How long can we afford to keep having wars?

GreyICE · 9th September 2008, 07:08 PM

Not financially. But in terms of risk.

Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs.

Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war?

Darth Rotor · 9th September 2008, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Not financially. But in terms of risk.

Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs.

Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war?

Who is this "we" Kemo Sabe?

GreyICE · 9th September 2008, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Who is this "we" Kemo Sabe?

Everyone who can die from a disease.

That would be the human race.

Edit: To clarify, every nation on earth. And possibly civil wars.

Doubt · 9th September 2008, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Not financially. But in terms of risk.

Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs.

Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war?

Look up that guy named Nobel and the dynamite thingy.

If one way to wage war becomes to expensive or difficult, another means will be found.

If bio weapons thwart conventional military tactics then other methods that discourage that type of response will be found.

Darth Rotor · 9th September 2008, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Everyone who can die from a disease.

That would be the human race.

Edit: To clarify, every nation on earth. And possibly civil wars.

We could kill off ninety percent of the human race in the next ten years through war. That would leave about 650 million to carry on. In a hundred years or so, we'd have a few billion humans on the planet again.

So what?

I am trying to understand the problem here. War happens. It is a response to a profound number of stressors on social bodies/tribes/nations, what have you.

So, I ask you again, who is "we" in this case?

DR

GreyICE · 9th September 2008, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

We could kill off ninety percent of the human race in the next ten years through war. That would leave about 650 million to carry on. In a hundred years or so, we'd have a few billion humans on the planet again.

So what?

I am trying to understand the problem here. War happens. It is a response to a profound number of stressors on social bodies/tribes/nations, what have you.

So, I ask you again, who is "we" in this case?

DR

EVERYONE.

A bioweapon could and would kill of 90% of the population, if sufficiently well engineered. That would effectively destroy all human civilization. Possibly for upwards of several centuries.

Destroying all human civilization is not an acceptable concept. We cannot continue to accept war as inevitable if we wish to survive.

So how do we stop it? And by what date?

Doubt · 9th September 2008, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

EVERYONE.

A bioweapon could and would kill of 90% of the population, if sufficiently well engineered. That would effectively destroy all human civilization. Possibly for upwards of several centuries.

Destroying all human civilization is not an acceptable concept. We cannot continue to accept war as inevitable if we wish to survive.

So how do we stop it? And by what date?

Since nukes have not stopped war, there is no reason to think biological weapons will either.

The means of conflict will change and people will still die.

GreyICE · 9th September 2008, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Doubt

Since nukes have not stopped war, there is no reason to think biological weapons will either.

The means of conflict will change and people will still die.

They have stopped war between nuclear armed powers. There has been one aggressive action against a nuclear armed power, and it is a total joke.

So your entire premise is BS.

NoZed Avenger · 9th September 2008, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

They have stopped war between nuclear armed powers. There has been one aggressive action against a nuclear armed power, and it is a total joke.

So your entire premise is BS.

You are having it both ways.

If the threat is serious enough to stop wars - if it so unthinkable such that nuclear (and then bio) war is unthinkable, then the problem has solved itself.

Since you don't appear to be arguing that, the argument is running in circles.

Doubt · 9th September 2008, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

They have stopped war between nuclear armed powers. There has been one aggressive action against a nuclear armed power, and it is a total joke.

So your entire premise is BS.

So you missed all those proxy conflicts like Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Afganistan and many, many others.

In more recent development, we see support for terror along with insurgent activities as proxy war, but with different players.

The means of conflict changed because direct conflict risked the use of nukes. But wars still happen and millions die.

Either you don't understand my premise or don't want to deal with reality.

GreyICE · 9th September 2008, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

You are having it both ways.

If the threat is serious enough to stop wars - if it so unthinkable such that nuclear (and then bio) war is unthinkable, then the problem has solved itself.

Since you don't appear to be arguing that, the argument is running in circles.

No it's not. Think it through. Nukes are enough to demonstrate wars can be stopped.

They are not enough to demonstrate that war WILL be stopped.

A biological weapon is radically different. First, anyone can make one, assuming sufficient advances in genetic technology (a given). So we can no longer count on first world countries, or countries with sufficiently advanced economies at some level having one.

What we are talking about is no war whatsoever. Not proxy wars in Vietnam or Korea. No Iraq or Afghanistan. Because assuming that anyone can build one, eventually countries faced with situations like Vietnam (millions killed) or the Congo will be able to 'end' the conflict. Period.

So the assumption that the problem will go away is unfounded, but the assumption that the problem will fix itself is unfounded too.

Your argument is the equivelant of saying "Well if your car breaks down, either it will fix itself, or you have to toss it in the junkyard. So justifying maintenance is circular logic."

Doubt · 9th September 2008, 08:18 PM

If anyone can make bio weapons then anyone will make them and use them. If not for war then for personal vendetta.

Consequently, that will not stop war but may change what sort of organizations practice it.

We already see wars that are not waged by nation-states against nation-states.

The best that may come from such weapons is the scale might get smaller. But don't count on it.

GreyICE · 9th September 2008, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Doubt

If anyone can make bio weapons then anyone will make them and use them. If not for war then for personal vendetta.

Consequently, that will not stop war but may change what sort of organizations practice it.

This seems unlikely. First, if we assume everyone has the genetic know-how and resources to build bioweapons, then we're talking a very advanced civ.

That level of development is still very far in the future.

However, the level to build bioweapons at the government scale for any government is not far off.

The last candidate is corporations. They certainly may be able to, so they definitely play a part, but assuming they're as whimsical as individuals is silly.

Quote:

We already see wars that are not waged by nation-states against nation-states.

The best that may come from such weapons is the scale might get smaller. But don't count on it.

Why would anything good come of these weapons?

Some good might come of our response to these weapons.

Throwing up our hands and saying "naught can be done" seems unproductive, at best, and criminally negligent if one were to pick a fair description.

Tsukasa Buddha · 9th September 2008, 09:01 PM

Since when was war-making about rationality?

I'd bet my life that humans will make themselves extinct

.

kallsop · 10th September 2008, 03:32 AM

We (the world) do not have an adequate response to suicidal bombers, but the world still turns. We already have a capacity to destroy the planet (nuclear bombs) but we are still here. You're just looking for one more reason to be miserable.

NoZed Avenger · 10th September 2008, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

So the assumption that the problem will go away is unfounded, but the assumption that the problem will fix itself is unfounded too.

Your argument is the equivelant of saying "Well if your car breaks down, either it will fix itself, or you have to toss it in the junkyard. So justifying maintenance is circular logic."

I am neither making assumptions nor arguments.

But your response to the point about wars continuing despite the presence of nuclear weapons -does- depend on circular logic, or at least a different definition from when you are talking about biological weapons. You appear to be using different definitions of warfare according to which part of the subject you are on.

I am not making any type of argument about the original topic.

plumjam · 10th September 2008, 05:19 AM

All future international disputes should be settled with a game of subbuteo. Why no one has been able to figure that out yet is beyond me.

Ok, best of three then.

MarkCorrigan · 10th September 2008, 05:33 AM

I fail to see what you mean here. Bio weapons ARE widespread. Let's face it a large portion of the developed world has either got them, or has the bio-agents on store and the capability to rapidly weaponise them.

So...what's the issue?

Gurdur · 10th September 2008, 05:56 AM

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

-- Plato, or some other ancient Greek

GreyICE · 10th September 2008, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by kallsop

We (the world) do not have an adequate response to suicidal bombers, but the world still turns. We already have a capacity to destroy the planet (nuclear bombs) but we are still here. You're just looking for one more reason to be miserable.

How many people have suicide bombers managed to kill? The absolute top was 3,000.

Do you know what an engineered plague is capable of? Head, sand.

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

I am neither making assumptions nor arguments.

But your response to the point about wars continuing despite the presence of nuclear weapons -does- depend on circular logic, or at least a different definition from when you are talking about biological weapons. You appear to be using different definitions of warfare according to which part of the subject you are on.

I am not making any type of argument about the original topic.

You're failing to make any sort of a point at all, really. Circular how?

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

I fail to see what you mean here. Bio weapons ARE widespread. Let's face it a large portion of the developed world has either got them, or has the bio-agents on store and the capability to rapidly weaponise them.

So...what's the issue?

No they can't. Very few powers without nuclear technology currently have access to efficient bioweapons. I can't think of any off the top of my head (maybe Japan?).

Originally Posted by Gurdur

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

-- Plato, or some other ancient Greek

Yes, you can quote a video game.

Ziggurat · 10th September 2008, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war?

Why on earth would we assume Moore's law applies to genetics? And even if it did, I don't think that means what you think it means: integrated circuit manufacturing facilities have grown vastly more expensive over time, even as their output products have gotten cheaper and better. So a Moore's law model would suggest Ethiopia could afford to buy biotech results, but not biotech production capability.

Furthermore, a super plague isn't a very good terrorist weapon: it's got a little (and obvious) problem of blowback. Killing all the kufir is one thing, but it kinda misses the point if there's no muslims left afterwards. And which population group do you think will take the biggest hit: the poorer one with little medical infrastructure, or the rich one with lots of hospitals and doctors?

And quite frankly, we really don't know how to engineer super-plagues. Smallpox is about the nastiest thing we know of, and its kill rate is far less than 100%. Same with its transmission rate. Enough to cause global catastrophy? Perhaps. Enough to wipe out humanity? Nope, not even close. If we were that fragile, we wouldn't be alive today, given the nasty stuff nature can cook up to infect us with on its own.

MarkCorrigan · 10th September 2008, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

How many people have suicide bombers managed to kill? The absolute top was 3,000.

Do you know what an engineered plague is capable of? Head, sand.

You're failing to make any sort of a point at all, really. Circular how?

No they can't. Very few powers without nuclear technology currently have access to efficient bioweapons. I can't think of any off the top of my head (maybe Japan?).

Yes, you can quote a video game.

The USA has a bio weapons program, for one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ogical_weapons

Plus it's 13 years old but it's not out of the question that some or all of the following nations have still got bio-weapons or at least bio-defence programs.

"According to the United States Office of Technology Assessment, since disbanded, seventeen countries were believed to possess biological weapons in 1995: Libya, North Korea, South Korea, Iraq, Taiwan, Syria, Israel, Iran, China, Egypt, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Bulgaria, India, South Africa, and Russia. [11][26]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologi...ams_by_country

Gurdur · 10th September 2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Yes, you can quote a video game.

It's a neat quote. And it sums it up much better than you have with all your emoting, so the rolleyes are a bit of you shooting your own foot.

As for the quote: most likely it doesn't actually come from Plato, but instead it is only documented in MacArthur's farewell speech of 1962 at West Point, and first of all in the book Soliloquies in England by George Santayana, first published in 1924.

Now onto your emoting; wars will be afforded by whomever thinks they can afford a war, which pretty much means wars will exist as long as humans do, or certain species of ants do. Regardless of how much it outrages you.

Cheers. Wanna give another rolleyes?

dudalb · 10th September 2008, 01:56 PM

And there is always the reality that Humans might not be dumb enough to wipe themsleves out using nukes or biological weapons, but still will kill each other with non WMD weapons. There has not been a nuclear war since 1945, but lots and lots of wars using conventional weapons, ranging from full blown contventional war (The Arab Israeli wars, India vs Pakistan ,to name a couple) to an endless array of guerilla wars.
Man has been fighting wars since he was man. Some anthropoligists think war was man's first real organized activity. It seems to be hard wired into us, probably connected with basic survival instincs. Don't tell me he is going to stop anytime soon.

Doubt · 10th September 2008, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

This seems unlikely. First, if we assume everyone has the genetic know-how and resources to build bioweapons, then we're talking a very advanced civ.

Excuse me, but you were the one who stated that everyone can make bio weapons. I did not disagree. I will wait for you to decide which of your opinions on this is correct.

Quote:

The last candidate is corporations. They certainly may be able to, so they definitely play a part, but assuming they're as whimsical as individuals is silly.

First, we already have companies that make stupid decisions that backfire on them. Corporations make bad decisions just like individuals and governments.

We also already have corporations that have "private security" divisions. They use the term private security in place of mercenaries.

One company could end up developing a bio weapons to sell it for profit. Another company might choose to buy and use such a weapon to say, remove an indigenous population so they can get access to mineral rights or other resources. Sort of a modern version of giving smallpox infected blankets to native Americans.

Killing people can be profitable and is not necessarily whimsical. Unethical yes.

Quote:

Why would anything good come of these weapons?

Generally speaking, fewer or no wars is better than more wars. You are the one saying bio weapons would make it impossible to fight wars.

Quote:

Throwing up our hands and saying "naught can be done" seems unproductive, at best, and criminally negligent if one were to pick a fair description.

And who suggested nothing can be done?

War is an activity that pre-dates civilization. I see no reason to think it will go away. It may and has changed form over time. New weapons will cause it to change again. Changing for better or worse is an open question.

geni · 10th September 2008, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And quite frankly, we really don't know how to engineer super-plagues. Smallpox is about the nastiest thing we know of, and its kill rate is far less than 100%. Same with its transmission rate. Enough to cause global catastrophy? Perhaps. Enough to wipe out humanity? Nope, not even close.

We have however got some ideas on how to go in that dirrection. Some known pathogens appear to have become less lethal over time (TB is the standard example) might be posible to reverse that. Other attack lines are makeing more lethal stuff more transmittable more more transmittable stuff more leathal through selective breeding. They you get onto trying to splice genomes and it becomes more speculative but will likely be covered by the gene therapy people.

Problem is that puts you up against advanceing anti-virals and vaccines. Indeed with the advances we are seeing in understand molecular biology and in parallel synthesis in chemistry you would be increaseingly lucky if the responce to your super virus was much more than squenceing it perhaps doing some in vitro studies then telling the computer to find and make a chemical that disrupted it's method of reproduction.

gumboot · 10th September 2008, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

EVERYONE.
A bioweapon could and would kill of 90% of the population, if sufficiently well engineered. That would effectively destroy all human civilization. Possibly for upwards of several centuries.

This is science fiction nonsense.

Biological weapons are highly ineffective. Your doomsday scenario belongs in a Roland Emmerich film, not the real world.

plumjam · 11th September 2008, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Man has been fighting wars since he was man.

Before Man was Man ¨Man¨ wasn´t yet Man. To tell us what Man was before he was Man no man can. Not even Jackie Chan or Claude van Damme. Which is a shame, if you´re a fan.

DanishDynamite · 11th September 2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Not financially. But in terms of risk.

Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs.

Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war?

Does Moore's law also apply to idiotic war-mongers? To imbeciles? To braindeads?

Does it apply, for example, to you?

9th September 2008, 07:08 PM	#1
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	How long can we afford to keep having wars? Not financially. But in terms of risk. Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs. Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war?
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

9th September 2008, 07:13 PM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by GreyICE Not financially. But in terms of risk. Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs. Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war? Who is this "we" Kemo Sabe?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

9th September 2008, 07:15 PM	#3
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Who is this "we" Kemo Sabe? Everyone who can die from a disease. That would be the human race. Edit: To clarify, every nation on earth. And possibly civil wars.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Last edited by GreyICE; 9th September 2008 at 07:17 PM.

9th September 2008, 07:36 PM	#4
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by GreyICE Not financially. But in terms of risk. Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs. Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war? Look up that guy named Nobel and the dynamite thingy. If one way to wage war becomes to expensive or difficult, another means will be found. If bio weapons thwart conventional military tactics then other methods that discourage that type of response will be found.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

9th September 2008, 07:39 PM	#5
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,264	Originally Posted by GreyICE Everyone who can die from a disease. That would be the human race. Edit: To clarify, every nation on earth. And possibly civil wars. We could kill off ninety percent of the human race in the next ten years through war. That would leave about 650 million to carry on. In a hundred years or so, we'd have a few billion humans on the planet again. So what? I am trying to understand the problem here. War happens. It is a response to a profound number of stressors on social bodies/tribes/nations, what have you. So, I ask you again, who is "we" in this case? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

9th September 2008, 07:50 PM	#6
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor We could kill off ninety percent of the human race in the next ten years through war. That would leave about 650 million to carry on. In a hundred years or so, we'd have a few billion humans on the planet again. So what? I am trying to understand the problem here. War happens. It is a response to a profound number of stressors on social bodies/tribes/nations, what have you. So, I ask you again, who is "we" in this case? DR EVERYONE. A bioweapon could and would kill of 90% of the population, if sufficiently well engineered. That would effectively destroy all human civilization. Possibly for upwards of several centuries. Destroying all human civilization is not an acceptable concept. We cannot continue to accept war as inevitable if we wish to survive. So how do we stop it? And by what date?
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

9th September 2008, 07:54 PM	#7
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by GreyICE EVERYONE. A bioweapon could and would kill of 90% of the population, if sufficiently well engineered. That would effectively destroy all human civilization. Possibly for upwards of several centuries. Destroying all human civilization is not an acceptable concept. We cannot continue to accept war as inevitable if we wish to survive. So how do we stop it? And by what date? Since nukes have not stopped war, there is no reason to think biological weapons will either. The means of conflict will change and people will still die.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

9th September 2008, 07:59 PM	#8
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by Doubt Since nukes have not stopped war, there is no reason to think biological weapons will either. The means of conflict will change and people will still die. They have stopped war between nuclear armed powers. There has been one aggressive action against a nuclear armed power, and it is a total joke. So your entire premise is BS.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

9th September 2008, 08:02 PM	#9
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by GreyICE They have stopped war between nuclear armed powers. There has been one aggressive action against a nuclear armed power, and it is a total joke. So your entire premise is BS. You are having it both ways. If the threat is serious enough to stop wars - if it so unthinkable such that nuclear (and then bio) war is unthinkable, then the problem has solved itself. Since you don't appear to be arguing that, the argument is running in circles.

9th September 2008, 08:08 PM	#10
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by GreyICE They have stopped war between nuclear armed powers. There has been one aggressive action against a nuclear armed power, and it is a total joke. So your entire premise is BS. So you missed all those proxy conflicts like Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Afganistan and many, many others. In more recent development, we see support for terror along with insurgent activities as proxy war, but with different players. The means of conflict changed because direct conflict risked the use of nukes. But wars still happen and millions die. Either you don't understand my premise or don't want to deal with reality.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

9th September 2008, 08:09 PM	#11
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger You are having it both ways. If the threat is serious enough to stop wars - if it so unthinkable such that nuclear (and then bio) war is unthinkable, then the problem has solved itself. Since you don't appear to be arguing that, the argument is running in circles. No it's not. Think it through. Nukes are enough to demonstrate wars can be stopped. They are not enough to demonstrate that war WILL be stopped. A biological weapon is radically different. First, anyone can make one, assuming sufficient advances in genetic technology (a given). So we can no longer count on first world countries, or countries with sufficiently advanced economies at some level having one. What we are talking about is no war whatsoever. Not proxy wars in Vietnam or Korea. No Iraq or Afghanistan. Because assuming that anyone can build one, eventually countries faced with situations like Vietnam (millions killed) or the Congo will be able to 'end' the conflict. Period. So the assumption that the problem will go away is unfounded, but the assumption that the problem will fix itself is unfounded too. Your argument is the equivelant of saying "Well if your car breaks down, either it will fix itself, or you have to toss it in the junkyard. So justifying maintenance is circular logic."
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

9th September 2008, 08:18 PM	#12
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	If anyone can make bio weapons then anyone will make them and use them. If not for war then for personal vendetta. Consequently, that will not stop war but may change what sort of organizations practice it. We already see wars that are not waged by nation-states against nation-states. The best that may come from such weapons is the scale might get smaller. But don't count on it.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

9th September 2008, 08:50 PM	#13
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by Doubt If anyone can make bio weapons then anyone will make them and use them. If not for war then for personal vendetta. Consequently, that will not stop war but may change what sort of organizations practice it. This seems unlikely. First, if we assume everyone has the genetic know-how and resources to build bioweapons, then we're talking a very advanced civ. That level of development is still very far in the future. However, the level to build bioweapons at the government scale for any government is not far off. The last candidate is corporations. They certainly may be able to, so they definitely play a part, but assuming they're as whimsical as individuals is silly. Quote: We already see wars that are not waged by nation-states against nation-states. The best that may come from such weapons is the scale might get smaller. But don't count on it. Why would anything good come of these weapons? Some good might come of our response to these weapons. Throwing up our hands and saying "naught can be done" seems unproductive, at best, and criminally negligent if one were to pick a fair description.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

9th September 2008, 09:01 PM	#14
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,912	Since when was war-making about rationality? I'd bet my life that humans will make themselves extinct .
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

10th September 2008, 03:32 AM	#15
kallsop Guest Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 755	We (the world) do not have an adequate response to suicidal bombers, but the world still turns. We already have a capacity to destroy the planet (nuclear bombs) but we are still here. You're just looking for one more reason to be miserable.
kallsop Guest Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 755

10th September 2008, 04:35 AM	#16
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by GreyICE So the assumption that the problem will go away is unfounded, but the assumption that the problem will fix itself is unfounded too. Your argument is the equivelant of saying "Well if your car breaks down, either it will fix itself, or you have to toss it in the junkyard. So justifying maintenance is circular logic." I am neither making assumptions nor arguments. But your response to the point about wars continuing despite the presence of nuclear weapons -does- depend on circular logic, or at least a different definition from when you are talking about biological weapons. You appear to be using different definitions of warfare according to which part of the subject you are on. I am not making any type of argument about the original topic.

10th September 2008, 05:19 AM	#17
plumjam Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 7,837	All future international disputes should be settled with a game of subbuteo. Why no one has been able to figure that out yet is beyond me. Ok, best of three then.

10th September 2008, 05:33 AM	#18
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,119	I fail to see what you mean here. Bio weapons ARE widespread. Let's face it a large portion of the developed world has either got them, or has the bio-agents on store and the capability to rapidly weaponise them. So...what's the issue?
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

10th September 2008, 05:56 AM	#19
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Plato, or some other ancient Greek
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

10th September 2008, 07:00 AM	#20
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Originally Posted by kallsop We (the world) do not have an adequate response to suicidal bombers, but the world still turns. We already have a capacity to destroy the planet (nuclear bombs) but we are still here. You're just looking for one more reason to be miserable. How many people have suicide bombers managed to kill? The absolute top was 3,000. Do you know what an engineered plague is capable of? Head, sand. Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger I am neither making assumptions nor arguments. But your response to the point about wars continuing despite the presence of nuclear weapons -does- depend on circular logic, or at least a different definition from when you are talking about biological weapons. You appear to be using different definitions of warfare according to which part of the subject you are on. I am not making any type of argument about the original topic. You're failing to make any sort of a point at all, really. Circular how? Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan I fail to see what you mean here. Bio weapons ARE widespread. Let's face it a large portion of the developed world has either got them, or has the bio-agents on store and the capability to rapidly weaponise them. So...what's the issue? No they can't. Very few powers without nuclear technology currently have access to efficient bioweapons. I can't think of any off the top of my head (maybe Japan?). Originally Posted by Gurdur "Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Plato, or some other ancient Greek Yes, you can quote a video game.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173

10th September 2008, 07:21 AM	#21
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,199	Originally Posted by GreyICE Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war? Why on earth would we assume Moore's law applies to genetics? And even if it did, I don't think that means what you think it means: integrated circuit manufacturing facilities have grown vastly more expensive over time, even as their output products have gotten cheaper and better. So a Moore's law model would suggest Ethiopia could afford to buy biotech results, but not biotech production capability. Furthermore, a super plague isn't a very good terrorist weapon: it's got a little (and obvious) problem of blowback. Killing all the kufir is one thing, but it kinda misses the point if there's no muslims left afterwards. And which population group do you think will take the biggest hit: the poorer one with little medical infrastructure, or the rich one with lots of hospitals and doctors? And quite frankly, we really don't know how to engineer super-plagues. Smallpox is about the nastiest thing we know of, and its kill rate is far less than 100%. Same with its transmission rate. Enough to cause global catastrophy? Perhaps. Enough to wipe out humanity? Nope, not even close. If we were that fragile, we wouldn't be alive today, given the nasty stuff nature can cook up to infect us with on its own.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 10th September 2008 at 07:22 AM.

10th September 2008, 07:31 AM	#22
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,119	Originally Posted by GreyICE How many people have suicide bombers managed to kill? The absolute top was 3,000. Do you know what an engineered plague is capable of? Head, sand. You're failing to make any sort of a point at all, really. Circular how? No they can't. Very few powers without nuclear technology currently have access to efficient bioweapons. I can't think of any off the top of my head (maybe Japan?). Yes, you can quote a video game. The USA has a bio weapons program, for one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ogical_weapons Plus it's 13 years old but it's not out of the question that some or all of the following nations have still got bio-weapons or at least bio-defence programs. "According to the United States Office of Technology Assessment, since disbanded, seventeen countries were believed to possess biological weapons in 1995: Libya, North Korea, South Korea, Iraq, Taiwan, Syria, Israel, Iran, China, Egypt, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Bulgaria, India, South Africa, and Russia. [11][26]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologi...ams_by_country
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake. Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 10th September 2008 at 07:32 AM.

10th September 2008, 10:18 AM	#23
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	Originally Posted by GreyICE Yes, you can quote a video game. It's a neat quote. And it sums it up much better than you have with all your emoting, so the rolleyes are a bit of you shooting your own foot. As for the quote: most likely it doesn't actually come from Plato, but instead it is only documented in MacArthur's farewell speech of 1962 at West Point, and first of all in the book Soliloquies in England by George Santayana, first published in 1924. Now onto your emoting; wars will be afforded by whomever thinks they can afford a war, which pretty much means wars will exist as long as humans do, or certain species of ants do. Regardless of how much it outrages you. Cheers. Wanna give another rolleyes?
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

10th September 2008, 01:56 PM	#24
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,843	And there is always the reality that Humans might not be dumb enough to wipe themsleves out using nukes or biological weapons, but still will kill each other with non WMD weapons. There has not been a nuclear war since 1945, but lots and lots of wars using conventional weapons, ranging from full blown contventional war (The Arab Israeli wars, India vs Pakistan ,to name a couple) to an endless array of guerilla wars. Man has been fighting wars since he was man. Some anthropoligists think war was man's first real organized activity. It seems to be hard wired into us, probably connected with basic survival instincs. Don't tell me he is going to stop anytime soon.

10th September 2008, 08:37 PM	#25
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	Originally Posted by GreyICE This seems unlikely. First, if we assume everyone has the genetic know-how and resources to build bioweapons, then we're talking a very advanced civ. Excuse me, but you were the one who stated that everyone can make bio weapons. I did not disagree. I will wait for you to decide which of your opinions on this is correct. Quote: The last candidate is corporations. They certainly may be able to, so they definitely play a part, but assuming they're as whimsical as individuals is silly. First, we already have companies that make stupid decisions that backfire on them. Corporations make bad decisions just like individuals and governments. We also already have corporations that have "private security" divisions. They use the term private security in place of mercenaries. One company could end up developing a bio weapons to sell it for profit. Another company might choose to buy and use such a weapon to say, remove an indigenous population so they can get access to mineral rights or other resources. Sort of a modern version of giving smallpox infected blankets to native Americans. Killing people can be profitable and is not necessarily whimsical. Unethical yes. Quote: Why would anything good come of these weapons? Generally speaking, fewer or no wars is better than more wars. You are the one saying bio weapons would make it impossible to fight wars. Quote: Throwing up our hands and saying "naught can be done" seems unproductive, at best, and criminally negligent if one were to pick a fair description. And who suggested nothing can be done? War is an activity that pre-dates civilization. I see no reason to think it will go away. It may and has changed form over time. New weapons will cause it to change again. Changing for better or worse is an open question.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,447	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

10th September 2008, 08:55 PM	#26
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,570	Originally Posted by Ziggurat And quite frankly, we really don't know how to engineer super-plagues. Smallpox is about the nastiest thing we know of, and its kill rate is far less than 100%. Same with its transmission rate. Enough to cause global catastrophy? Perhaps. Enough to wipe out humanity? Nope, not even close. We have however got some ideas on how to go in that dirrection. Some known pathogens appear to have become less lethal over time (TB is the standard example) might be posible to reverse that. Other attack lines are makeing more lethal stuff more transmittable more more transmittable stuff more leathal through selective breeding. They you get onto trying to splice genomes and it becomes more speculative but will likely be covered by the gene therapy people. Problem is that puts you up against advanceing anti-virals and vaccines. Indeed with the advances we are seeing in understand molecular biology and in parallel synthesis in chemistry you would be increaseingly lucky if the responce to your super virus was much more than squenceing it perhaps doing some in vitro studies then telling the computer to find and make a chemical that disrupted it's method of reproduction.

10th September 2008, 09:13 PM	#27
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,125	Originally Posted by GreyICE EVERYONE. A bioweapon could and would kill of 90% of the population, if sufficiently well engineered. That would effectively destroy all human civilization. Possibly for upwards of several centuries. This is science fiction nonsense. Biological weapons are highly ineffective. Your doomsday scenario belongs in a Roland Emmerich film, not the real world.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

11th September 2008, 08:30 AM	#28
plumjam Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 7,837	Originally Posted by dudalb Man has been fighting wars since he was man. Before Man was Man ¨Man¨ wasn´t yet Man. To tell us what Man was before he was Man no man can. Not even Jackie Chan or Claude van Damme. Which is a shame, if you´re a fan.

11th September 2008, 03:37 PM	#29
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by GreyICE Not financially. But in terms of risk. Genetic engineering is getting better and better. Yes, that's all upsides, theoretically. Except that we have a good idea how we'd go about weaponizing various bugs. Assuming Moore's law growth in genetics, how long until even Ethiopia can have bio weapons? When that occurs can we afford to have another war? Does Moore's law also apply to idiotic war-mongers? To imbeciles? To braindeads? Does it apply, for example, to you?
	Last edited by DanishDynamite; 11th September 2008 at 03:38 PM.