Essay: “Biological Weapons” by Jeanne Guillemin

In the book “Biological Weapons” by Jeanne Guillemin, the author’s purpose is to contextualize the current concerns of biological warfare on a global scale by providing a detailed history of the conception and development of the biological warfare programs in multiple countries. With this understanding of the background of biological warfare, the audience can better grasp modern issues with biological weapons that come with developments in biotechnology.
The views the author expresses in this book are that biological weapons are still a relevant worry in today’s world. The historical context of the development of biological weapons demonstrates that countries will create and store these weapons despite agreements to ban them. The author is trying to convey the point that even though biological weapons are not often viewed to be as threatening or damaging as nuclear weapons, they have the potential to cause death on the same scale and there is a great chance that they will still be used despite the negative world views that would result.
Biological warfare has been in use for thousands of years. One of the earlier examples of this was the catapulting of plague-infected bodies over the walls of Caffa with the hopes of spreading plague within the enemy’s walls. In today’s world, countries are still involved in research on offensive biological weapons. A well known example of this was the anthrax attacks delivered by mail to government offices in 2001. Another instance occurred in 2004 when ricin was discovered in the mailroom of the senate majority leader. It is believed that the likelihood of the utilization of biological weapons has increased in recent years. The author’s prognosis of the future of biological warfare is that it will continue to increase in likelihood as countries around the world become more advanced in biotechnology and the understanding of how diseases function and are spread.
There are multiple methods used to spread biological weapons, depending on the target of the attack. Biological weapons targeting livestock may be spread by infecting insects that will bite the animals, infecting the water supply or food supply, or a biological weapon may be spread in an aerosol form. These methods can also be used to infect large populations of humans. Biological weapons can be spread once infecting a human if it is contagious and other humans come in contact with bodily fluids of patient zero. Many scientists were also interested in the idea of spreading a biological weapon through an explosive device. It is alleged that Germany conducted tests in Paris to determine how well a biological weapons could be spread through the subway system in the course of six hours. The knowledge of this caused panic and encouraged authorities in Paris to develop methods of retaliation in the event that these allegations were true.
It is detailed in this book that one of the main arguments supporting the use of biological weapons is that they are very successful in warfare when the goal is to kill or neutralize large numbers of the enemy forces or civilians. Supporters of biological warfare believed that death by disease or toxins was more humane than the death civilians would experience as a result of other forms of warfare such as nuclear weapons. Supporters also pointed out the fact that biological warfare prevents destruction of buildings and, unless aimed toward plant life, preserves the environment while a nuclear bomb detonation could leave an area with an unhealthy level of radiation for years.
The author describes how much of the development of biological weapons was done under the guise of the sole necessity of being able to predict and retaliate against an enemy’s use of biological weapons. When biological warfare programs were in the development stages, it was recognized international law that biological weapons could not be produced, stockpiled, or used in amounts larger than those necessary for developments in health and other peaceful reasons. The exception to this rule was if it was in retaliation of an attack of this kind. For these reasons, the leaders of the main countries who are discussed in this book in the developing stages of biological warfare (Great Britain, France, Canada, Germany, and the United States) would perform scientific investigation and experimentation of various biological weapons in the name of defense. As described between Great Britain and Germany, much of the two countries’ development of biological weapons was because they believed the other side was creating or already had that particular weapon at their disposal. With the development of biological warfare programs, countries also developed plans of action to prevent the spread of disease and reduce the number of civilian deaths in the event of an attack.
Biological weapons were often too dangerous to test because the environment could not be well controlled. The risks of infecting humans was too great for many of these tests because treatment was not very effective for all potential weapons that were investigated. For example, anthrax through inhalation was difficult to test because humans infected through this means did not respond well to therapies. An instance occurred at Gruinard where sheep that had been infected by anthrax in an experiment were displaced from their graves in a storm and reached the mainland, leading to the deaths of more livestock. The government had to cover up the actual circumstances of the incident in order to avoid spreading panic. Any biological weapons testing was kept discrete in order to prevent enemies from being aware of any developments and to prevent the public from panicking. Japan exposed prisoners to biological agents to study diseases in warfare. In addition to testing of the weapons themselves being risky, developing vaccines to protect one’s own forces and civilians was also dangers and unsafe to test on human subjects.
Unlike nuclear weapon programs where most of the funds were spent on the production of weapons, most of the money spent by the United States was focused on investigating the potential biological weapons. Scientists researched how they could be spread, their different incubation periods, and what exactly made a biological weapon more likely to be utilized and which ones would be more successful. These investigations led to a better understanding of disease itself and how to prevent its spread as scientists questioned possible ways enemies would use biological weapons.
It is discussed in the book that part of the issue with regulating biological warfare is that it can be staged to appear as a natural outbreak and be difficult to prove that an epidemic was actually the result of a biological attack. There are suspicions that Japan attempted to spread disease in China while making it seem like natural outbreaks. To this day, it has not been proven that Japan was responsible even though the circumstances of these outbreaks were suspicious. The first attempt to regulate biological warfare was the Geneva Protocol of 1925. However, it did not address any means for verification that the prohibition of biological weapons was being followed.
Despite countries developing biological weapons under the pretense of defense, some of these weapons were created to be used on a massive scale that went beyond retaliation. Great Britain’s forces wanted to use anthrax bombs in World War II as they believed it would have a drastic effect on the war. The goal was to create enough anthrax bombs to kill fifty percent of the population of multiple major cities in Germany. Great Britain and the United States both stockpiled weapons containing anthrax in case this planned attack was deemed necessary. These weapons were never utilized against Germany because Germany feared retaliation and did not actually possess the number of biological weapons they were believed to have. Even though these weapons were not used in the end, countries had plans to use them in ways that would have drastically affected the war and taken the lives of many innocent civilians. The magnitude of such an attack would be so great that it would be more offensive than defensive.
The views described in this book may be controversial but are understandable. Biological weapons are a member of the controversial argument of whether a more humane form of warfare exists. It is difficult to say whether or not chemical and biological weapons are actually “a higher form of killing” because there is such a wide array of these weapons and they ways they work to neutralize an enemy. The concept of biological warfare is frightening. A biological weapon could cause loss of life in one’s own country if not carefully monitored. Diseases that have been eradicated could return because samples of them are still in existence. Even on a battlefield, there are situations where it cannot be guaranteed that a country can protect its own forces while attacking the enemy with biological weapons. It is difficult to justify to the civilians of a country that biological weapons should be tested and developed. This is because it comes with the risk of infecting one’s own people and it is very difficult to create methods of protection for an outbreak and treatment plans as diseases are engineered to be more difficult to treat. This is demonstrated by the fact that so much of the development of these weapons programs were kept in secret in order to prevent widespread panic in one’s own country.
In my opinion, biological weapons are not necessarily a more humane method of neutralizing an enemy. Most of the plans for these weapons were not to be used against enemy soldiers but innocent civilians. It was mentioned in the book that it was believed that killing ten civilian workers was equivalent to killing one soldier. Many biological weapons can be deployed as aerosols and infect humans through inhalation or contact with the skin. In densely populated areas, a deployment of biological weapons can have a very high fatality rate. As it was mentioned above, the anthrax bomb attack planned by Great Britain would wipe out half of the population of five major cities in Germany. In my opinion, if warfare is deemed necessary, civilians should not be directly targeted. In war, civilians often are unaware of the actual circumstances of the war or why there would be attacks. For example, in World War II most of the German population had no idea what was happening in their own country. If it is accepted to target civilian populations in attacks, the possibility of the annihilation of the entire human race increases greatly.
Not all biological weapons were developed to kill civilians either. Some targeted livestock or crops to instead starve the country. Others were meant to permanently disable humans instead of quickly killing them. The longer period of time that humans are living with the effects of a biological attack, the less humane it would seem. The amount of time it can take for humans to die from a fatal biological attack and the symptoms experienced in the moments leading to their deaths can also vary greatly and be an excruciating death. However, are biological weapons more humane than other forms of warfare? This is difficult to say because no form of warfare is truly humane. From dying of gangrenous wounds after being shot to radiation sickness from a nuclear weapons to the excruciating asphyxiation caused by chlorine gas, all forms of warfare are inhumane. To say any form of warfare is humane is merely a means to justify the mass death and destruction deemed necessary by world leaders to neutralize an enemy and emerge victorious in a conflict.
This book is frightening to me because it exposes the dark truth of biological weapons development. While it is agreed that nuclear weapons could wipe out the entirety of life on the planet, biological weapons have the same potential. However, a biological attack may not even be understood as such when it occurs because biological weapons are difficult to detect and can be disguised as natural outbreaks. In addition to that, this book illustrates the fact that many countries and groups will not be dissuaded by the banning of these weapons and will continue to develop them. The existence of biological weapons is a major risk with the potential for an accidental outbreak of a deadly disease that may not have an effective method of treatment in existence. When biological weapons have been modified to be more effective against an enemy and more difficult to treat, it also makes the weapon more dangerous to store on one’s own soil because it will be just as difficult to treat the country’s own citizens. This frightens me because I am now aware that I could be infected by a biological weapons before I was even aware of what had transpired and by that point it may be too late to do anything about it. There may not be a way to treat it.
The author does not portray a hopeful voice for the complete destruction of biological weapons and instead argues that the likelihood of biological attacks is increasing with modern technology and understanding of disease. The risk of biological weapons far outweigh the potential benefits. The future of biological warfare is uncertain but it is likely that more attacks of this kind will occur. While there are now programs meant to verify that countries are complying with the rules to possess no biological weapons, there are groups that act independently of other countries.
What about terrorist groups? This is the question that came to my mind when reading this book and thinking of the context of biological warfare in today’s world. Fear of terrorist attacks have escalated greatly in the past two decades, from the bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001 to the many bombings and other attacks associated with ISIL in recent times. What if terrorists decided to utilize biological weapons on a massive scale? What if they manage to gain members with the tools and expertise to enable such an attack? In the modern world, with the ease of communication and other technological advances it has been evidenced that there are terrorist groups that are difficult to target because instead of inhabiting one country, they can be spread throughout the world. It is difficult to predict a biological attack from a country’s own citizens and retaliation of any sort can be close to impossible. In today’s world, warfare against terrorist groups is becoming increasingly complicated with the realization that it is very different than a declared war on another country. How can you attack a terrorist group when members of this group are members of your own society?
I would argue that terrorist groups are now the greatest threat for the use of biological weapons because of how difficult it would be to detect an attack and the idea that any form of retaliation may not be a possibility. On top of not being able to actually go to war with a terrorist group, it could be very difficult to prove that terrorists even launched the attack in the first place. At one point, it could have been argued that these groups would not have the resources. However, as demonstrated by ISIL, people from all over the world may now join a terrorist group and a member could really be anyone. In today’s world, with the ease of communication and improvements in technology, a country may be destroyed by a biological attack from with before civilians are aware they were under attack.