Bio-Weapons That Eat Ammunition and Fuel

1gor writes: "This article in The Observer mentions Pentagon's plans to use genetically modified bugs that 'eat' the enemy's fuel and ammunition supplies without harming humans (they also want to to pacify the enemy by spraying Valium). Imagine an escaped virus destroying the Earth's oil reserves and its whole industrial potential? Curiously, the military may implement the environmentalists' ultimate dream!"

Comments

targeting doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

how exactly the enemy is targeted?
couldnt the germs run amok/ transfer genes to other germs somehow. what if the lab vessel breaks before deployment.
combine with nanomachines, mini nuclearexplosions (or mini cold fusion) ....great!
those finchuks hiding under stones will take over the earth, just like we did till the strutting dinos huffed for the last time

2nd p

Kevin J Anderson wrote this

[knodi]

"A supertanker has crashed off the shores of San Francisco, producing the largest oil spill in history. Desperate to avert an ecological--and public relations--disaster, a multinational oil company releases an untested virus designed to break up the spill. A virus that spreads like wildfire on the wind, destroying anything made of petroleum-destroying gasoline in automobile tanks, plastic, nylon, the very fabric of modern civilization itself."

-Summary of Ill Wind, by Kevin J Anderson.
One of my favorite post apocalyptic science fiction novels. Awesome read. Coolest part is that most guns can now fire exactly once, if they were already loaded, because the lubricant inside has turned to glue.

They would be dumb

[Tri0de]

to at least not research it. All research is good, all knowledge and information is good; the application may be bad, but I have major contempt for people who say "we shouldn't look into this at all". Personally, once the internal combustion engine is a thing of the past the earth will be a much better place.
And still can't decide which is the bigger mindfuck of a pacifier, broadcast TV or this Valium spray.

Re:They would be dumb

[TGK]

Nazi research on the Jews, specificly research pretaining to the effects of low presures and temperatures on the human body was the foundation of our space program (and our ability to develop the a space suit).

Japanese research into the effects of various viruses/bacterium on the human body in unit 731 (frequently considred a great deal more vicious than the Nazi research) yeilded results which the US would keep secret until the 1980s for use in our own biowarfare programs. (Hypotheticly ending in 1972).

This is to say nothing of more engineering related research done by the Nazis such as balistic rocketry (space program), jet engines, and hydrogen based power plants for submarines (precurser to the modern fuel cell? I'm not sure on that one).

Re:They would be dumb

[cureless]

I somewhat disagree.

I would think that it's our obligation to use that knowledge. Not because we agree with how it was obtained, but because those people shouldn't have died in vain. It is, however, our duty to make sure research is done the right way. But if we learn something from "mistakes" it doesn't mean that knowledge is bad.

I see more controversial the research in military weapons or tactics, which definately are going to be used for war/destruction.

Take the knowledge that we might have "wrongfully" gained and start doing good stuff, solve cancer or something.

cl

valium .. too expensive

[jest3r]

Valium is pretty expensive to produce let alone spray over large areas ..

I would suggest dropping massive amounts of Cannabis sativa seeds .. they are easily and cheaply produced .. since it is a weed it spreads very quickly - grows well in tropical climates .. and has muliple uses ..

In fact there is a very real possibility that this approach could turn the enemy into a bunch of friendly peaceful pot smoking farmers ..

The Andromeda Strain

[cybrpnk2]

This is, of course, how Michael Crichton's original bestseller The Andromeda Strain ended when it was written almost a quarter century ago. As this review so aptly notes, TAS is still ahead of its time. Perhaps it's worth a quick (re)read?

the picture is a lot bigger than that.

[joshuaos]

I can hardly imagine the deprivation of a resource our people have used for scarcely a few centuries to be that catastrophic an event. Yes, we're very dependent on it, yes there would be lots of havoc and whatnot, but we'd get over it pretty quick. Nuclear is far from the only alternative available to us (btw, a buddy of mine is a nuclear engineer, and he would argue I'm sure with your statement, "there are no nuclear engineers anymore"). Not only are there some very sound agricultural power possibilities (hemp burns almost as hot as coal, not to mention the fact that the first deisel engine ran on peanut oil, so I'm sure the combustion motor will survive the end of the oil.

Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this. There have been quite a few proposed solutions to problems like the power problem that may not have gotten quite the attention they deserved due to reasons quite different from their viability. Some of these have included Viktor Schauberger (web resources on him aren't nearly as good as the print books available, check amazon.com), and although a bit cliche, Nicola Tesla.

Anyway, empires have crashed before, sudden catastrophic change has much historical president. I'm not worried about the power going out. We'll survive.

Cheers, Joshua

There is no alternative to oil.

[xtal]

The unfortunate problem is that there is no current alternative to oil. If you look at the raw number of BTUs being consumed, there is nothing that will even come close. This is going to be a big issue for people to deal with. The alternative to oil currently isn't clean. It's coal. There's lots, and lots, and LOTS of coal. Coal, unfortunately, is nasty stuff, containing trace elements of just about everything.

Take a look around sometime, and just try an imagine the sheer volume of oil and the amount of energy it represents. The processing of energy drives our entire civilization, and in it's current form, that means the processing of oil.

The only other (currently) possible alternatives are nuclear technologies, be they fission, hot, or cold fusion. This is possibly the saviour of the planet, but the environmentalists are hell-bent to stop nuclear research and testing at all costs. Solar, wind, and wave power can make contributions but the infrastructure and maintenance required make these unrealistic alternatives.

Thermodynamics is harsh stuff.

Re:There is no alternative to oil.

[no_choice]

The unfortunate problem is that there is no current alternative to oil...Solar, wind, and wave power can make contributions but the infrastructure and maintenance required make these unrealistic alternatives.

Solar, wind, etc. are MORE EXPENSIVE than burning oil for energy, at least when you don't take the hidden environmental and social costs into account (as our current social structure doesn't). This does not mean that those alternative forms of energy are "UNREALISTIC," just that in order to start using them on a large scale we would need to make a social adjustment.

Yes, there would be consequences from making such an adjustment. We might need to drive smaller cars or use public transportation more; pay more for electricity and for goods that take a lot of energy to manufacture, etc.

But there will also be consequences from continuing to rely on oil. Doing so sends tens of billions of dollars every year to our deadliest enemies (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya) who use the money to finance terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction. If these weapons should one day be used against us, they could cost the world tens or hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of damages, and tens of millions of lost lives. The chances of this actually happening are substantial, and are substantially enhanced by our providing our enemies with tens of billions of dollars each year.

The environmental risks are also significant. There is at least a significant possibility that our continued use of oil would contribute significantly to changing the global climate in ways that could be catastrophic.

As I said in my original post, making the transition would be wrenching in the short term, but highly beneficial in the long term. The question is, would it be worth it? Since I don't care so much about driving an SUV, and I do care about avoiding arming our enemies and seeing our coastal cities flooded, for me, the answer is obvious.

Re:Environmentalist's dream?

[cadallin451]

Your first point is an issue of implementation, and therefore isn't really valid against nuclear power in general. Your second point is just absurd "if a plant ever blew up," there are so many reasons that wouldn't happen its ridiculous to even think about it. Of course it could happen, but its also possible that your car's gas tank could spontaneously explode, but you don't spend too much time worrying about that, do you? There's way too much radiation paranoia in the US, its just not that big a threat. The real issue is heat pollution, but that's an engineering problem that simply requires adequate water reservoirs and cooling.

Solar is not a viable solution for power, we just don't possess technology to obtain anywhere near the efficiency required. When someone designs a solar cell that is actually capable of converting a significant percentage of the sunlight that hits it to electricity, then there will be an alternative. Solar power isn't infinite eitherer, there is a very definite finite number of joules that fall on the earth at any given time, that amount would be sufficient to sustain our power needs if we had some way to convert enough of it, but we don't.

Re:Environmentalist's dream?

[Gaccm]

i said "no affect on the enviornment" because 1) in all urban areas wires are in place and panels are installed on roofs. and 2) in nature the only places panels are installed are in deserts because of the high amount of light there, so there is no very large impact by installation.
Also, its not about having 1 giant streak, its about massive decentralization in places were it wouldn't have a large affect.

Re:Bugs already eat diesel!

[Easy2RememberNick]

Why and how bugs eat diesel