

The 1972Biological Weapons Convention(BWC) supplements the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological weapons.Having entered into force on 26 March 1975, the BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the production of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.As of March 2021,183 states have become party to the treaty.The BWC is considered to have established a strong global norm against biological weapons,which is reflected in the treaty's preamble, stating that the use of biological weapons would be "repugnant to the conscience of mankind".The BWC's effectiveness has been limited due to insufficient institutional support and the absence of any formal verification regime to monitor compliance.

In 1985, theAustralia Groupwas established, a multilateral export control regime of 43 countries aiming to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.

In 2004, theUnited Nations Security CouncilpassedResolution 1540,which obligates all UN Member States to develop and enforce appropriate legal and regulatory measures against the proliferation ofchemical,biological,radiological,andnuclear weaponsand their means of delivery, in particular, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction tonon-state actors.

Bioterrorism

Main article:Bioterrorism

Biological weapons are difficult to detect, economical and easy to use, making them appealing to terrorists. The cost of a biological weapon is estimated to be about 0.05 percent the cost of a conventional weapon in order to produce similar numbers of mass casualties per kilometer square.Moreover, their production is very easy as common technology can be used to produce biological warfare agents, like that used in production of vaccines, foods, spray devices, beverages and antibiotics. A major factor in biological warfare that attracts terrorists is that they can easily escape before the government agencies or secret agencies have even started their investigation. This is because the potential organism has an incubation period of 3 to 7 days, after which the results begin to appear, thereby giving terrorists a lead.

A technique called Clustered, Regularly Interspaced, Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR-Cas9) is now so cheap and widely available that scientists fear that amateurs will start experimenting with them. In this technique, a DNA sequence is cut off and replaced with a new sequence, e.g. one that codes for a particular protein, with the intent of modifying an organism's traits. Concerns have emerged regarding do-it-yourself biology research organizations due to their associated risk that a rogue amateur DIY researcher could attempt to develop dangerous bioweapons using genome editing technology.

In 2002, when CNN went through Al-Qaeda's (AQ's) experiments with crude poisons, they found out that AQ had begun planning ricin and cyanide attacks with the help of a loose association of terrorist cells.The associates had infiltrated many countries like Turkey, Italy, Spain, France and others. In 2015, to combat the threat of bioterrorism, a National Blueprint for Biodefense was issued by the Blue-Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense.Also, 233 potential exposures of select biological agents outside of the primary barriers of the biocontainment in the US were described by the annual report of the Federal Select Agent Program.

Though a verification system can reduce bioterrorism, an employee, or a lone terrorist having adequate knowledge of a bio-technology company's facilities, can cause potential danger by utilizing, without proper oversight and supervision, that company's resources. Moreover, it has been found that about 95% of accidents that have occurred due to low security have been done by employees or those who had a security clearance.

Entomology

Main article:Entomological warfare

Entomological warfare (EW) is a type of biological warfare that uses insects to attack the enemy. The concept has existed for centuries and research and development have continued into the modern era. EW has been used in battle by Japan and several other nations have developed and been accused of using an entomological warfare program. EW may employ insects in a direct attack or as vectors to deliver abiological agent,such asplague.Essentially, EW exists in three varieties. One type of EW involves infecting insects with apathogenand then dispersing the insects over target areas.The insects then act as avector,infecting any person or animal they might bite. Another type of EW is a direct insect attack against crops; the insect may not be infected with any pathogen but instead represents a threat to agriculture. The final method uses uninfected insects, such as bees or wasps, to directly attack the enemy.

Genetics

Theoretically, novel approaches in biotechnology, such as synthetic biology could be used in the future to design novel types of biological warfare agents.

1. Would demonstrate how to render a vaccine ineffective;
2. Would confer resistance to therapeutically useful antibiotics or antiviral agents;
3. Would enhance the virulence of a pathogen or render a nonpathogen virulent;
4. Would increase the transmissibility of a pathogen;
5. Would alter the host range of a pathogen;
6. Would enable the evasion of diagnostic/detection tools;
7. Would enable the weaponization of a biological agent or toxin.

Most of the biosecurity concerns in synthetic biology are focused on the role of DNA synthesis and the risk of producing genetic material of lethal viruses (e.g. 1918 Spanish flu, polio) in the lab.Recently, theCRISPR/Cas systemhas emerged as a promising technique for gene editing. It was hailed by The Washington Post as "the most important innovation in the synthetic biology space in nearly 30 years."While other methods take months or years to edit gene sequences, CRISPR speeds that time up to weeks.Due to its ease of use and accessibility, it has raised a number of ethical concerns, especially surrounding its use in the biohacking space.

By target

Anti-personnel

The internationalbiological hazardsymbol

Ideal characteristics of a biological agent to be used as a weapon against humans are highinfectivity,highvirulence,non-availability ofvaccinesand availability of an effective and efficientdelivery system.Stability of the weaponized agent (the ability of the agent to retain its infectivity and virulence after a prolonged period of storage) may also be desirable, particularly for military applications, and the ease of creating one is often considered. Control of the spread of the agent may be another desired characteristic.

The primary difficulty is not the production of the biological agent, as many biological agents used in weapons can be manufactured relatively quickly, cheaply and easily. Rather, it is the weaponization, storage, and delivery in an effective vehicle to a vulnerable target that pose significant problems.

For example,Bacillus anthracisis considered an effective agent for several reasons. First, it forms hardyspores,perfect for dispersal aerosols. Second, this organism is not considered transmissible from person to person, and thus rarely if ever causes secondary infections. A pulmonary anthrax infection starts with ordinaryinfluenza-like symptoms and progresses to a lethalhemorrhagicmediastinitiswithin 3–7 days, with a fatality rate that is 90% or higher in untreated patients.Finally, friendly personnel and civilians can be protected with suitableantibiotics.

Agents considered for weaponization, or known to be weaponized, include bacteria such asBacillus anthracis,Brucellaspp.,Burkholderia mallei,Burkholderia pseudomallei,Chlamydophila psittaci,Coxiella burnetii,Francisella tularensis,some of theRickettsiaceae(especiallyRickettsia prowazekiiandRickettsia rickettsii),Shigellaspp.,Vibrio cholerae,andYersinia pestis.Many viral agents have been studied and/or weaponized, including some of theBunyaviridae(especiallyRift Valley fever virus),Ebolavirus,many of theFlaviviridae(especiallyJapanese encephalitis virus),Machupo virus,Coronaviruses,Marburg virus,Variola virus, andyellow fever virus.Fungal agents that have been studied includeCoccidioidesspp.

Toxins that can be used as weapons includericin,staphylococcal enterotoxin B,botulinum toxin,saxitoxin,and manymycotoxins.These toxins and the organisms that produce them are sometimes referred to asselect agents.In the United States, their possession, use, and transfer are regulated by theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention's Select Agent Program.

The formerUS biological warfare programcategorized its weaponized anti-personnel bio-agents as eitherLethal Agents(Bacillus anthracis,Francisella tularensis,Botulinum toxin) orIncapacitating Agents(Brucella suis,Coxiella burnetii,Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B).

Anti-agriculture

Anti-crop/anti-vegetation/anti-fisheries

See also:United States herbicidal warfare research

The United States developed an anti-crop capability during theCold Warthat used plant diseases (bioherbicides,ormycoherbicides) for destroying enemy agriculture. Biological weapons also target fisheries as well as water-based vegetation. It was believed that the destruction of enemy agriculture on a strategic scale could thwartSino-Sovietaggression in a general war. Diseases such aswheat blastandrice blastwere weaponized in aerial spray tanks and cluster bombs for delivery to enemy watersheds in agricultural regions to initiate epiphytotic (epidemics among plants). On the other hand, some sources report that these agents werestockpiledbut neverweaponized.When the United States renounced its offensive biological warfare program in 1969 and 1970, the vast majority of its biological arsenal was composed of these plant diseases.Enterotoxins and Mycotoxins were not affected by Nixon's order.

Though herbicides are chemicals, they are often grouped with biological warfare and chemical warfare because they may work in a similar manner asbiotoxinsor bioregulators. The Army Biological Laboratory tested each agent and the Army's Technical Escort Unit was responsible for the transport of all chemical, biological, radiological (nuclear) materials.

Biological warfare can also specifically target plants to destroy crops or defoliate vegetation. The United States and Britain discovered plant growth regulators (i.e.,herbicides) during the Second World War, which were then used by the UK in the counterinsurgency operations of theMalayan Emergency.Inspired by the use in Malaysia, the US military effort in theVietnam Warincluded amass dispersalof avariety of herbicides,famouslyAgent Orange,with the aim of destroying farmland and defoliating forests used as cover by theViet Cong.Sri Lanka deployed military defoliants in its prosecution of theEelam Waragainst Tamil insurgents.

Anti-livestock

During World War I, German saboteurs usedanthraxandglandersto sicken cavalry horses in U.S. and France, sheep in Romania, and livestock in Argentina intended for theEntente forces.One of these German saboteurs wasAnton Dilger.Also, Germany itself became a victim of similar attacks – horses bound for Germany were infected withBurkholderiaby French operatives in Switzerland.

During World War II, the U.S. and Canada secretly investigated the use ofrinderpest,a highly lethal disease of cattle, as a bioweapon.

In the 1980s Soviet Ministry of Agriculture had successfully developed variants offoot-and-mouth disease,andrinderpestagainst cows,African swine feverfor pigs, andpsittacosisto kill the chicken. These agents were prepared to spray them down from tanks attached to airplanes over hundreds of miles. The secret program was code-named "Ecology".

During theMau Mau Uprisingin 1952, the poisonouslatexof theAfrican milk bushwas used to kill cattle.

Defensive operations

Main article:Biodefense

Medical countermeasures

In 2010 at The Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction inGeneva thesanitary epidemiological reconnaissancewas suggested as well-tested means for enhancing the monitoring of infections and parasitic agents, for the practical implementation of theInternational Health Regulations(2005). The aim was to prevent and minimize the consequences of natural outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases as well as the threat of alleged use of biological weapons against BTWC States Parties.

Many countries require their active-dutymilitarypersonnel to get vaccinated for certain diseases that may potentially be used as a bioweapon such as anthrax, smallpox, and various other vaccines depending on the Area of Operations of the individual military units and commands.

Public health and disease surveillance

Most classical and modern biological weapons' pathogens can be obtained from a plant or an animal which is naturally infected.

In the largest biological weapons accident known—the anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk (nowYekaterinburg) in theSoviet Unionin 1979—sheep became ill with anthrax as far as 200 kilometers from the release point of the organism from a military facility in the southeastern portion of the city and still off-limits to visitors today, (seeSverdlovsk Anthrax leak).

Thus, a robust surveillance system involving human clinicians and veterinarians may identify a bioweapons attack early in the course of an epidemic, permitting the prophylaxis of disease in the vast majority of people (and/or animals) exposed but not yet ill.

For example, in the case of anthrax, it is likely that by 24–36 hours after an attack, some small percentage of individuals (those with the compromised immune system or who had received a large dose of the organism due to proximity to the release point) will become ill with classical symptoms and signs (including a virtually uniquechest X-rayfinding, often recognized by public health officials if they receive timely reports).The incubation period for humans is estimated to be about 11.8 days to 12.1 days. This suggested period is the first model that is independently consistent with data from the largest known human outbreak. These projections refine previous estimates of the distribution of early-onset cases after a release and support a recommended 60-day course of prophylactic antibiotic treatment for individuals exposed to low doses of anthrax.By making these data available to local public health officials in real time, most models of anthrax epidemics indicate that more than 80% of an exposed population can receive antibiotic treatment before becoming symptomatic, and thus avoid the moderately high mortality of the disease.

Common epidemiological warnings

From most specific to least specific:

1. Single cause of a certain disease caused by an uncommon agent, with lack of an epidemiological explanation.
2. Unusual, rare, genetically engineered strain of an agent.
3. High morbidity and mortality rates in regards to patients with the same or similar symptoms.
4. Unusual presentation of the disease.
5. Unusual geographic or seasonal distribution.
6. Stable endemic disease, but with an unexplained increase in relevance.
7. Rare transmission (aerosols, food, water).
8. No illness presented in people who were/are not exposed to "common ventilation systems (have separate closed ventilation systems) when illness is seen in persons in close proximity who have a common ventilation system."
9. Different and unexplained diseases coexisting in the same patient without any other explanation.
10. Rare illness that affects a large, disparate population (respiratory disease might suggest the pathogen or agent was inhaled).
11. Illness is unusual for a certain population or age-group in which it takes presence.
12. Unusual trends of death and/or illness in animal populations, previous to or accompanying illness in humans.
13. Many affected reaching out for treatment at the same time.
14. Similar genetic makeup of agents in affected individuals.
15. Simultaneous collections of similar illness in non-contiguous areas, domestic, or foreign.
16. An abundance of cases of unexplained diseases and deaths.

Bioweapon identification

The goal ofbiodefenseis to integrate the sustained efforts of the national and homeland security, medical, public health, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement communities. Health care providers and public health officers are among the first lines of defense. In some countries private, local, and provincial (state) capabilities are being augmented by and coordinated with federal assets, to provide layered defenses against biological weapon attacks. During thefirst Gulf Warthe United Nations activated a biological and chemical response team,Task Force Scorpio,to respond to any potential use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians.

The traditional approach toward protecting agriculture, food, and water: focusing on the natural or unintentional introduction of a disease is being strengthened by focused efforts to address current and anticipated future biological weapons threats that may be deliberate, multiple, and repetitive.

The growing threat of biowarfare agents and bioterrorism has led to the development of specific field tools that perform on-the-spot analysis and identification of encountered suspect materials. One such technology, being developed by researchers from theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory(LLNL), employs a "sandwich immunoassay", in which fluorescent dye-labeled antibodies aimed at specificpathogensare attached to silver and gold nanowires.

In theNetherlands,the companyTNOhas designedBioaerosol Single Particle Recognition eQuipment(BiosparQ). This system would be implemented into the national response plan for bioweapon attacks in the Netherlands.

Researchers atBen Gurion Universityin Israel are developing a different device called the BioPen, essentially a "Lab-in-a-Pen", which can detect known biological agents in under 20 minutes using an adaptation of theELISA,a similar widely employed immunological technique, that in this case incorporates fiber optics.

List of programs, projects and sites by country

United States

Main article:United States biological weapons program

• Fort Detrick,Maryland

  

  Researchers working inClass III cabinetsat theU.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories,Camp Detrick,Maryland(1940s).

  • U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories(1943–69)
    • Building 470
    • One-Million-Liter Test Sphere
    • Operation Sea-Spray
    • Operation Whitecoat(1954–73)
  • U.S. entomological warfare program
    • Operation Big Itch
    • Operation Big Buzz
    • Operation Drop Kick
    • Operation May Day
• Project Bacchus
• Project Clear Vision
• Project SHAD
• Project 112
• Horn Island Testing Station
• Fort Terry
• Granite Peak Installation
• Vigo Ordnance Plant

United Kingdom

Main article:United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction § Biological weapons

• Porton Down
• Gruinard Island
• Nancekuke
• Operation Vegetarian(1942–1944)
• Open-air field tests:
  • Operation HarnessoffAntigua,1948–1950.
  • Operation CauldronoffStornoway,1952.
  • Operation HesperusoffStornoway,1953.
  • Operation OzoneoffNassau,1954.
  • Operation Negationoff Nassau, 1954–5.

Soviet Union and Russia

Main article:Soviet biological weapons program

• Biopreparat(18 labs and production centers)
  • Stepnogorsk Scientific and Technical Institute for Microbiology,Stepnogorsk,northernKazakhstan
  • Institute of Ultra Pure Biochemical Preparations,Leningrad,a weaponized plague center
  • Vector State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology(VECTOR), a weaponized smallpox center
  • Institute of Applied Biochemistry,Omutninsk
  • Kirov bioweapons production facility,Kirov, Kirov Oblast
  • Zagorsk smallpox production facility,Zagorsk
  • Berdsk bioweapons production facility,Berdsk
  • Bioweapons research facility,Obolensk
  • Sverdlovsk bioweapons production facility(Military Compound 19),Sverdlovsk,a weaponized anthrax center
• Institute of Virus Preparations
• Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services
• Vozrozhdeniya
• Project Bonfire
• Project Factor

Japan

Main article:Special Research Units

U.S. authorities grantedUnit 731officials immunity from prosecution in return for access to their research.

• Unit 731
• Zhongma Fortress
• Kaimingjie germ weapon attack
• Khabarovsk War Crime Trials
• Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department

Iraq

Main articles:Iraqi biological weapons programandIraq and weapons of mass destruction

• Al Hakum
• Salman Pak facility
• Al Manalfacility

South Africa

Main article:South Africa and weapons of mass destruction § Biological and chemical weapons

• Project Coast
• Delta G Scientific Company
• Roodeplaat Research Laboratories
• Protechnik

Rhodesia

Main article:Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction

Canada

• Grosse Isle, Quebec,site (1939–45) of research into anthrax and other agents
• DRDC Suffield,Suffield, Alberta

List of associated people

Bioweaponeers:

Includes scientists and administrators

• Shyh-Ching Lo
• Kanatjan Alibekov,known as Ken Alibek
• Ira Baldwin
• Wouter Basson
• Kurt Blome
• Eugen von Haagen
• Anton Dilger
• Paul Fildes
• Arthur Galston(unwittingly)
• Kurt Gutzeit
• Riley D. Housewright
• Shiro Ishii
• Elvin A. Kabat
• George W. Merck
• Frank Olson
• Vladimir Pasechnik
• William C. Patrick III
• Sergei Popov
• Theodor Rosebury
• Rihab Rashid Taha
• Prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda
• Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash
• Nassir al-Hindawi
• Erich Traub
• Auguste Trillat
• Baron Otto von Rosen
• Yujiro Wakamatsu
• Yazid Sufaat

Writers and activists:

• Daniel Barenblatt
• Leonard A. Cole
• Stephen Endicott
• Arthur Galston
• Jeanne Guillemin
• Edward Hagerman
• Sheldon H. Harris
• Nicholas D. Kristof
• Joshua Lederberg
• Matthew Meselson
• Toby Ord
• Richard Preston
• Ed Regis
• Mark Wheelis
• David Willman
• Aaron Henderson

In popular culture

Main article:Biological warfare in popular culture

See also

• Animal-borne bomb attacks
• Antibiotic resistance
• Asymmetric warfare
• Baker Island
• Bioaerosol
• Biological contamination
• Biological pest control
• Biosecurity
• Chemical weapon
• Counterinsurgency
• Discredited AIDS origins theories
• Enterotoxin
• Entomological warfare
• Ethnic bioweapon
• Herbicidal warfare
• Hittite plague
• Human experimentation in the United States
• John W. Powell
• Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System
• List of CBRN warfare forces
• McNeill's law
• Military animal
• Mycotoxin
• Plum Island Animal Disease Center
• Project 112
• Project AGILE
• Project SHAD
• Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction
• Trichothecene
• Well poisoning
• Yellow rain

Further reading

• Alibek K, Handelman S (2000).Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World – Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran it.Delta.ISBN978-0-385-33496-9.
• Almosara, Joel O. (1 June 2010)."Biotechnology: Genetically Engineered Pathogens".Archived fromthe originalon 3 December 2017.Retrieved2 December2017.Counterproliferation Paper No. 53, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, USA.
• Appel JM(July 2009). "Is all fair in biological warfare? The controversy over genetically engineered biological weapons".Journal of Medical Ethics.35(7): 429–32.doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028944.PMID19567692.S2CID1643086.
• Aucouturier E (2020).Biological Warfare: Another French Connexion.Matériologiques.ISBN978-2-37361-239-4.
• Carus WS (2017).A Short History of Biological Warfare: From Pre-History to the 21st Century.US Defense Dept., National Defense University, Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction.ISBN9780160941481.
• Chaturvedi, Alok."Live and Computational Experimentation in Bio-terror Response"(PDF).misrc.umn.edu Purdue Homeland Security Institute.Archived(PDF)from the original on 9 October 2022.Retrieved28 February2018.
• Chevrier MI, Chomiczewski K, Garrigue H, eds. (2004).The Implementation of Legally Binding Measures to Strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Held in Budapest, Hungary, 2001.Vol. 150 of NATO science series: Mathematics, physics, and chemistry (illustrated ed.). Springer.ISBN978-1402020971.
• Croddy E, Wirtz JJ, eds. (2005).Weapons of Mass Destruction.ABC-CLIO.ISBN978-1851094905.
• Crosby AW (1986).Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe 900–1900.New York.{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Cross G (2017).Dirty War: Rhodesia and Chemical Biological Warfare, 1975–1980.Helion & Company.ISBN978-1-911512-12-7.
• Davis JA, Schneider B (April 2002).The Gathering Biological Warfare Storm(2nd ed.). USAF Counterproliferation Center. Archived fromthe originalon 24 November 2018.Retrieved27 February2018.
• Dembek Z, ed. (2007).Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare.Washington, DC: Borden Institute. Archived fromthe originalon 27 August 2012.Retrieved27 September2010.
• Endicott S, Hagerman E (1998).The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early Cold War and Korea.Indiana University Press.ISBN978-0-253-33472-5.
• Fenn EA (2000). "Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst".Journal of American History.86(4): 1552–1580.doi:10.2307/2567577.JSTOR2567577.PMID18271127.
• Hersh S (1968).Chemical and biological warfare; America's hidden arsenal.
• Keith J(1999).Biowarfare in America.Illuminet Press.ISBN978-1-881532-21-7.
• Knollenberg B (1954). "General Amherst and Germ Warfare".Mississippi Valley Historical Review.41(3): 489–494.doi:10.2307/1897495.JSTOR1897495.British war against Indians in 1763
• Leitenberg, Milton; Zilinskas, Raymond A. (2012).The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History.Harvard University Press. p. 921.
• Mangold T, Goldberg J (1999).Plague Wars: a true story of biological warfare.Macmillan, London.ISBN978-0-333-71614-4.
• Maskiell M, Mayor A (January 2001). "Killer Khilats Part 1: Legends of Poisoned" Robes of Honour "in India".Folklore.112(1): 23–45.doi:10.1080/00155870120037920.S2CID36729031.
• Maskiell M, Mayor A (January 2001). "Killer Khilats Part 2: Imperial collecting of poison dress legends in India".Folklore.112(2): 163–82.doi:10.1080/00155870120082218.S2CID161373103.
• Mayor A (2009).Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World(revised ed.). Overlook.ISBN978-1-58567-348-3.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018).Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology.National Academies Press.doi:10.17226/24890.ISBN978-0-309-46518-2.PMID30629396.S2CID90767286.
• Orent W (2004).Plague, The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World's Most Dangerous Disease.New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.ISBN978-0-7432-3685-0.
• Pala C (12 January 2003)."Anthrax Island".The New York Times.
• Preston R(2002).The Demon in the Freezer.New York: Random House.
• Warner J, Ramsbotham J, Tunia E, Vadez JJ (May 2011).Analysis of the Threat of Genetically Modified Organisms for Biological Warfare.Washington, D.C.: National Defense University.Retrieved8 March2015.
• Wheelis, Mark (September 2002)."Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa".Emerging Infectious Diseases.8(9): 971–975.doi:10.3201/eid0809.010536.PMC2732530.PMID12194776.
• Woods JB, ed. (April 2005).USAMRIID's Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook(PDF)(6th ed.). Fort Detrick, Maryland: U.S. Army Medical Institute of Infectious Diseases. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 9 June 2007.
• Zelicoff A, Bellomo M (2005).Microbe: Are we Ready for the Next Plague?.AMACOM Books, New York, NY.ISBN978-0-8144-0865-0.

External links

• Biological weapons and international humanitarian lawArchived11 August 2010 at theWayback Machine,ICRC
• WHO: Health Aspects of Biological and Chemical Weapons
• "Biological Warfare".National Library of Medicine. Archived fromthe originalon 26 April 2017.Retrieved28 May2013.
• USAMRIID(Archived5 June 2016 at theWayback Machine)—U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases