What is minimum stockpile of bioweapons in current year?

In a wrol scenario, supposing you want to seize regional dominance by eliminating a powerful competing group of 5k or so guerillas and 25k non-fighting civilians, what is the minimum bioweapon stockpile you should have available?

Are there rules concerning civilian possession of bioagents? Like, would the ATF consider it a problem if you wanted to keep a supply of ebola on hand?

Attached: download (18).jpg (294x171, 11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon
theguardian.com/science/2010/apr/22/modified-viruses-cancer-cells-research
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

ANY
The nature of bioweapons is that they are self-replicating.
It doesn't matter how much you start with. You can have just one bacterium and then lead to an entire epidemic

What I mean is what are the best varieties for the task. If the enemy happens to have ABX that are effective against one agent, and that agent is all you have, then youre out of luck.

I stay perpetually sick, so I always have disease to spread to my enemies.

Not necessarily. Bioengineering a weaponized strain of any pathogen is an art. The key is the incubation period and mutation into different strains which can be passed on via different modes of transmission. Bonus for strains that mutate individually once in a host, making it virtually incurable once in contact. And to get all these factors in place, you gotta have the right climate, right people, right environments, right facilitators for MoTs, and last but certainly not least, a quarantine protocol and containment measures.

Hell, if you create SuperAIDS and it somehow gets into the water table by some derka fuckin a goat in a river outside the village you didn't map very well, then the whole world could be potentially fucked.

That's why subterranean living is housing of the future

>That's why subterranean living is housing of the future

My weaponized nematodes beg to differ.

>ITT some highschooler learned biology and made a thread about biological warfare.

What is "wrol"?

I just came up with the best idea ever. You make a bioweapon that kills everyone it touches. Then you inoculate your own soldiers. Bio bomb a city that your soldiers are in or are already in, and you win without a fight. The high lethality of the disease would prevent it from spreading far beyond the village.

Attached: 1387354235045.jpg (700x400, 84K)

>try that shit
>get nuked
Thank god for nukes
Seriously, MAD is saving us from all the crazy modern Doomsday weapons we could otherwise create.
Shit, we'd probably have grey goo nanobots if MAD didn't stop us

>In a wrol scenario, supposing you want to seize regional dominance by eliminating a powerful competing group of 5k or so guerillas and 25k non-fighting civilians, what is the minimum bioweapon stockpile you should have available?
Depends on your delivery method, their population density, medical resources and prevailing environmental conditions.

>Are there rules concerning civilian possession of bioagents? Like, would the ATF consider it a problem if you wanted to keep a supply of ebola on hand?
Yes. Even non-lethal diseases and parasites could put you in jail if they suspect you planned to use them either to develop a deadlier strain or to infect a group of people. Same basic idea as if you buy the components of a bomb or a toxic gas.

Also you'd need to get a sample of the disease or parasite in question. Generally you do this by contacting certain "banks" that store samples used to develop medical technology and such. Most will only give samples to those with a genuine reason: e,g a hospital can request a viral sample to compare to a sample from a patient or a university could request a sample for education purposes.

General rule: civilians won't get their hands on these substances because some loonies in america used a sample to create a weak bio-weapon to make people sick to try and tip a county election in their favour along with another group in Japan. Most governments are careful as shit now.

Only very bad (or very good) bio-weapons are self-spreading, those that are either are barely modified samples of deadly strains (bad) or are heavily modified and will lose most infectivity after a certain length of time (good).

Actually no. Biological weapons are, like chemical weapons, fairly easy for nations and even cults to produce if they are willing to wait and invest appropriately.

More importantly, they are far harder to stop the production of. The shit you use to incubate many bio-weapons is the same basic shit for making drugs like penicillin or anything else derived from micro-organisms. Fact is we're living in an age where altering the genetics of a micro-organism is becoming increasingly easy so it is possible for a group to even target sections of the population or turn whatever disease they have into something far worse.


The main reason you don't see bio-weapons are that they are unreliable in death count, quite easily stopped by 1st world countries, take awhile to begin producing (getting a viable sample, making it deadly enough, mass production), are difficulty to deploy (diseases and parasites can be finicky to store and deployment can be anything from aerosols to food) and costly to fund unless you plan on killing only a few people (need a far smaller amount, production is harder to detect, delivery is simplified but initial difficulty in getting the disease remains).

Kek/10
Just graduated as a microbiologist and this got me

you must be autistic
>I want to have a WMD
>will the ATF shoot my dog?
no the fucking ATF won't care because the CDC and the FBI will fucking shoot your dog for te ATF because you have a disease that kills one of every two people who contract it.

>it is possible for a group to even target sections of the population

That's just the stuff of science fiction and doomsday novels. Viruses evolved to be too picky about the DNA they can use for reproduction. You can't just make them only target han chinese people or something.

>quite easily stopped by 1st world countries
How so? Also, it amazes me that modern kit for soldiers don’t have anything in the way of protecting them from modern bio/chemical weapons. Having a gas mask and only a gas mask just doesn’t cut it.

*not be too picky

Yet...

Attached: D7D83BAA-8D5F-4A23-AD42-B5AEDAB03A27.jpg (220x330, 34K)

The more effective the government, the more easily it can stop diseases from spreading. Curfews, marshal law, handing out pre packaged food and water. They can make it so that a virus will go extinct in a city by stopping it from infecting new people.

you are too new to post

>That's just the stuff of science fiction and doomsday novels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon

The principle is there and trust me when I say that it is a matter of time if anyone had a genuine interest in it. Consider that in the wikipedia page I've linked, there were medical experts saying that such a weapon was a risk as long as a decade ago. Nukes went from essentially unconsidered to developed in about 45 years, if your going from the discovery of radium to deployment or 10 years if you go from the patent for the idea of a runaway nuclear reaction caused by neutrons to deployment.

theguardian.com/science/2010/apr/22/modified-viruses-cancer-cells-research

Using the same basic principle, a sample of the target population and knowledge of the complete human genome targeting a certain group isn't impossible. It's possible someone has already developed the weapon, yet they've not had the balls to deploy it.

>How so?
They have the greatest capacity to treat a strain of a disease they've never encountered thanks to the largest amount of resources they can throw at the problem. Admittedly they'd also be hit the hardest depending on how the weapon is designed and spread.

>Also, it amazes me that modern kit for soldiers don’t have anything in the way of protecting them from modern bio/chemical weapons. Having a gas mask and only a gas mask just doesn’t cut it.
Bio-weapons aren't that big of a risk for a military but the main problem is that equipping your troops to prevent a Biological or chemical attack from killing them is expensive, reduces their ability to fight and could be entirely useless.

I also remember about the US attempting to devise a way to detect airborne bio-weapons but it proving too sensitive, bulky and expensive to deploy. One interesting thing, the US did once have a very well funded biological weapons research program. Then the cold war ended and all the funding for vaccines went away.