Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Continues Biological Warfare Research
merryprankster writes "Researchers at Saint Louis University
have engineered a strain of mouse-pox virus which kills 100% of
animals it infects - even when the mice have been treated with vaccination
and anti-virals. The deadliness of the virus is related to the addition of a
protein IL-4 which shuts down cell-mediated immune response. The engineered
virus is not contagious and does not affect humans but the research has drawn
some condemnation as being dangerous and
unnecessary."
Seriously, what is the point of engineering something like this?
If it was another country's research team we'd probably be invading by now...
evil adrian
And not only will we kell the enemy, but a virulent strain of smallpox could wipe us all out.
Bravo to these fellows, now how about working on a cure for cancer!
In order to stop people that are opposed to us, we can use germ warfare against them. No nation has any right to do this except the US, since we know best.
which kills 100% of animals it infects - even when the mice have been treated with vaccination and anti-virals
Finally, we can destroy our mice overlords!
Yeah, don't worry, it doesn't infect humans.
Er, wait.
The work has not stopped there. The cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals including humans, has been genetically altered in a similar way.
Uh-oh.
I graduated from St. Louis University Med school last spring and I had a friend in the grad program there who had mentioned to me several times they messed with some really deadly viruses that they had created. I always figured she was exaggerating....guess not.
The interesting thing about this, according to the article, is the IL-4 gene gives the virus its potency, but at the same time keeps it from being contagious. Apparently, they are not sure why. Sounds like the real scary part will be once they figure that out and someone figures out a work around.
I hear that all these liberals on here might actually attack this web server by reloading the article multiple times, so I decided to copy it.
US develops lethal new viruses
19:00 29 October 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
A scientist funded by the US government has deliberately created an extremely deadly form of mousepox, a relative of the smallpox virus, through genetic engineering.
The new virus kills all mice even if they have been given antiviral drugs as well as a vaccine that would normally protect them.
The work has not stopped there. The cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals including humans, has been genetically altered in a similar way.
The new virus, which is about to be tested on animals, should be lethal only to mice, Mark Buller of the University of St Louis told New Scientist. He says his work is necessary to explore what bioterrorists might do.
But the research brings closer the prospect of pox viruses that cause only mild infections in humans being turned into diseases lethal even to people who have been vaccinated.
And vaccines are currently our main defence against smallpox and its relatives, such as the monkeypox that reached the US this year. Some researchers think the latest research is risky and unnecessary.
"I have great concern about doing this in a pox virus that can cross species," said Ian Ramshaw of the Australian National University in Canberra on being told of Buller's work.
Ramshaw was a member of the team that accidentally discovered how to make mousepox more deadly (New Scientist, 13 January 2001). But the modified mousepox his team created was not as deadly as Buller's.
No rebound
Since then, Ramshaw told New Scientist, his team has also created more deadly forms of mousepox, and has used the same method to engineer a more deadly rabbitpox virus.
But this research revealed that the modified pox viruses are not contagious, he says. That is good news in the sense that these viruses could not cause ecological havoc by wiping out mouse or rabbit populations around the world if they escaped from a lab.
However, this discovery also means some bioterrorists might be more tempted to use the same trick to modify a pox virus that infects humans. Such a disease, like anthrax, would infect only those directly exposed to it. It would not spread around the world and rebound on the attackers. But there is no guarantee that other pox viruses modified in a similar way would also be non-contagious.
Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.
Instead, the modified mousepox virus was far more lethal, killing 60 per cent of vaccinated mice. The addition of IL-4 seems to switch off a key part of the immune system called the cell-mediated response.
Maximised production
Now Buller has engineered a mousepox strain that kills 100 per cent of vaccinated mice, even when they were also treated with the antiviral drug cidofovir. A monoclonal antibody that mops up IL-4 did save some, however.
His team "optimised" the virus by placing the IL-4 gene in a different part of the viral genome and adding a promoter sequence to maximise production of the IL-4 protein, he told a biosecurity conference in Geneva last week.
Buller has also constructed a cowpox virus containing the mouse IL-4 gene, which is about to be tested on mice at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Cowpox infects people, but Buller says the IL-4 protein is species-specific and would not affect the human immune system. The experiments are being done at the second-highest level of biological containment.
Nine-eleven
Don't jump the gun thinking this might be a solution to the sco problem. The article is quite clear: it only affects mice, not rats.
Because we all know that "free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction." (direct quote from the unelected fraud, GW Bush).
I was about to ask how many it infects, but I RTFA-ed. :
So the answer is
The new virus kills all mice even if they have been given antiviral drugs as well as a vaccine that would normally protect them.
i.e. : it kills them all.
(BTW: Tompox has nothing to do with this virus.)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
how exactly did they find out that it doesn't affect humans?
Did someone slip some in some poor guy's drink?
Don't worry folks, viruses never mutate. There's no chance that a non-contageous virus could become airborne or bloodborne, and there's absolutely no way it could start affecting people. The fact that the US military has created a vaccine proof superbug with a 100% kill rate shouldn't bother anyone.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Last time I heard viruses used mutate.
I'm stunned nobody has stuck a cock in your mouth. You seriously look like that's what you want, you poor cock-starved hunk.
But it seems like they haven't a cure for your "shit-in-place-of-the-brain" disease. Sorry.
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
It's one thing to experiment and end up going somewhere with it accidently, and it's another thing to research such directions in order to make vaccines and better treatments if one fears that one's enemies will attack with such, but creating something like this just seems stupid. Even if this particular agent doesn't strike humans, what's to say that the next one won't be capable?
We've use two nuclear weapons in the course of history, and we've never needed to use them again. I don't want us to use something worse. This definitely strikes me as worse, and a lot harder to store safely than even all of the nuclear weapons that we have.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Let's see...a researcher at a University is working with a strain of virus to develop better and stronger immunization agents. To do this he needs to figure out what he might be up against that terrorists might feasibly make. The ignorance of the poster, Michael, on science is glaring and obvious. The government funds tons of research every year - it's called grants. If you want to say they are funding bioweapons research look in military R&D labs, not in a University environment. Since the US has basically said they will not do bioweapons research, don't you think doing research in such a public way would be a bit obvious? I mean, getting a grant, publishing papers, etc. on this kind of obliterates the 'secrecy' that would be needed. And, part of the VAST majority of grant stipulations is that you must publish your results. Then again, the poster checked into all of this before making hs accusatory and 100% factual title right? Or...he at least read the article...right?
Yeah, Christians have been much more civilized throughout history.
This seems a monumentally bad idea. Even if you accept a need for weaponized biologicals (the logical extension of this), they don't do you any good unless you have a way to immunize your own guys.
To say nothing of the fact that we're practically giving North Korea the ability to wipe out our entire mouse population in one fell swoop. What will we do without the mice, dammit?
So let me get this straight, we know have a virus that will kill animal life, but not humans. We have now engineered a way to kill off most of our food chain? I really fail to see why someone would want to do this.
Go Science!
-Runz
Don't touch them! These mice have been infected
with RAGE....
God is my Palm Pilot.
How could you guys not be grateful? Our country is going through a very difficult time right now. ZAP! Oh wait, i'm not american.
did you even read the blurb at the top of the page? and I quote: "The engineered virus is not contagious and does not affect humans"
even so..... lets say we did not work on this stuff at all.... sooner or later Osama or some Osama wannabe will get around to making something like this. I would rather we research it before he or anyone else does, so we might be able to counteract the effects. You create anti-venom from venom you know... same with vaccines against things like this.
This post cannot be re-broadcast without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
Come on now. This is nothing new. The U.S. has been conducting biological warefare research for years with no abatement as evidenced by a number of facilities in the west desert of Utah, and high level facilities all over the U.S. I should add that the U.S. is not the only country doing this, but given the cost of biological research, we are most likely at the forefront. Why do you think that the DOD has been so interested in AIDS research? As much as I would like to believe that the Whitehouse's goals and ambitions for AIDS work are good, there are obvious biological questions that are being examined with respect to induced autoimmune deficiency. There are many other potential viral and bacterial questions that could also inform biowarefare research as well.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
If it were discovered that North Korea, Iran, Syria or any country not currently "in" with the US was performing such research, they'd have been bombed, denounced and had their land divided up and sold to the highest bidder by now. Since it's papa US though, nothing can or will go wrong. This potentially lethal research will never be used for anything apart from stopping nasty TERRORISTS from destroying your FREEDOMS.
I guess Disney needs to buy some SARS masks for Mickey and Minnie . . .
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Imagine yourself in Afrika and a terrorist Tiger could eat your ass.
Why must we find new and more efficient ways to kill the whole world? Information, once known, is like a genie out of a bottle. It's only going to end up with more and more people knowing about it. Unless you kill everyone that knows about it, and destroy all papers, it's a one-way slope.
This is like having an argument with Russians when they say, "Aaaah, but we've got more nukes than you have." Seriously, what's the point?
Get your own free personal location tracker
I'd say we europeans invade the US, try to hunt down bush (and won't find him since he's obviously too small to notice anyway), overthrow the senate by putting all their pictures on a card game, and waste billions of tax payers money on rebuilding the country. /me wakes up from dreaming
In the article, it says that even with a vaccine, the mice would still die and that it is not contagious. However, if it were modified to be contagious, how fast would it kill? If it kills too fast, then it will not spread and it really is not a big deal. If it can be transmitted before a carrier even before he or she knows that they have been infected and it is able to spread to other people quickly, then there would be cause for worry. Until then, I am not too worried.
Now, where did I leave my face mask and latex gloves? ummm...
Please get educated before you make ignorant news posts - particularly on the front page.
Technically, a fatal virus does cure cancer. You can't have cancer if your dead.
... and they are telling Korea to stop their nuclear program ... how pathetic
What is the distinction between humans and animals again? - remorse for the outcome of their actions?
I think they certainly feel richer!:o) Richer than the anonymous scientists working on cancer cure, without Army fundings.
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
If it were discovered that it was North Korea, Syria, or any other nation currently on US's private hate list was performing this research (even if the research was being performed IN the country, unsupported by government funding) then that country would have been bombed, "freed", and had it's land cut into strips and sold to the highest bidder by now.
Sadly, since this is papa US with the research, nothing can go wrong. This will only be used for catching nasty evil TERRORISTS intent on stealing your FREEDOMS.
Or doesn't it matter because they're the "good guys"?
The deadliness of the virus is related to the addition of a protein IL-4 which shuts down cell-mediated immune response.
Wow, just wow! I can't believe people don't realize how useful this is, and how off base the news poster really is. It was not developed to become a means to kill people. Being able to deactivate the entire immune system with a virus is such a huge leap forward. Now we can see how various biological processes work in the absence of the immune system. We have never been able to supress the immune system on this level. We can learn what functions definately need the immune system, gain new insight into autoimmune disease, and so on. Science always advances by altering or eliminating a variable and observing what happens to the others. I'm sure this sounds awfully familiar to all you CS people who spend hours debugging. Next time think before jumping to the OMG DEY R TEH Ev1L!!!11 conclusion.
I'm not going to say I'm the most moral person in the world, but really guys, how can any scientist justify working on something like this? I have to think that, given the opportunity, I would turn down the opportunity to engineer a mega-virus capable of killing all life (or all of a particular kind of life) without any antiviral agent being simultaneously developed. What can these guys possibly be thinking when they wake up in the morning, head off to work, and gleefully create the next ice-nine?
I don't think I could look my son in the face if this was the kind of work I did.
Downloading mousepox ...er, um 4.9 right now!
still no cure for cancer...
[o]_O
Although the fact that someone was able to do this is frightening to say the least, hopefully since we were able to do it first will give us a chance to develop a treatment (if there is one) before anyone else would have the chance to use it. If one person (or group) can develop this strain of virus then another group can also, after all. To do other is the equivalent to burying one's head in the ground and hope that since we haven't developed it, no one else will either.
With continued research in such areas as creating biological weapons. Considering the eventualities of such efforts, What are the odds that something like this could escape the control of the lab environment and upset the ecosystem by destroying any arbitrary link in the food chain on a regional if not GLOBAL scale?
while I feel biological research is very important for curing disease and STOPING biological warfare. I think ANY efforts on the part of ANY governing body, to attempt to CREATE such threats should be (if it is not already) considered illegal. What does the international Community think about this?
...And you wonder why people hate Americans?
"Despite the concerns, work on lethal new pox viruses seems likely to continue in the US. When members of the audience in Geneva questioned the need for such experiments, an American voice in the back boomed out: "Nine-eleven". There were murmurs of agreement." GOOD LORD! ARE THE TERRORISTS GOING TO BE PUTTING THIS SHIT ON BOXCUTTERS NOW?! DOES THEYRE EVIL HAVE NO END!
Why is such research done? It's so that we'll understand how these things work. Should we wait until somebody releases a virus like this in a city and then say "wow, we've never seen anything like this before - we have absolutely no clue how it's making people sick." Or would you rather have them come forward and say "ya, we've actually seen this before - don't bother administering anti-viral medication, instead take this other medication."
Don't over react people. We aren't weaponizing this stuff. This is just the biological equivalent of bug traq.
A couple of people have tried to draw a comparison between the US doing this research and another country, say pre-war Iraq. It's amazing to me that anyone could be so stupid as to not see the difference. If Iraq has WMDs then Saddam holds all that power himself. He can kill on a whim. The president of the US cannot go to war without the support of congress and the American people. Congress funds the military and if they withhold the money there'll be no more fuel for the tanks and no more bullets for the guns. If Saddam decided to attack Iran, well that's it. Iraq attacks Iran. If Bush wakes up one morning and decides to invade Canada, he'd be impeached and run out of Washington. If you disagree with the war on Iraq (and you are an American) then you'll have your chance to vote Bush out in less than one year. If you didn't like Saddam you'd best keep your mouth shut - he'd drop you into a chipper shredder. I just can't believe that someone can't see the difference.
Buller has also constructed a cowpox virus containing the mouse IL-4 gene, which is about to be tested on mice at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Cowpox infects people, but Buller says the IL-4 protein is species-specific and would not affect the human immune system. The experiments are being done at the second-highest level of biological containment.
My only concern is the simple fact:
Nothing is so simple that it can't be screwed up.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Oh Yeah? Come and get us? What, you think not? Why am I not surprised.
When did Toby Keith start reading /.? hell when did he start reading at all?
Virus which only affects cats and dogs, somehow gets out of the lab and wipes them all out. We then start using apes for pets and ... oh crap.
This is nothing new. Using IL-4 in mousepox has been done already in 2001.
http://www.csis.org/tech/ssi/sonsw/s_shenk.pdf
I hope this never gets in the wild. I would hate to have to switch to a damn trackball.
North Korean is working on race specific bioweapons that will only affect non-Koreans or people without a gene common to Koreans.
No, they obviously haven't, however we don't live back then. Radical Muslims are the #1 international problem right now. Sure, people are starving and some countries are in civil wars, but the famine isn't going to visit destruction upon foreign countries. People will always be starving and combating internal strife. When internal goes external the priority of the issue goes up.
Religion is the most destructive thing in history. The screwed up concept of right and wrong inherent in Islam is the current problem. In the past, it was other religions with similarly messed up concepts of right and wrong. Islam as it is today needs to be ended. If the guys with the bombs could get it through their ignorant heads that when you blow up - you don't go to some Xanadu and get showered with virgins, this would all go away.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
It's a weapon. It's supposed to be dangerous and unnecessary.
This isn't about creating deadly viruses for the sake of creating deadly viruses. Viruses can get deadly on their own. Terrorists or other governments might do the same work as well.
What this is really about is to figure out how stuff works. How viruses work. How these super viruses work. Because when you know how a thing works, you're that much closer to being able to prevent it. If this IL-4 makes a virus super deadly, then it's a damn good idea to know exactly how that protein works and come up with a way to prevent it from working in case of an outbreak (through whatever causes).
Only by knowing the mechanisms behind such killers can they be stopped. It's disingenious to think that if he hadn't created it it would have never existed. Mankind can't really play god, because all those parts we use to create such things already exist somewhere. By knowing how they work, we can hopefully prevent them from working when/if it ever becomes necessary to do so.
More power to these researchers, I say.
Why bother? I hardly think he'll win the next election. I think the poll turnout for the California recall is a good estimate of how a lot of people are fed up with the same ol' boys running the show. What were the percentages of people who voted, near 70% I thought I heard? To me thats amazing, since I always assume poll turnout is about 50% or less. I'd wager that the presidential election is above 60% next time. Too bad Hillary isn't running, that would bring out even more people (both for and against). That would be funny, looking at history books a hundred years from now. Seeing Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton in a list of presidents and knowing none of them are the same person.
Alas, if you do overthrow Bush, disband congress while your at it, and maybe a handfull of judges. Why do the federal supreme court judges get exempt from being voted in, and not have term limits? I call shenannigans.
http://www.csis.org/tech/ssi/sonsw/s_shenk.pdf
Lots of people seem terrified at the idea terrorists could use chemical or biological agents, but it doesn't seem that many have read about the effective use of such things. They are actually extremelly difficult to use effectively, as early attempts by the Aum sect to spread anthrax proved. it was discovered only after the sarin attacks in the Tokyo metro that other attacks had been done but had been such failures that they had not even been detected.
Besides, even though many country do persue defensive research on bio-chemical weapons, I cannot see how this could be taken as preventive measures. And anyway, what kind of terrorists would have access to such high techonology labs as the ones that can created genetically modified virus ? If a country was capable of producing the thing, it would never give it to terrorist groups, because it would immediatly designate it as aggressor and target for retaliation (and the argument "terrorists could steal virus from University of St Louis" is very specious). "real" terrorists just grab a RPG-7 or AK-47, there are plenty lying around. 11 September was done with cutters, that is, very very limited means, bt lots of brains.
When members of the audience in Geneva questioned the need for such experiments, an American voice in the back boomed out: "Nine-eleven".
He says his work is necessary to explore what bioterrorists might do.
Now we might have an explanation to this strangelovistic reasearch : concatenation of "GMO" and "terrorism"... double-plus irrationally hysterical, are we ?
Gee, and I was comforted when Edward Teller died...
OH yes, I can just see the testing scenario now:
Lab Dude "so we want to you to go in that room while we seal you in and then just open up that little vial on the workbench in there, OK?"
Guinea Pig "sure, do I get paid now or after"
Lab Manager "oh
--- This meme is memory intensive
We are not going to for one simple reason:
The United States of America is the only country in the world to use Weapons of Mass Destruction (excluding chemicals) on another populace.
1) It occured to me a while back that some of our scientific progress was mistimed and oportunity was missed. My idea was this: I wish someone in the 60s or 70s had seen two developing trends and combined them for mutual benefit of all. What could have been done is that a strong international body could have declared that research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would be severely limited on Earth. Earth would be declared a GM free zone. All research on GM must be conducted on Mars. However, first Mars must be mapped, surveyed, and analyzed to a level that we feel we understand its general environment before we arrive there. Second, a reasonable assessment must be made to determine that no unique life forms exist there. Third, Earth based companies are granted territory on Mars to conduct research. They can figure out how to get there and such with their own money. If this had been done I would bet that we would know more about Mars, GMOs, and numerous other spin-off technologies than we do now. As a side benefit, Earth would be arguably more safe than it is now. I am aware that there are problems with this idea. It is mostly an exercise in historical sci-fi that I have been playing around with in my head. I still think the idea of restricting certain kinds of research to areas off the Earth as a protection for all the species is an interesting idea.
2) I find this kind of research much more frigtening than any nanotech grey goo scenario. The equipment necessary for messing around with DNA like this is much cheaper than a nanotech fab.
like g-a-r-y, only different
The title of this article would have people thinking this mouse-pox was created in an evil underground bunker by the U.S. Military. Is a strain of mouse-pox created and documented at a university a weapon now?
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
If you are more interested in the possibilities of using pox viruses as biological weapons, I recommend Richard Preston's "The Demon in the Freezer". Excellent book, also has some background on the earlier IL-4 experiments with mouse pox.
Is it just me, or is the US acting more and more like a rogue nation? Who draws the line, and when?
You do know, of course, that the plain old smallpox virus is quite virulent enough on its own? That the present-day American population is as vulnerable to smallpox as the Indians were when Columbus arrived? Nah, sorry for injecting facts into an emotional discussion.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Despite the concerns, work on lethal new pox viruses seems likely to continue in the US. When members of the audience in Geneva questioned the need for such experiments, an American voice in the back boomed out: "Nine-eleven". There were murmurs of agreement.
What has 9/11 to do with this? Could this virus have prevented the attack? Or any biological/chemical weapon for that matter?
9/11 has been used as an excuse for too long now to have any real meaning.
Americans have given up alot of privacy for nothing (as most allready know). The rest of the world has been ordered by the USA to change identification documents or face economical consequences, hand over flight information (including information which has nothing to do with the possibility of being a terrorist), Iraq have been invaded with this as an excuse whil everyone and their mother know right now that there has been no evidence of Iraq being involved with 9/11 and people are still being bombarded with laws and organisations that are supposedly to stop another attack.
ignorance IS bliss i guess - pull your head outta your ass and give it a shake
What are we gonna do now Brain? Narf! -Pinky
AHHH THEY'LL KELL US
Hey, that what we need, is a virus that kills all life. I can see it now, when aliens visit this planet millions of years later there is nothing left but the virus.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
She always claimed to be in the Theatre department, but now I'm starting to have my doubts...
--AC
I'm seriously curious: at what point do you think Christianity magically made this transition you're saying it underwent -- from the old, whacked-out ideas about good and evil to our supposed modern enlightened ones?
I have relatives in Oklahoma whose southern Baptist faith qualifies in all the areas you're laying into Islam about.
Before 9/11, the worst act of terror on US soil was by a couple of right-wing radical white guys. My Oklahoma relations were all for what Tim McVeigh stood for -- though they had some misgivings about his methods. Afterward they seemed rather torn about what had happened. They liked that it was a blow against the government, and had vague ideas about scoring points against Clinton somehow. But seeing the child in that firefighter's arms, that caused just a note of cognitive dissonance for them. Just a note.
Walk back a step. U.S. post-civil-war reconstruction was torn apart by the KKK's acts of political violence. The KKK was and is almost exclusively made up of white Christians. They think of their religion as one of the buttresses of their movement, and cite the Bible in defense of their ideas. Your shift can't have happened before 1870, then.
but the famine isn't going to visit destruction upon foreign countries.
No, our right-wing, avowedly Christian President will take care of that.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The engineered virus is not contagious and does not affect humans
Why do I have a feeling something like that will be our epitaph?
Seriously, this is just the high-tech version of the punchline "hey, watch this!"
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
One problem w/ this sort of research is it comes off as very, very hypocritical to the rest of the world. Particularly the 3rd world. It is exactly for this reason that India/Pakistan have not signed the nonproliferation treaty. America wants to have it both ways, (1) Though shalt not deal w/ chemical/biological/nuclear weapons on "mass direction" (2) Except if you are america. The US can get away w/ this because it is an economic powerhouse and sanctions affect smaller countries on a large scale. But this blatant hypocracy gives credence to any powerhouse thug wannabe to start/develop any "mass destruction" programs because the "bad guys" (read americans) are already doing it and so if they don't they will get wiped out. You can't expect people to follow rules that you yourself do not follow. It doesn't work for children and it doesn't work for countries.
-bloo
This is not a troll. If you mod based on your politics, you're a fucking idiot. Then again, since you already modded it down, I know you're a bleeding liberal scumbag.
You'd never admit he won it, if he did. People like you have always got one excuse or another for why your views aren't made popular or why you don't get what you want. Paranoia and conspiracy are your oars on the River of Critical Thinking.
As for federal judges.. it's not like the US Constitution has been a classified secret document all these years. Go check it out, it has some neat stuff in it.
Ahhh...so they vote for an actor as governor. Arrrrrrrnaaaald! Shit, that's really all I have to say. That's the joke and the punchline. Just say his name and you've invented your own joke.
Zodiac Survey
is available for your enjoyment.
judging (& we do) by the latest pateNTdead eyecon0meter readings, unprecedented evile, aka corepirate nazi execrable, is as close to being on it's felonious knees as it's going to get.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator... get ready to see the light.
A fine example of how little integrity it takes to job an article so that you can make a pathetic claim at the moral high ground.
Nowhere in the article is it stated that the new strain of mousepox kills "all animals" infected.
This is simply another case where the US can do whatever in the hell it pleases, and the rest of the world can do nothing about it.
We are now guilty of illegally invading a foreign country without any direct threat of war or attack or in assistance to another country, but simply based on political agenda, public ignorance, public fear mongering, and propoganda about WMD. Yet, the US is still able to produce WMD as freely as it wishes and can use them to threaten foreign powers. The same with nuclear weapons. The two reasons the US is at war right now to begin with.
The US is not a world democracy, but a world hypocrisy. We can do it, but NOBODY else can. And there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Do we need ANOTHER WMD? The answer is, we don't.
No need to worry, folks: "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
Here are some links to help keep this discussion a bit closer to the facts:
Follow this link to the FAS site, then follow the individual country links to get to the listings of the individual county's programs. As you will see, there are more than a few countries with more than just research programs.
Putting "In Soviet Russia" jokes aside, here is a link to an article about a specific Soviet facility built in the 1970s which was building weapons and conducting research long after the Biological Weapons treaties went into effect.
I hear that all these liberals on here might actually attack this web server by reloading the article multiple times, so I decided to copy it.
Liberals are more likely to spread this info than try and cover it up. That is the antics of the republican party.
I'm sorry that you have to see the world in such a black and white way. This transition is not like flipping a light switch; on or off. Instead it is a gradual process that began with the enlightenment. Obviously given that Jerry Falwell exists, the west hasn't completed the transition. But the transition is much further along here than it is in the Islamic world.
The United States of America is the only country in the world to use Weapons of Mass Destruction (excluding chemicals) on another populace.
If you allow for terrorist groups which subsequently became countries the US gets some company here...
If I had access to these researchers I would tell them that they have 60 minutes to prepare for death after which I would execute them with a 9mm pistol one after the other. Those not complying with orders or objecting receive a bullet in their abdomen and wait for their head-bullet until the last of the compliant ones has been executed. Seriously. I have as little regard for their lives as they have for mine :-)
The real terrorists are in Washingtyon D.C., and Dubya is just a shill.
Interesting how this looks after I've made a couple alterations... (Keep in mind this is only a joke, please don't bother with flamewars, because you probably don't even understand what you're looking at)
My fellow citizens, events in America have now reached the final days of decision.
For more than a decade, The United Nations have pursued patient and honourable efforts to disarm the American regime without war.
That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for peace.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy.
We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council.
We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of America.
Our good faith has not been returned.
The American regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.
It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding disarmament.
Over the years, UN weapons inspectors have been threatened by American officials, electronically bugged and systematically deceived.
Peaceful efforts to disarm the American regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the American regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Other nations and against America's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East.
It has a deep hatred of Canada and our friends and it has aided, trained and harboured terrorists, including operatives of Al-Queda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of their supporters, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.
The Canada and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it.
Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.
Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.
The United Nations has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring international security.
Recognising the threat to our world, the United Nations voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against America.
The UN tried to work with Congress to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.
We believe in the mission of the Americans.
One reason the UN was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.
George Bush and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours
In the case of America, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s.
Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the Canada and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding America of weapons of mass destruction.
This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
Last September, I went to the UN General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger.
On 8 November, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding America in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if America did not fully and immediately disarm.
Today, no nation can possibly claim that America has disarmed.
And it will not disarm so long as George W. Bush holds power.
For the last four and a half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that council's long-standing demands.
Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly annou
It's been a long time.
But there are other parts of his argument that are very valid:
The deadliness of the virus is related to the addition of a protein IL-4 which shuts down cell-mediated immune response.
It'd be nice to think that they are working on a way to defeat this protein so that when somebody creates a human version, we'll have something to defend against it.
Overall, though, it would be nice to just stop this kind of development anywhere and everywhere, so that we wouldn't have to think that way. But this is reality. I really have mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, another poster was right in that if we found, for example, Iran doing this, we'd be all over them for it. On the other hand, Iran and other countries are biological research anyway, so we might as well prepare for it.
These are the things that scare me (from the article):
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Didn't they elect a Republican for governor in California? Oh yeah, as for the Presidential election and Supreme Court Justice term limits, RTFC (Read The Fscking Constitution).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Liberals are more likely to spread this info than try and cover it up. That is the antics of the republican party.
Really?
Seems to me that the "Bimbo Eruptions" disprove that assertion. But I can dig back in history for more counter examples if you'd like.
The Rs have no monopoly on covering-up.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
it will read. Reagan,Bush,Clinton,Clinton,Bush,Bush,Clinton,some body with an (R),?
she will only get in when the republicans don't have anyone left... if Mayor Gulianni(spell?) doesn't run in 2008 she'll get it, but for only 1 term. mark my words. and unless the dems get a real canidate... not likely there all wack jobs right now Bush will win in 2004.
Are you realy saying that there are not enough .. And as for toads , its
viruses infections diferent organisms on this earth
that we actualy need to create a terible killing
virus so we can learn something ???? wake up man
you sound like you get paid for disinfo . The only
logical explanation is WMD and its no secret that
america is the BEST at that. Now let me ask you
a question , can you give me one good reason for
devoloping and not even using such weapons , even
if its a country thats way more logical then america? What is the purpose of all of this ???
And it sure as hell doesnt have real human interests in mind
a natural thing man , they are not going to wreck
the envoernment, they will just change it untill
they find the equilibrium and thats how nature
works (except for humans as agent smith said).
peace
dan
"The United States of America is the only country in the world to use Weapons of Mass Destruction (excluding chemicals) on another populace."
o ry .html
No, biowarfare has been around a very long time.
http://library.thinkquest.org/21659/agents/hist
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
> Of course I am now required by international law to point out that in fact, the US is the only country ever to use a WMD during wartime.
Incorrect. Since the moniker "WMD" is accepted to encompass nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, several countries are in with us, including Germany (mustard gas in WWI and serin gas against civilians in WWII) and France (also gas in WWI). The U.S. is currently the only country ever to use a nuclear device against an enemy in wartime, though (or any other time, for that matter).
Virg
By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent that has ever existed in the world.
The writer of this is an American who is very concerned about his government's participation in violence. In his opinion, a person doesn't really love his or her country unless he or she is willing to look at and understand areas where the country needs improvement. The same principle applies elsewhere. A man doesn't really love his wife if he turns his back when she is having serious, difficult-to-understand problems. And, a person doesn't really love himself or herself unless he or she tries to understand and resolve his or her own inner conflict.
Strictly speaking, it is the U.S. government that is responsible for the violence, not the people of the United States. Very, very few Americans understand the facts presented here. There are many Americans who support violence, and who angrily reject these facts, but even those probably would not want their money being spent on violence if they fully understood the financial and social impact on their lives.
The U.S. government has directly killed about 3,000,000 people since the beginning of the Vietnam war. Most of those, an estimated more than 2,000,000, were in Vietnam, a very poor country that did not threaten the United States.
Historians say that the number of people indirectly killed by the U.S. government is at least another 3,000,000, for a total of 6,000,000. For example, U.S. bombing of Cambodia left that country destabilized, and the forces of violence controlled Cambodia for years after the U.S. bombing.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google search engine or see the links below.
you really need to get out of the trailer and put down the crackpipe, those paintchips the kid down the street sold you are really taking effect.
Donald Trump:
"I would like a computer chip that I could attach to the brains of all my contractors so that they would know exactly what I wanted, when I wanted it, and at what price I wanted it. This would save me a lot of time and a lot of yelling."
Add one for the wife, kids and the rest of the world and it would all be juuust fine.
Those are about the most evil, wicked and for civilians devastating weapons in use today (even decades after they where planted) and just about every civilized country shuns them.
Sorry bub, but as long the US doesn't sign this treaty there's neither respect nor credit for such a sinister programs.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Actually, this has been around for some time. The original Austrailian Jackson-Ramshaw IL-4 mousepox experiment was conducted in 2000, and published in the Journal of Virology in February 2001.
For a more comprehensive discusson of the IL-4 inclusion, and of the threat of Smallpox in general, The Demon in the Freezer by Richard Preston (the same guy who wrote The Hot Zone, and, yeah - gimme my Amazon $.50...) talks about the history of smallpox, it's spread and eventual U.N. "eradication" (essentially trusting governments like North Korea, Libya and Saddam Hussein's Iraq to voluntarily destroy their stocks - and explicitly trusting the Former Soviet Union Bioreperat and United States CDC to keep the Djin in the bottle) and the effect of adding the mouse gene. Essentially, it renders all of our existing smallpox vacines - themselves based on a 200 year old recipe - impotent.
"A vaccine resistant smallpox would be everyone's worst nightmare come true," Preston writes about midway through the work. "We could be left trying to fight a genetically engineered virus with a vaccine that had been invented in 1796."
According to merryprankster, "the research has drawn some condemnation as being dangerous and unnecessary" - actually, in September of 2000, objections were raised to publication of the Jackson-Ramshaw IL-4 mousepox experiment at all on the grounds that it is a blueprint for the biological equivalent of a nuclear bomb--a recipe for a possibly vaccine-proof engineered smallpox.
But don't panic.
Carthago delenda est!
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
While I agree with you (and gandhi) about this, It seems to be that threatening to do this, will leave both able to see. Think MAD.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I come from a scientific background, and although I realize that sometimes people just want to know if something like this is possible, those same people have to step back and ask themselves what consequence their actions will play. Yeah yeah, I know, "they're just doing legitimate research, it would be some evil $TERRORIST who'd implement the virus" or whatever. Bullshit. There's a difference between seeing what effect genetically-engineered has on people & animals, and attepmting to engineer a strain of something that'd kill 100% of it's test subjects.
There are some scary days ahead of us if governments are openly supporting research like this.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
"He says his work is necessary to explore what bioterrorists might do."
Did I hear someone shouting "cold war" in the back rows? Thought so.
From the article:
Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.
Instead, the modified mousepox virus was far more lethal, killing 60 per cent of vaccinated mice. The addition of IL-4 seems to switch off a key part of the immune system called the cell-mediated response.
Okay. For all of you going on and on about how useful this research for preventing bioterrorism, keep in mind that this is not at all the original intent of the researchers.
They were trying to make an contagious but non-lethal virus whose sole function was to serve as a contraceptive. Instead, they ended up creating a highly lethal, non contagious virus.
Granted, it is difficult to know exactly what the effect of mutating or altering viruses will be on the animals they're introduced into, but this is sort of my point.
If you try modifying a virus to make it non-lethal, and it turns out to be lethal for most of your test subjects, it is not a good idea to to say, "Wow! Let's see what happens when we try that in *another* virus!"
Since they don't know why the introduction of IL-4 made the viruses non-transferable, they probably don't know enough about this virus modification to assume that other strains won't be contagious when it's introduced.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Not as I do.
'nuff said.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Denying is not the same as coverup or legal hiding.
A cover-up with lying is what Nixon and Reagan did.
A denial with lying is what Clinton did.
A coverup with lying and legal manipulation is what W. does constantly.
I have done my research online about cancer
and i can asure you that we have had cures for it
for a long time . Actualy the only cure for
cancer is you yourself , or you body rather.
Each person gets around 10 cancers in their lifetime,
but most bodies are in good condition and the
imune system can fight it off like a common cold.
Its when you imune system is weakened or it has
a vitamine, mineral or enzyme deficiency thats
when cancer keeps on growing and you cant fight
it fast enough . And there is no miracle cure
there is however proper diets and lifestyles
that will cure you of cancer and will prevent
it from ever getting out of controll again !!!!!
Alternative medicines have been all about that
and there is nothing alternative about them
when you take a closer look (eating right and keeping up the metabolism)
There is way more info online than any science
book ever hooped to provide. You just have
to be able to see trough the disinfo by using
your logic, which isnt that hard once you try!!!!
peace
dan
When the gene is passed on to another type of virus that can carry it, then we have a problem. The likelyhood that this virus can mutate to the point of being airbourne and being against human is not likely.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Damn, I wish I had mod points.
"The new virus, which is about to be tested on animals, should be lethal only to mice, Mark Buller of the University of St Louis told New Scientist."
Bugger it, let's just test it and find out, eh?
wtf. Why won't they ever learn. If it falls into terrorist hands, and is reengineered to attack human immune system.. I think I may as well give meself a dash of utanasia and get it over with!!
Sooo, when a engineered weapon only kills 80% of its victims and maims another 15% it's ok.
100% DEATH RATE?????? WHAT YOU THINKING YOU INHUMAN BASTARDS.
Gimme a break. It's all evil.
-- taking over the world, we are.
Oops - only after I posted, did I realize that a critical link was missing. The reason that the main post is interesting / scary is that the same experiments have been done including the IL-4 gene into human smallpox as well as mousepox. IL-4 enhanced smallpox has roughly the same lethal effect on humans as the mousepox does on mice in this experiment, and let me stress again, there is no vaccine for this genetically engineered virus.
Now, don't panic
Carthago delenda est!
I grew up in Oklahoma City. I was in high school on April 19, 1995. A lot of people in Oklahoma were pissed about what happened in Waco two years before, but no one would have dreamed of blowing up a building full of children and old people picking up Social Security checks. The "cognitive dissonance" your relatives felt is what we call "conscience". It's the same feeling most people get when we see children on TV that were maimed by our bombs in Iraq. Most Christian people I know, even Southern Baptists, have a conscience.
The dangerous thing about radical Islam is that the imams teach their "martyrs" to have no conscience. No conscience for the innocent people they kill, or the buried grief their own families will experience.
To quote from R-ing TFA:
Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.
Yes, I can see why we should stop all efforts to control introduced species. I agree with you that all environmental research is bad and must be stopped NOW.
Articles like this are the tip of the iceberg, and the ultra secret viruses are likely to be much worse. Not to mention, like the atomic secrets of the early century, the particulars have already leaked out to other parties. What we are seeing is the subtle harbinger of a much more disturbing kind of arms race. A lot of energy has been spent containing fissionable material, but nobody can contain the building blocks of life.
Denying is not the same as coverup or legal hiding.
A cover-up with lying is what Nixon and Reagan did.
A denial with lying is what Clinton did.
A coverup with lying and legal manipulation is what W. does constantly.
While you're at it, what does "is" mean?
Isn't the difference between a "coverup with lying" and a "denial with lying" just a matter of whether somebody discovered the thing you're covering up and accused you of it?
(And the last time I heard, lying under oath is called "perjury". And perjury to evade punishment for misbehavior and to deny your accuser justice and a judgement is called "obstruction of justice".)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
One thing that is seriously lacking in all disciplines at the college/research level is mandatory coursework in ethics. During my time at the much ballyhooed U of C http://www.uchospitals.edu/nobel.html I met lots of smart, even brilliant people, who had the ethical sophistication of your typical first grader ("Well if I didn't do it someone would"). Hardly a "reasoned" response. I wonder if there are any university's that refuse DOD contracts?
I think we must act now and remove GW Bush from power before it's too late. No need to go to the UN, because they never take their responsabilities. Let's bomb NOW! Oh yeah, some american civilians may get killed in the process... but we're willing to take that risk in order to liberate the US and the world. After all, that's the only way to preserve freedom and democracy.
(the the humor-impaired, this is sarcasm and I'm not going to bomb anything)
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
It's time to invade the US, depose the GWB regime and find and destroy their weapons of mass destruction!
can't you see that?
When power in different spheres is distributed consistently, the world is stable.
What does this mean? It means that the world is stable when economic and military power are aligned. When they are not aligned, countries attempt to use one to get the other. For example, a country with a big military, no money, and a rich undefended neighbor is a recipe for trouble.
Similarly, a country with nuclear or biological weapons and poverty in other spheres is dangerous. The US maintaining supremacy in many different spheres is something that adds to stability.
Or is it that if the US does it this means it is "good" research, but if someone else does it then it is "bad" research.
Yes. And perhaps now you understand why.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Pot... meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
Richard Preston's book, "The Demon in the Freezer" talks about a few groups of scientists that did this experiment. The first group, a group of Australians, made the discovery by accident. The original goal of the experiment was to use Mousepox to make the mice infertile. It turned out that it made a super lethal version of the disease. They published their findings in an attempt to promote some awareness of how easily a benign virus (Mousepox in nature is fairly harmless to mice... it rarely kills and most have a very strong natural immunity) can be turned into a weapon.
By the way, if you are interested in this topic, the book is great. The Demon in the Freezer
I don't necessarily have a problem with doing the research, but the publishing of it might not be so kosher.
Sounds like a couple of researchers were out to make a name for themselves through Jerry Springer-style shock-value research. Seems a bit unprofessional to me.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
You guys keep voting for the idiots that fund this stuff.
Vote third party.
Something straight out of Jeremiah
You have got to be F&#KING kidding me right?
Are they so blatently stupid to think that this can be developed safely? Come on.
I think the world should have something to say about this research. Where the hell is the UN? Maybe we should invade the US to stop the research of weapons of mass destruction?
What possisble use could this be for? If they can develop it for animals, then surely they are intending to develop it for humans. Great wipe us all out because of a leaked virus.
The Andromeda Strain is not too far away people!
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
See my earlier post about this: By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent that has ever existed in the world.
Truth be told the only federal representatives elected directly by the public are the Congressional representatives. They in turn, through the electoral college, vote for the president. The ones who get to vote are chosen by the people during presidential elections. The President then nominates a bunch of federal office holders, and Congress must approve them. We directly elect Congressional representatives to represent us in federal matters. Supreme Court Judges then don't have to worry about approval ratings and raise money for campaigns, they just focus on interpreting the letter of the law. I'm sure that given enough public outcry, one could be removed from office.
I read one of Frank Herbert's books a *LONG* time ago.. The title was something like The White Plague and told about how a (IIRC) benign virus mutated and caused world destruction. Hmm. Life imitating art? Now, I'm all in favor of pushing the bounds of science and doing genetic modification, but even so we do need caution if these things are ever deployed.
I know this is flamebait, but I'll bite anyways..
Last I checked the US is authorized by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to posses nuclear weapons. So are France, the UK, China and Russia. All other signatories agree not to develop nukes, and the five nations already possessing them, agree not to aid in the transfer of weapons technology to them.
WHY did this get modded up? This is a TROLL ACCOUNT. I'm willing to bet this an article text troll. Not only that, the server is NOT going to be slashdotted on this story. Do mods not even read the damn posts they moderate anymore?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
The discovery was made during contraceptive research. It wasn't something they were actually looking for.
but simply based on political agenda, public ignorance, public fear mongering, and propoganda
Are you the kettle or the pot?
Ideology, and the way it destroys the rational mind (like it did with this loser), will be civilizaion's final undoing.
...and using them. Yes, we dropped two atomic bombs on japan and we don't feel terribly bad about it. With the japanese notion of saving face there was absolutely no way to end that war without doing something drastic like that, that would allow them to surrender without losing face. Otherwise, women and children were sharpening bamboo to use to stab any US troops that made it onto the mainland.
Yes we have all kinds of other goodies, but the main reason why we can have them and Iraq can't is because we didn't order, oh say, Compton to be showered with Anthrax like Hussein did with the Kurds. Having WMD is one thing, using them is another. Iraq used them. Aside from that, its still amazing how many people defend the regime of somone who sadistically tortured his own people. You guys are actually steaming mad that we got a serial killer out of control of a country. Its nice that you have an inferiority complex because whatever country you live in has never accomplished much and probably never will, but if you're looking for someone to villianize, choose someone who is actually a threat to the world. Yes, we took over Iraq, but you forget that we're spending billions upon billions of dollars to rebuild it. Yes we dropped bombs on japan, but you forget that we spent billions of dollars helping them as well. Yes we bombed Germany, but we spent billions rebuilding them. France, we should have just left under German control because its useless and always will be.
Stop press! We've found the weapons of mass destruction. Somebody inform Fox News...
Jesus Christ....
So the U.S. can engineer shit like this, but Iraq gets the crap bombed out of it because of alleged weapons of mass destruction?
When do I get to go on my own personal killing spree to rid the world of people *I* think are dangerous?
I had to fucking read this twice. Some fucking lunatics have created a virus that is 100% fatal in mice and are now trying to do the same thing again with cowpox which can infect humans as well. And these famous fucking researchers haven't been able to find a cure for AIDS but it's ok to make something even more deadly in the name of science?????
Jesus motherfucking Christ, has everyone already forgotten the 5 dead and twenty infected with the letter born Anthrax attacks in 2001, carried out by some pissed off ex-military scientist with a chip on his shoulder???? And they think that no one would ever do it again???? Or that the virus couldn't escape and mutate???? And if they don't do it someone else will and "good thing it's being done in the US where every political and military action is 100% above board"?????
Kill them. Yes, for once I actively call for the executions of sick bastards who have so little respect for life that they would create items as dangerous and deadly as this. A bullet to the back of the head, try that for non contagious!!
With a screw loose, a vendetta, a hidden agenda, or some other complex. How hard would it be to loose a modified version of this virus?
Think nuclear weapons are scary, how about something that kills 100% and fits in a vial smaller than an inch long?
You're putting a lot of faith in people you've never met if you believe this isn't going to have possible consequences.
U.S. Continues Biological Warfare Research. The engineered virus is not contagious. Does not affect humans. Sounds like the superweapon the US has needed for years. *Rollseyes*
If you are triumphant, Machiavelli reminds us, people "will always find the means you used to have been appropriate."
...is not that some scientists at some univeristy did this. Read "The Demon in the Freezer" or "The Hot Zone" - this kind of thing has been done a few times before. The Austrailians did this a few years ago as part of research to wipe out the mouse population in their country (which was a foriegn species that was introduced and threw off the dlicate balance of nature on an island continent). This is old news.
What is scary is how powerful this is and how easy it is to do.
It is powerful because it engineers a new virus or bacterium by mixing genes/DNA from other species to magnify it's effect. It's easy because, although the article doesn't mention it, it can be accomplished by someone with a University level of Biochem knowledge and a $100 USD kit that is sold to undergraduate students. Previouslyu this was ignored because it was thought that to get a really powerful pathogen was difficult so this technique could not be used to make really nasty weapons.
Then they began realizing that not all of the Smallpox stockpile could be acounted for. Then they realized that viruses like AIDS (originally only infected Chimps and other primates)and Ebola (Ebola Zaire, the most deadly strain, mutated to become airborne - but the strain only infected monkeys this time - a strain called Ebola Reston) could mutate and jump the species barrier. Same with prions like BSE (becomes CJD in humans).
Suddenly "mousepox" or "cowpox" seem like they could be very dangerous, if mutated naturally and enhanced artificially. It could become a serious weapon because it is transformed into a Chimera - natural pathogen DNA and DNA from a spoecies it would not normally mix with.
Back in the cold war, the Russians made such a Chimera that as a weapon could have devastaing results. According to Frontline, a Russian bioweapons scientist (who now works for us, thank god...not all of them do) combined Legionella (the bacteria in air conditioners that causes the pnuemonia-like Legionaires Disease) with Myolin. The result was a flu that went away after a few days. You seemed well but then die extremely quickly when your own immune system attacks and destroys the myolinear sheath around you neurons...and because it is in a common bacteria, it is undetectable by a doctor.
Imagine someone creating that combination with a more virulent/contagious pathogen?
That being said, if this is what we are hearing about - a non-contagious, 100% lethal virus at a university - imagine what is being done in secret for "national security" reasons....
All that to say that while I think this kind of research is good if used for treatment and research to prevent them being used as weapons, I also think that it should be done under the auspices of WHO, not the US government or any other government. Have Universities do the reasearch, but do it openly with funding and supervision of scientists and authorities from all over the world. The UN is perfect for this. That way everyone can have warning and everyone can benefit from the research.
Otherwise we risk the start of a biological arms race...and then the whole planet could lose.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Bomb to bits the evil american regime for its largest caches of weapons of mass distruction, bring freedom to the people of america.
could someone work on a cure for the mold in the oval office? it stinks to high heaven in there.
The world could do something about it, but it doesn't. The people of the world could consider the U.S. anathema, like they do Syria and North Korea, like they did Iraq. The people of the world could stop immigrating to the U.S., could consider the U.S. to risky to invest in, could consider the U.S. culture a horrible disease and something to avoid rather than buy in to.
But they don't. The U.S. remains a strong country because both citizens and foreigners believe that, on the whole, the U.S. can be trusted to do the right thing and is not guilty of the evils you describe.
We can do these things because we believe we can be responsible and moral in using the research.
It's not that NOBODY else can do things like this, it's just that dangerous/untrustworthy countries can't. If England, Germany or India made discoveries like this, we might be a little nervous about it, but we wouldn't invade them. If Syria started saying that it was building super-germs, we might seriously discuss invading them. Syria is a threat both directly through aggression to our army and citizens in the middle east and indirectly through terrorists.
Just because the U.S. has the strength to protect itself doesn't mean it's doing the wrong thing when it uses that strength. You might consider it unfair that the Baathists in Iraq were bullied into losing their grip on the country, but you are in the minority. Also, you would be arguing a morally untenable position.
+5 insightful for this lame-brained comments?
This site has become such a turd.
Kent: "Our top story, the population of parasitic tree lizards has exploded, and local citizens couldn't be happier! It seems the rapacious reptiles have developed a taste for the common pigeon, also known as the 'feathered rat', or the 'gutter bird'. For the first time, citizens need not fear harassment by flocks of chattering disease-bags."
Lisa: "But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?"
Skinner: "No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards."
Lisa:"But aren't the snakes even worse?"
Skinner:"Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat."
Lisa:"But then we're stuck with gorillas!"
Skinner:"No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death."
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
What nation still hasn't signed the Biological Weapons Convention treaty, despite being the ONLY industrial nation not to do so? THE US!
http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4718.htm#signatory
Why does he continue to bait and distort stories to fit his political agenda??
Where's the moderation on michael??
I like slashdot, but michael has turned this place to shit, and I can't believe nobody has done anything to stop him.
The problem is sorting through the crap, incorrect information, etc. I don't know if I exactly agree with you, you should post links to sites with that information.
I agree that people are the problem-- though if you just look at the cancer trend over the past, say, 500 years, I believe it has risen steeply over the past 100 years (gee, just when we started REALLY screwing with the environment, ourselves, etc). Of course, I just made up that figure, but if someone can verify...?
</offtopic>
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
I have the same concerns as others, but can't help pointing out that something like this might have been pretty handy in 1346, when the bubonic plague began to spread to Europe from Asia. Fleas, rats - remember your world history course?
Did anyone else see the premier of the show "24"?
Huh.
Sig it.
I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned this research as leading to anything 'weaponised' that could lead to its development into a WMD. The only thing it stated concerning weapons, was that it was research that a terrorist organization could be undertaking itself....and if we could get a head start on it...we could possibly be quicker on the draw to develop serums/antidotes for such.
If this is indeed the case...and God, I hope they're careful, I can see the use in this research. But, as far as I know...I don't think research for biological weapons is legal in the US?? So, I think this was misleading in the title of the post here....this does NOT seem to be biological weapons research.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What happens when they mix the common cold with Aids or Ebola? Just think, either of these being able to spread through the air... and yes I know that there is airborne Ebola already, but it only affected monkeys and not humans (or so they think). I think it's only a matter of time before Aids or Ebola become airborne in a form that we are susceptible too. Won't be quite like "28 Days" if it's Aids as Aids takes a much longer time to kill, but if it were Ebola, then "28 Days" may be a bit closer to how it would go. Or maybe "The Stand" without the part about Satan and all that...
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
All the Constitutional requirements were met, down to Congress approving the action in question. What part of that do you not understand?
What allows Research in Biological Warfare to be legal in US if not in all other countries?
I believe the article is highly political motivated, and actually is not against research related with biological warfare, but rather attacking Bush'es use of such terms in (anti)diplomacy contra other nations.
Bush recently said, Cube soon will be free, mentioning Cube do research related with Biological Warfare... Just as if little Cuba is a threat to US, and calls for a so called preemtive strike...
As we know, US is boicoting Cuba, they cant count on us research to fight problems related with antrax, small pox, etc... They are in other words in need to do such research themselves.
I bet nobody is against the research related with cures for major deceases related with for example future versions of small pox. We all knows that the research for a cure also inevitably will lead to lots of research that could be used for Warfare. The question is political: should all countries be able to do this, no countries be able to do this, or are we going back to racistic black/white thinking i.e. only white people or only democracies can be trusted this...
Why was Iraq invaded? I mean, before the reason changed to "freedom and democracy for the iraqi people"?
So, are we in our right to bomb and invade the US now? Clearly, WMD are present (unlike in Iraq).
I tell you guys, the United States is making it damned hard not to start hate them and become anti-american.
Has it ever ocurred to you that we might HAVE the cure for cancer by now if all those billions had not been spent on inventing new lethal strains of virus instead of inventing new fucking cures, huh?
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
So by this argument the world was a "safe" place in 1910 because the UK was all dominant in its position of power.
History tells us otherwise.
Yes, history does tell us otherwise. The UK was not "all dominant" in 1910. You're reasoning from a false premise.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
The engineered virus is not contagious and does not affect humans...
ha... that is... until it mutates!
which is almost inevitable, that's just like saying... "this campfire is small and does not harm anyone... "... until the wind blows the sparks into the forest and you end up with a major disaster
"You realize of course, that there aren't any 'good guys'...and 'bad guys'...there are just...just a bunch of guys!"
You sound suspiciously fundamentalist, yourself here!
GPL Deconstructed
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."--Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003 - George W Bush
Why not, bio modified viruses are the second arms race and if US or other western countries don't pursue it then some other country will use a race based weapon, (TriGena.) First in best dressed, is the saying. The pity is mixed-race people are at most risk of any future attacks.
...man, this country isn't that bad.
I am getting tired of hearing people say this sort of excuse. As if the proposition that the USA could be worse makes its current state perfectly fine.
I say, if there is any room for improvement, let's do it! Yes, I am going to continue to complain, along with everyone else who can see problems with our country, because the US is not as good as it could be. Sure, America is better than China, but there are other countries in the world that we could learn a thing or two from (not that they're prefect, either), like Germany, England, France, Australia, Switzerland...
We have to take the best ideas from around the world, and our own ideas, and make the US better. I don't care if you're satisfied, if it's "good enough" for you. For many, many people, it's not.
Sure, I'd rather live in America than China, but that's no kind of proof of America's greatness. I'd also rather step in dog piss than dog shit, but that doesn't make the dog piss equivalent to a clean sidewalk.
It's on the way, mate:
0 ,5 942,7319431,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/
South Florida was the other area of the world invaded by Bufo Marinaris. They will share in your joy.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Let's have a little more context, shall we?
I would suggest that anyone who seeks to draw a conclusion from this actually read the paper for themselves.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
BZZZT, wrong. A cure for cancer requires animal testing. And animal testing labs face a future of being blown up by terrorists. So, I hope nobody in YOUR family gets cancer. If they do, I hope you show more courage than Paul McCartney did, and allow your relatives to die rather than use drugs that have been tested on animals.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"Australian scientists want to field test new contraceptive virus [altered immunocontraceptive Mouse Cytomegalovirus (MCMV)] to stop mice breeding. "
That was a very well written post and I agree with you that most Americans do not understand the facts. But then, neither do the French, the Russians, the Chinese, heck, the entire human race's ability for objectivism and rationality could be seriously questioned. Which is the point of my response.
While I as an American certainly do not want to let my government and my society (including myself) off the hook, laying the guilt of 3,000,000 or 6,000,000 deaths soley on the heads of America is an abuse of the facts. Violence is a global failure, not a localized one. Aggressors should be identified and appropriately dealt with (US included) -- but to excuse all other parties is to participate in a witch hunt.
I leave you with one question: Suppose the US had not killed all those people. Suppose the US had never gotten involved anywhere. Can you confidently conclude that the gross level of violence and death in the world would be any less?
There is more than one player in the world. And we ALL share in these iniquities. The violence of the US, Rwanda, Palestinians and Jews is violence of humanity and we each share in the failure.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I guess the end justifies the means, huh?
Maybe, if the germans or the USSR had developed the nukes first, then it could have got the effect THEY were going for, after obliterating some cities full of civilians?
O, but I forget! The rationale for it was that it saved thousands of (american) lives! Thus, it is ok to kill tenthousand civilians to save thousand soldiers, right?
This is old news. This was done years ago by researchers in New Zealand... and we didn't invade.
The difference is that Christian leaders denounced the bombing, and the KKK and distanced themseves from it. You also conveniently ignore the fact that the Underground Railroad was largely run by Christians. Typical fallacy of Exclusion.
Islamic leaders embrace 9/11 and call for more, even american Muslim groups.
Also, I don't recall Christian private school texts containing prhases like:
"On judgement day, the trees and rocks will cry out: O Muslim, O servant of God, a Jew is hiding behind me, come kill him."
That is an actual quote from a school text in a DC Muslim elementary school.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Before you start throwing stones at the "evil US" and ranting on and on, please note that the Australians did the original work.
you think you know the difference between good and bad (and you presuppose there is a difference, but that's another story.). what the above poster i think was looking for, is your reasons, and proof for labelling things good or bad. Kim Jong Il, to my understanding is no better than bush. both sponsor, from the top of state, torture, mass brainwashing and re-programming, in the name of their country, and use doublespeak terms. the only real difference is that the united states was once a great country, with some sound thinking involved with it's creation and upkeep, until just recently, whereas the korean state appears to have not (nevermind that it has been the front of how many land war's in the past 100-300 years?)
induvidual freedom can exist only so much as people can exist. In environments where there is constant strife, lack of infastructure to foster development and survival, induvidual freedom means mass suicide. the united states CAN have freedom because there it has plenty of natural resources to survive off of. i think north korea and the united states peoples could have freedom, given suficient conditions.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
That's right, because only US soldiers would have been killed were we forced to invade the japanese mainland and the surrounding islands. You would have had multiples of the number of people killed between the two bombs sitting there with pitchforks and rifles as we were forced to march through and more or less level all opposition, which, in case you forget, would largely be civilian opposition. Think about what you propose before deciding to change history.
Gee... or was it in an Oliver Stone movie? Or maybe in the National Enquirer?
Because we're a FEDERAL REPUBLIC.
Man, civics education sucks in this country.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Kind of like drill seargents in the US army then
Which human race will be first to rule the world! Is your University teaching other races technology that will ultimately be used against you? or is your country employing foreigners that are being tought other technologies. It has been known for ages that a unique virus that only attacks American Indians has been used to create race bio-based weapons. Israel has been researching for a long time and also China. Mixed race people are at high risk when race based weapons are used as they hold more gene key sections that are noteable by the designer virus used.
It's *exactly* this kind of blind arrogance that makes me puke and makes most of the rest of the world dislike the current USA.
Don't you see you are just rationalising illegal and immoral behaviour? And it's factually incorrect too, you claim imperialism is beneficial for the world, but you forget to mention that for the USA, it's only what is best for the US itself that is good for the world.
Yes, take history, and show me one example of an empirialistic power that didn't get overthrown by the very people it dominated.
you really talk without thinking, and are a hypocrite too. I wonder what you would say if the roles were reversed and another dominant power was invading a 'poverished' USA. would it be 'O, great! Occupie us, so that the world becomes a better and more stable place!" no, you are not fooling me.
If there is anything that history has shown us, it's that to the reaction of a dominant force, there is the counterreaction of resistence. And that does not make the world 'more stable'.
...but the research has drawn some condemnation as being dangerous and unnecessary...
Privacy is terrorism.
So, basically, it's ok to kill a hundredthousand civilians to save tenthousand soldiers?
If all is fair in love and war, then why is there something called the geneva-convention, and why did the USA sign up to it?
And, if it's ok for the USA to do so, then why wouldn't it be ok for somebody else, let's say a dictator in the Middle-east, to do the same?
Typical hypocrisy and USA-centered reasoning...
Can someone explain how this mouse-virus is related to the virus in 24 with many techincal terms explanied.
Does it really kill you in exactly 24 hours?
oh shut up loser
go and cry to somebody who cares
You may disagree with this, but it's 100% ON-topic, you dumbfuck moderators.
Um, no. Congresspeople can't serve as electors.
Each state (and DC) gets a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in Congress (# representatives + 2), which may be what you're thinking of...
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
1) Biological RESEARCH and biological WEAPONS are two different things. It doesn't help you learn how to protect against a viral strain if it's sitting in a missile or bomb. Jesus, bash W all you want, but you're really going to stick up for someone like Saddam Hussein??
Yes. They are. Would you like it if I am developing strains of rubella in my garage? Hey, its for peaceful study, you know. Oh, btw, I am not answerable to any of my neighbours about what i do with my petri dishes.
2) Barring the current Iraq situation, the US has proven they are RESPONSIBLE with their use of WMD, and only use them when attacked, and therefore are allowed to have them, per the UN and the rest of the world treaties out there. Iraq, on the other hand, was deemed to be a threat to the rest of the world, and told --BY THE UNITED NATIONS that you all love and worship-- that they must destroy their WMD. The US didn't tell them to do it (or at least not on our own).
All these arguments are merely a matter of convinience. We very well know which is the only country that used the biggest bad ass wmd. Its very shameful to see US bribing fellow nations at the UN to get its resolutions passed. Saddam indeed was an asshole. But that doesnt glorify US behaviour. It shows US as a bigger hooligan who puts a smaller one in his place. Saddam was contained and he couldnt have done squat even if he wished to. Do you think the rest of the world isnt aware of the deadline for end of american monopoly over saudi oil in the near future? Dont justify Halliburton's war. Its as bad as justifying Saddam's Kuwaiti invasion.
BTW, US has violated every major international norm agreed to under the auspicies of UN - namely defying and bypassing security council, mistreating POWs in ways decried by Geneva Convention, killing foreign reporters with no imminent threats and showing its as savage as the regime it uprooted by parading slain saddam's sons.
For anyone who has read Richard Preston's "The Demon in the Freezer," this is not new. In fact, researchers in Australia did the same thing about a year or two ago. It sounds like the people in Saint Louis are just echoing the experiment. In the book, they do make the comment, however, that if the vaccination is very recent, as in a week or so, the IL-4 gene superpox does not seem to have as much of an effect.
The real terrorists are in Washigton DC, and Dubya is merely a shill.
Hmmmm, I've read of Muslim leaders denouncing terrorist attacks of all kinds. Just because some muslims are misguided doesn't mean all muslims misguided, just like the existence of christian bigots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson doesn't mean all christians are bigots.
I'd like to see some proof as to your source for the above quote also. Not saying it doesn't exist, but it sounds a bit too sensationalized to be believed. Even though there is/are a passage(s?) in the bible instructing parents to stone misbehaving children, I haven't heard of many children dying by stoning, yet this is still paraded around by anti-christian bigots as proof of the hypocrisy of christianity.
Maybe you should work on finding some perspective and try not to abstract the actions of certain members of a group (e.g. terrorists) to apply to all the members of another group (e.g. muslims) to which the first also happen to belong.
Solved!
134,500
in germany you dimwit
bite my glorious golden ass.
Following your reasoning, if the USA invaded N-Korea, then Kim would be justified in nuking some USA cities full of civilians to force the USA to surrender?
After all, he could say "The whole point was to save the lives of our soldiers".
Don't you see how screwed your reasons for justification are?
is the word 'mistake'. I'm much more comfortable with a college student experimenting haphazardly with a computer system then with a virus strain. How much faith do you have in the average college to contain pathogens they don't even understand yet.
Quack, quack.
"I leave you with one question: Suppose the US had not killed all those people. Suppose the US had never gotten involved anywhere. Can you confidently conclude that the gross level of violence and death in the world would be any less? "
um i would say by at least 6million people by the parent posters count. i think its actually alot more as he was just counting bombed regions not coups or installations of dictators (eg pinochet).
ill repost this list that i just happen to have on hand. warning some duplicates..
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran -- Installs Shah as dictator
1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala -- 200,000 civilians killed in the process
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia
1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile -- Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende Assassinated -- Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed -- 5,000 Chilieans murdered under his rule
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador -- 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets -- CIA gives them $3 billion
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" -- 30,000 Nicaraguans die
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians
1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington -- U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega -- 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. (If you can't trust an "evil" murderous dictator, who can you trust?)
1991: U.S. enters Iraq -- Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait
1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan -- Factory turns out to be making aspirin
1990's: The U.N. (emphesis on The U.N.) estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid"
Sept. 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.
Really... can you tell me one single time when the US government actually helped another country more than it destroyed it? a very very very very good documentary about the us military interventions, as well as places like the school of the americas, can be found here. another very good documentary can be found here its called breakign the silence by Pilger.
as someone said (not sure who cant find an origin) violence begets violence. i think most americans will never get that.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-- Voltaire
Doesn't this have some implications for AIDS research?
I, for one, welcome dead horses!
fuck you nigger lover, im glad ur voting for dean cuz we all know the vermonters love the spooks J00 NUTSAQ FAGASS PONYDICKJUICE FUQOR COCKFIGHTIN TAQ NAQ (SHEEET!)
And what the hell is the point of such a scourge? As if the world needed a noncurable disease.. even for mice.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
All right, that's it! I'm packing up the truck and going to Nebraska to see the old lady in the rocking chair I dreamed about.
In the history of the world, nature has probably already produced such organisms. Organisms evolve due to mutations. This happens in single cell organisms much faster than multicellular ones. Bacteria that produce this protein have probably already existed at some point in time.
Why didn't they survive and take over the world? Because if a disease kills its hosts too efficiently (100%, say), its hosts don't have the chance to spread the disease. Really successful diseases kill only a fraction of those infected (say 25%), leaving the others to spread the disease. The plague doesn't kill everyone who gets it.
They use a special autoclave cycle so that the mice don't die, apparently.
OLD NEWS: http://www.csis.org/tech/ssi/sonsw/s_shenk.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlig hts/010117_mousepox.shtml
Do some research before you announce to the world that the US is continuing 'BIOWARFARE RESEARCH'.
This was originally done in Australia, and nobody accused THEM of biowarfare research.
Discovery/TLC once had two BBC series dedicated to exactly this purpose called Connections and Connections 2 by James Burke. It demonstrated that most everything you count as normal was discovered by just this method: seeking one outcome, failing, and using the failure for something new. Cereal, air conditioning, rocketry, take your pick. Think Edison didn't use all those failures? That's one step above research, that's creative research.
--- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc
http://www.csis.org/tech/ssi/sonsw/s_shenk.pdf
g hts/010117_mousepox.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highli
Silly parser, returns are for humans.
Is how embarassing it will be for people to know that you were killed by *mouse-pox*.
"So what happened to Bill? I haven't seen him for a few days."
"Mouse-pox. Killed 'im."
"*Mouse*-pox? Like, small, furry, squeaky mouse?"
"Yeah. *Mouse*-pox."
"What a pussy."
"Yeah."
The funniest thing about your sig and comments is that the only known ex-member of the KKK in congress is in fact a democrat from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd.
As well you shouldn't associate any religion with extremist. Extremist of any group exist, You could use that same tatic about certain enviromentalist groups such as E.L.F.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
I wasn't proposing anything.
At most I indicated how hypocrite and srewed your justification is. If you think it's justified to kill a hundredthousand civilians to save tenthousand soldiers, just because it happens to be *your* soldiers, and you see nothing wrong with this picture, then you have lost all moral perspective.
Following your reasoning, you would find it totally acceptable that, if the USA invaded N-Korea, Kim would nuke and obliterate some USA cities full of civilians, to force the US to surrender?
After all, he would be saving a lot of his soldiers...
The anthropic pricipal mandates that no human disease has even been 100% fatal but that doesn't prevent an engineered pathogen from being a "perfect" killer.
Fusion bombs arenn't biological but I doubt anyone would argue that they are 100% sure to kill humans (and everything else) within a certain radius.
623 comments and not a mention of Tom Clancy's book yet. Has his Shiva virus fallen so far into our literary past?
Now all we need is a conspiracy!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Regime change begins at home.
Out with the terrorists.
Especially the terrorists with double standards.
Down with Haliburton too, which is a terrorist supply company headed by Rumsfield. Strangely enough ( as the article above describes ) it is scoring MAJOR contracts with the Pentagon and the Iraq 'reconstruction'.
free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
That proves that either we are not a free nation or that Dubya is a liar.
Mutations in Bacterial Cultures
Don't Worry - Be Careful!
Treat all micro-organisms with respect - and DO NOT touch them!
Remember, mutations arise because the sequences of bases change in the DNA. These changes can change the organism. Could it change the bacteria to something pathogenic? Possibly. Let's see...
SPONTANEOUS MUTATIONS
Occur because of environmental factors (radiation from cosmic rays, certain chemicals) and errors in base pairing during replication. The rate:
approximately 1 in every 100,000 to 1,000,000.
Seems low? Figure this:
1. Let's say, the mutation rate in a given bacteria is 1 in every 100,000.
2. Grow the culture to a concentration of 1,000,000,000 per milliliter.
3. Grow 100 milliliters of the culture.
* How many possible mutations are there?
* Answer: about 1,000,000 mutations
Conclusion: BE CAREFUL WITH ALL MICRO-ORGANISMS!
DISPOSING OF CULTURES:
ON PLATES: Put the plate in the autoclave bags in the marked "biohazard" containers. Make sure these bags are autoclaved regularly!
LIQUID: Put a drop or two of bleach per 100 ml in the culture before drain disposing. Flush the drain well with water.
Check out this site: http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~jbrown/ecoli.html
I, for one, welcome our new Umbrella overlords
sign(c14n(envelop(this)), x509)
As far as UN votes against Israel go, they're pretty much just sops to the 57 Islamic countries that can't bear the thought of a Jews controlling any Sacred Muslim Ground. The diplomats don't treat it seriously, though it does have an effect on public relations, especially on those who don't really understand the details.
No, if it was another country we'd ">sell them the biological weapons, order them to get rid of them, wait for them to do so, then use the no-longer-existing weapons as an excuse to invade.
So long as they had oil, of course. Otherwise we'd just ignore them and let them get on with it.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
of any anti-bio/chem weapon conventions. It is perfectly within bounds to conduct research with bio and chem weapons for the purpose of defense, that is, for the purpose of creating defenses such as vaccines and other drug treatments and protective gear.
As virtually anyone with any molecular biology training could potentially create bioweapon-type organisms, and this is not easily regulated, it would be crazy to assume that any and all forms of bioweapons that will ever exist have been created and thus any defenses already extant are good enough. Bullcrap.
Don't get worked up about research. Research for the purpose of determining what could be done and how to defend against it is valid and permissible. The end.
On the other hand, given GWBush's disdain for international law and agreements, it might warrant a closer look to make sure Bushy isn't pushing research into something blatantly against international law.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
South Africa had such a project to target blacks. It was called Project Coast. It was at work in the 1980's. I can only imagine how far it would have come by now. This link only touches on some of the race-specific, bio-terrorism the South African government was working on.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0529-05.htm
Say, weren't most of the PNAC-ers in office during Reagan/Bush 80's and weren't they pro-South Africa/anti-ANC because they were socialists?
Hmmm. I wonder.
My first reply was to those who scream about the US violating this or that law, etc. It is NOT illegal to do bioweapon research for the purpose of defense (protective vaccines, treatment drugs, protective clothing). Weaponization and largescale production would be a violation. That said, this particular research was happenstance. Sheer good/bad luck. Trying something totally unrelated to bioweapons research and simply in the realm of bioremediation to try to control populations of rodents. Piff! A rather logical argument for adding IL-4 to increase antibody production instead leads to making the minor virus about as deadly (for rodents) as Marburg virus is for humans (60% fatality rate). Wasn't intended for weapons, wasn't even predicted. Shit happens and it is interesting.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
"Had they not attacked us, we wouldn't have gotten involved, The Manhattan Project might not have happened and nobody in Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have had to have been horrifically killed."
Uh, no. The Manhattan project was started in reaction to the rumors of Germany working on atomic weapons. Even when Germany was defeated, and the rumors were proven false, the project went on.
Japan was the first available target for the bomb, and that's why it was used there. If the bomb had been perfected before the end of the war in Europe, it would have been used there. If it hadn't been ready by the end of WW2, it would have been used right away in the next war.
Wow, there's a scary thought. What if the U.S. hadn't used the bomb until the outbreak of the Korean war, after the stockpile had grown to thousands of bombs?
-Mark
The KKK was and is almost exclusively made up of white Christians.
It is more accurate to say that the KKK is made of up white supremacists who misuse scripture in an attempt to justify their positions. I think that it is unlikely that Jesus, either as a Jewish man, or as the Christ, would agree with many of their positions. Without Jesus, there is no Christianity. It is pretty hard to reconcile racial terrorism with the command to love your neighbor as yourself.
Your tax dollars well spent to make the film Twelve Monkeys a reality!
What is the difference?
The ABM Treaty specified that unilateral withdrawal required 6 months advance notice (which the USA gave, but only after threatening to withdraw for decades); the Non-Proliferation Treaty required only 3 months (which North Korea gave, but only after they'd been repeatedly violating the treaty for years).
"Researchers at Saint Louis University have engineered a strain of mouse-pox virus which kills 100% of animals it infects.."
"The engineered virus is not contagious and does not affect humans"
Humans are animals therefore a strain of mouse-pox virus which killed 100% of animals it infects would affect humans.
On a side-note - if it's not contagious - what's the point of it?
Video Game cheats, hints a
It would undoubtably be stupid, and thus, not beyond the realm of what Bush could do.
You left out the most important reason that the USA doesn't dare to invade, however: they *have* nuclear weapons. (Which, in effect tells the 'rogue states': if you want to be sure that the USA won't invade you, you can *or* kneel down and bow for their wishes, *or* make sure you have nukes before they can invade.)
Besides, being hypothetical or not, following the reasoning portrayed by the parent post, it's clear that he should find it justified if N.Korea did blow up some USA cities to save their own soldiers.
You can't have it both ways, dude. (Though many americans, or at least their government, don't seem to have any problem with double-talk, double-standards and hypocrisy when it comes to handlings with other countries.)
Because this same thing was done accidently in Australia a couple of years ago. The goal was to sterilise the mice using a modified mouse pox virus but they ended up with 100% casualities.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
The US would certainly do well to keep in mind that they are not invulnerable - but that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting that America's invulnerable might means it should be able to do whatever it wants.
Here's the central question: How likely is it that the US would use this newfound biological weapon as part of some offensive?
Before you answer, think about it in the context of power in different spheres.
Wouldn't you say that America's current base of power in other spheres (such as conventional weapons) makes it much less likely that it would use this new biological weapon? Could you see how another country (say Syria) might be more likely to leverage this new advantage to overcome their own disadvantages (again, perhaps in conventional weapons)?
I'm not saying I wholeheartedly approve of America developing a nasty weapon that would be a true abomination if used. All I'm saying is that it's perfectly logical to evaluate that development differently than we would if done somewhere else - not because Americans are better people, but because of how the development fits in with their current situation.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
What if the gas didn't work? What if they could only be worked to death? Isn't hard work Good? Arbeit Macht Frei, right? Would that make Hitler less evil? Would it make us evil for fire bombing Dresden? We, the Good Guys, have killed a lot of folks over the years, probably more than Hitler. Doesn't that make us Bad, too?
Since when is killing wrong anyway? How about that death penalty? Not just the moral ambiguity of the death penalty itself, the idea of killing somebody because killing is wrong. If that killer is an American, then isn't he one of the Good Guys because we're the Good Guys? Can a Good Guy kill another Good Guy? And if he was "bad", then isn't the idea that some of us Good Guys are Good and others are Bad, isn't that creeping relativism? Doesn't that dilute our pure Good-ness?
Is it the act or the actor? If it's the actor, how can you be Bad without doing the act? But then, how can you do the act without being Bad in the first place? If invading another country is wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it? Isn't it? What if a Good Guy does it, like say, Poland, Panama or Iraq? Doesn't he become Bad?
Or, are we the Good Guys only because We are We and they're Bad because They are They? If that's true, then They can just as legitmately claim the same. Then neither of us are...either? Or, both of us are both. Or is it...?
Oh my head! Big Brother, please tell me what to think! You have the absolute truth. That's why I love you, unquestioningly.
You should not have been allowed to graduate from medical school not knowing that the plural of "virus" is "viruses."
SLU is a leading university for vaccine research. They have a strong programs in public health and bioterror response, too. I'm guessing you didn't know about any of the facts.
First I agree that the U.S. has made serious mistakes during the cold war trying to establish friendly "hopefully democratic" allies across the globe. These mistakes were mostly due to the US fear of the Soviets and the Soviets fear of the West. Everyone else was caught up choosing sides and the world went to hell. We are both now catching the well deserved grief for those years.
However since the mid-1980's we have been trying to do damage control on the backlash. If this is not the means to estabishing a better world and rectifying past wrongs, What is?
IMHO
-First we have to abolish the use of trade sanctions against non-military goods. The UN report on Iraqi deaths due to sanctions proves that, as does sanctions effects on Cuba, Libya, and a host of other "vacation spots" around the globe. Frankly they suck and cause more harm to the US reputation then good against the dictator.
-Second remove dictators we put in place and help the countries rebuild. Tell the public "We fucked up in the past, now we have to go fix this mess in order to let others live better lives.
Personally I think we had better do this "Monroe docterine style" at first trying to help places we have screwed close to home like the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua, Columbia, etc all under UN sanction and without violence (other then the drug pedelling cartels and para-military groups in Columbia). Help thier economies and help the US's at the same time.
Any idea's?
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
the who, why and where was reported over a year ago in the atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/cohen-j. htm
If there is anything that history has shown us, it's that to the reaction of a dominant force, there is the counterreaction of resistence. And that does not make the world 'more stable'.
First off, you didn't pay attention to what I was saying - you're arguing against someone that is not me. But I don't care about that. What I care about is the common idiocy you seem to be subscribing to.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the US has taken it upon itself to be a superpower, or imperialist. To say this is to reveal ignorance of what real imperialism looks like, but more importantly it reveals a terrible wrongness about the nature of power.
The US cannot just abdicate power and leave no power. Power cannot be destroyed - someone, some country will have it. Every power will do wrong - or will have, by inaction, abdicated power to someone who will do that wrong for them. All that there is to be decided is who gets the power.
Right now I'm much happier to see power concentrated in a country that, while flawed, is a secular, liberal democracy. It would take no courage, and only do harm, for the US the isolate itself from world affairs and try to bury its power.
Action is bound to produce mistakes, but to abandon power for this cause is to trade death and scorn for genocide and a clear conscience.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
"Show me the powerful country that never violates its own principles when getting involved in world affairs."
And that excuses it? Might makes right? Or "We might be hypocrites, use double-standards, illegally invade other countries, shout about democracy but at the same time toppling democratic chosen leaders and replace them by dictators, give those murderous dictators all what they need to make WMD but use it as a pretext many years later (not at the moment itself) when it suits the USA to invade the country...but all this can be excused, because other countries with imperial illusions have done it before."?
You mkae a statement, but it's useless as an argument. Yes, the other countries, like the UK have done much the same. And it was wrong then, as it is wrong now. And the opressed and intimidated ppl and countries hated the Britisch Empire, as they hate the imperial USA. And resistance grew and grew, untill the might of the UK was broken, and so will it happen with the USA, if it continues on this course.
Dude, there was a poll in europe recently, and the vast majority of the euro-countries disliked the USA strongly, with percentages betwen 60 to 70%. And we're your closest western allies, remember? Comming from a *positive* rate of more then 60%, it's a hell of a job the Bush-government has acomplished in one term, since Clinton.
One wonders how it must be in the middle-east, then.
If it weren't for Michael Moore and some of his ilk-in-spirit, I would almost believe most USA-dudes were arrogant and complete morons, or at least arrogantly stupid and naive beyond belief.
Yeah, ok, you can call it USA-bashing, but we *have* valid reasons to bash, and it's time that you guys realised that.
Bzzt, false. Their goal is to kill Americans and their allies until they give in to their political ideologies. Here's a direct quote from the Febuary 23, 1998 fatwa. link
It's interesting that their assessment of the Israeli-American alliance lines up so well with the Project for a New American Century's goals.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Heh, don't forget we gave it to Iraq to begin with. It's interesting that we will arm anybody who shoots in the direction we want them to, and then we wonder why the world is such a dangerous place.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Can you think of any country besides the United States that would have acted with such incredible RESTRAINT after September 11th? Thank God it was the U.S. and not another nuclear power. It is not the U.S. that has a history of Imperialism, it is, yes you guessed it, FRANCE and GERMANY (not to mention England, Russia, Spain...) The U.S. did not fund terrorists in Central America. You need to stop reading trash journalism and actually understand what was happening at that time and why the U.S. took the steps that it did. Stop listening to Al Sharpton. The U.S. was funding anti-communist rebels, most of whom were perfectly decent and ethical, but some of whom did things that were quite objectionable. The U.S. did NOT endorse those activities. Remember it was marxist guerillas gunning down busloads of people trying to vote in democratic elections at the time. The U.S. has never systematically mutilated people the way Germany, Iraq, Iran, and others have. Maybe you can argue the U.S. has made bad decisions with their foreign policy, but there is NO COMPARISON. Germany gassed millions. Iraq and Iran have mutilated and tortured thousands. The U.S. has never engaged in that kind of activity. Stop bashing the U.S. A reasonable criticism is fine, as long as it is based on facts and analysis, not hyperbole and yellow-journalistic revisionist histories. Thank God for the U.S. because Europe would be speaking German or Russian right now without us. Yes, we thank the French for the weapons they sold us during our revolution. Yippee. They did it because they hated England. Sorry, but I'm tired of being the world's whipping boy. It is easy to throw stones when you don't have the responsibility for defending freedom for the rest of the lazy, cowardly countries of the world.
Here is an article from New Scientist from 2001 where something very similar was done. That should have been it, more of this kind of research is not going to be helpful (unless you count a world without people being helpful). I can just see the North Koreans saying "Hmm. Aussies did this in 2001, and the Americans in 2003. Not a fluke, so gotta be easier than these nukes just use smallpox | ebola | influenza instead ...". You get the picture.
Bitter and proud of it.
and don't forget that the War on Terror is actually a religous crusade of Christianity against Islam (sound familiar?). Consider this recent news story about a terrorist and his arsenal in Michigan.
"Federal agents arrest a Muslim man, a member of a radical sect, living in Michigan on gun and drug charges. When they search his home, they discover a bunker containing a cache of weapons and explosives worthy of an army: an anti-aircraft gun capable of firing 550 rounds per minute up to four miles away, machine guns, explosives, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and booby traps. Investigators also find pictures of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with scope cross-hairs drawn over them."
oh wait a minute. He was not Muslim. He was a white militia member, so he does not get shipped off to Cuba without a lawyer!
cpeterso
Researchers at Saint Louis University have engineered a strain of mouse-pox virus which kills 100% of animals it infects
Keep testing, mother nature will come up with an animal that is resistant.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
The US is not under attack by anyone except a few very stupid saudis who were working for a guy who is directly associated with the Bush family.
There is no international governent, but there is a network of treaties that so far the current regime seems intent on abrogating.
What Bush has done is to setup very American citizen to be a target. Quite a few others as well may get hit as 'collateral damage'. Remember those that perpetrated the Bali bombing though that the tourists were American (most were Australian, but dead is dead).
The thing is that we are not talking about the US. We are talking about a few idiots, who happen to have bought or clawed their way into power. These are idiots and criminals (ask where Saddam got his Anthrax from). The economy is going down the tubes but the Nazi approach of "throw some forigners in a concentration camp and declare war on a minor country" still seems valid as a way of distracting the voters. Not that they really need to, Diebold seem to be doing their job though.
It is a pity that neither the real republicans nor the democratic party seem to want to call the whitehouse out.
In every case you mentioned there are either (1) direct threats to the security of the United States from dictators or terrorists, (2) Communist invasion and subteruge threatening the global trading lanes, or (3) ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Do you think that national soverignty is an acceptable excuse for nonintervention when one ethnic group extinguishing another in the name of "ethnic purity" (Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Guatemala et. al?) If you are indeed an American, these actions may have saved your life, much as the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have saved about 14 lives for every one directly killed in the blasts (about 200,000 perished immediately, estimateed casualties for a ground invasion exceed 6 million Japanese and 0.5 million Americans with weapons including biological, chemical, and radiological). Our American government does not rule the planet, but it is charged to do whatever is necessary to protect and defend its citizenry from any and all threats to this nation. With the exception of Kuwait, and some domestic bombings, have you seen any invading army even contemplating an invasion of the US or its allies since 1955? How many foreign terrorists attack US targets on US soil? The reason is fairly simple: the threat of overwhelming force by one party is often enough to prevent its use by others. Our government has done questionable things in other nations to protect its citizenry, but I would rather they do questionable things elsewhere then deal with attacks on American or allied soil because we did not want to deal with threats when they were minor and easily managed.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
For anyone that participated in this or similar research. No good can come of this.
And then to publish it! What is a word for dumber than stupid?
Are you trained in the security protocols necessary to defend this technology against acquisition by hostiles? Have you secured your physical plant? Are your computers totally stand-alone?
The Feds should bury you with your research in
a Nuclear Waste Dump.
You make me sick. I just hope I am the only person who has to say that.
Your headline is misleading. The US is not doing research into creating biological weapons for military use. (I can already see it now: some third world country will create a huge biological weapons program and claim that "the US is doing biological warfare research, why can't we?" And people will nod their heads in agreement even though they are two completely different situations.)
can be accomplished by someone with a University level of Biochem knowledge and a $100 USD kit that is sold to undergraduate students.
Yes, it's relatively easy to transform bacteria, and the kits to do it are much cheaper than they once were. But... What are you going to transform them WITH? Your $100 US suddenly doesn't seem like so much when you have to clone the virulence-promoting genes from a second organism into the proper transformation vector (DNA which allows replication and incorporation of your new gene into the bacterial genome), grow all these organisms in sterile conditions where regular old E. coli won't eat them for breakfast, to say nothing of pipetting, centrifuging, warming and all the other trivial-sounding but surprisingly expensive procedures that comprise modern molecular biology.
"Rogue states" and terrorists have always had access to these technologies, and the money to buy them. It's not the amateur little guy operating on the cheap you need to worry about. You're 100% correct in mentioning the Soviet Union's bioweapons programs - the leftovers of Cold War research and the current U.S. military's research are far more of a threat now than Al-Qaeda or Iran!
To paraphrase Han Solo, "Bioweapons manufacture ain't like dusting crops, kid!"
Freedom: "I won't!"
"Islam as it is today needs to be ended." jcrash
"Radical Muslims are the #1 international problem right now."jcrash
Can't say that I support these comments.
Isn't the aids epidemic a bigger problem?
Isn't the way the world is looking to solve problems with acts of violence a bigger problem?
Isn't terrorism a bigger problem?
Isnt' the proliferation of WMDs a bigger problem?
Isn't the continual distruction and raping of our natural respources a bigger problem?
Isn't ignorance a bigger problem?
"Regardless, the US is not hypocritical."
;-)
So, are you saying that demanding the UN to investigate the issue, but then disregarding and making it impossible to the investigators to continue searching for the alledged WMD is not hypocritical? That invading with the pretext that there are WMD and Iraq was an imminent threat, knowing full well there wasn't and it posed no threat isn't hypocritcal? That touting and claiming to bring democracy is the goal of the USA, while at the same time toppling democratic elected leaders and replacing them with dictators isn't hypocrital? By claiming to hold up the democratic principles, yet disregard any legal rights to prisoners whatsoever, contrary to the law and spirit of the geneva-convention that the US signed up on, isn't hypocritical?
Then I guess you are right: they are not hypocritical.
It's advantageous for certain parts of Washington to be in forever favor of foreign Israel. Military spending aside, it's also nice for us to have an ally in the region(for reasons debatable, from oil to whatever).
>what is the point of engineering something like this?
Answer: invade and/or destroy other countries.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
If it's not contagious it can't infect humans. It does infect mice, presumably when they're injected with it. Therefore it kills "100% of the animals (mice) which it infects (by deliberate innoculation)".
The point? To figure out how to make a 100% fatal virus, so they can apply it to, oh, I don't know, influenza or something.
I love my country very much, but I would be a fool if I said that everything they did was in the best interests of the world.
I'm tired of being the "world's whipping boy" as well but, if we are ever going to stop that, we need to listen to what the world is whipping us for...
If he doesn't understand the point of studying this type of weapon why is the post insightful? As for the insipid comment about invading another country for that type of research, it's way off base and simply wrong. Plenty of friendly countries research this type of stuff without attempting to weaponize it or create WMD programs out of it; it's a huge difference.
"The statements about the rights and security of the US cannot be reversed and keep their validity."
So, basically, your agrument *IS* that the reasons the USA gives for developing WMD and muddling in other states are right, because they come from the USA, but exactly the same reasons given by a country that the USA deems dangerous have no validity whatsoever?
Well, yes, that was our point too.
"Syria is dangerous to other countries because it's Baathist dictators would, if possible, conquer and rule the people of those countries."
You mean, like, invading and occupying another country? (It seems to me you do not have to be a Baathist dictator for that; it suffices to be a dimwitted fraudulent-elected puppet-president of a superpower.)
"The United States is not a danger to the world, or to Syria, in the same way."
Syria might disagree, and so might the world, if the USA keeps it's current imperialistic policy up.
"The U.S. generally is right in its use of strength, and Syria is almost always wrong. That is why the U.S. can be trusted and Syria cannot."
Typical American black and white thinking. You end your statement the way you began it: by asserting that the US has the right to decide who is dangerous and who not, and who can be invaded and who not, regardless of the reasons, but solely based on their belief that they are the good guys versus the bad guys. Thus, it doesn't supercede the 'argument' of a tod saying "I'm right, and you are wrong!" (and thus I may kick you, but you may not kick me)
"Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush. That is an act of war."
Really? So they invaded Iraq for that reason? Strange it never came up in the speeches of bush. What *is* however a fact, is that the USA has more then once tried to assassinate or get rid of not only Sadam, but a lot of other leaders too (some of whome were democratically chosen). I guess thye USA decalred war too, then?
"Iraq shot at US aircraft dozens (hundreds?) of times. Those are acts of war."
Shooting an aircraft is an act of war? I remember the US shooting an airliner not THAT long ago; I guess they were decalring war? and where did those airplanes get shot at, btw? I doubt it was above the territory of the US; chances are, it was above Iraq itself. And it's also not a secret many airplanes were not kept above the area's that were designated by the UN as no-fly zones for the Iraqi; some even bombed targets unauthorised by the mandates given by the UN. I think the US would shoot on airplanes too, in that case.
"Iraq refused to comply with numerous UN resolutions backed by threats of force. The US was within its rights to enforce them.
Please explain why, if the *UN* made resolutions, why it autmatically becomes the right of the *US* to enforce them? This is blatantly false. The US has no right to enforce UN resolutions, unless the UN agreed to it. And as you are well aware, the UN did not agree, nor sanction an invasion of Iraq.
"Iraq used WMD against Iran and its own people. Hundreads of thousands were killed with them."
Yes, made by the chemicals and know-how deliverd by the US. There exist interesting documents of the CIA about that, btw, where it shows they know full well what and in what way they were used for. But even after extensive use against people, the US still continued giving them more, because at the time, Iran was the big evil foe.
"There are large quantities of Iraqi WMD materials and weapons known to exist from their declarations which are still missing."
Blix himself said they were probably destroyed even before 1998. In any case, they were not 'large' quantities, and certainly not large enough to be a direct threat to the US (if it was, then almost every other country is). also worth noting that, despite all the claims about WMD, after all those months they are there, they still have to come up with one single proof of an actual WMD.
"Is any of this getting past your blinders?"
Does it get past yours?
The main point is that the U.S. government is the biggest researcher, developer, manufacturer, and user of weapons of mass destruction.
Regarding Kuwait, the issue is that some people find it possible to live in the world without fighting. Others believe that they are constantly finding important reasons for violence. You said, "... wasn't the US "liberating" Kuwait at this time"? Yes, but U.S. government representative April Glaspie led Saddam Hussein to believe that the U.S. would not oppose an invasion of Iraq. This followed many years of encouraging Saddam Hussein's violence against Iran, and selling Saddam weapons. You can read about this if you like: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.
For 58 years, the U.S. government has spent thousands of billions of dollars intensively planning and executing modern war. If there were as much intense planning for peace, a lot of "reasons" for violence would not exist. It has a lot to do with how a country chooses to live in the world.
The anthropic pricipal mandates that no human disease has even been 100% fatal
No it doesn't. It mandates that a 100% fatal disease has never spread to all humans. The point is that a 100% fatal disease cannot spread to all humans.
The reasons the USA gives aren't right because they come from the USA. They are simply right. The reason the USA is not abhorred by the rest of the world because it is doing the right thing.
The reason Syria cannot do the same things that the USA does is that it has consistantly shown that its motives are evil. Syria, is already considered a failed state by the rest of the world. If Syria invaded another country, or developed a new plague, the world would have reason, based on past actions, to fear it and attempt to contain it.
So...my argument is that the USA are the good guys because they do good and have good motives. Syria (for example) is a bad guy because it does bad. In this case, it is good guys versus bad guys and the USA, as the good guy, is in the right.
Whether Syria disagrees or not does not matter a whit. The important questions are: a) what does the rest of the world think of the USA (because the USA's economy and the world economy are dependent on each other), b) what do the citizens of the USA think of the USA (because the USA's economy and foreign affairs are dependent on the belief it's citizens have that their country is right).
If you want to discuss why the USA is not abhorred by other countries, I might be willing to talk about that. (I guess that would be mostly a discussion of whether the USA was right to invade Iraq.) I doubt you would learn anything from my position, though.
not contagious
hmm...I wonder how long that will last? what if one day all the animals died except humans? I guess everyone would have to become vegan, by force, not choice. God I hope some crazy vegan doesnt get ahold of this stuff! Just kidding...
One thing you may not realize, since you are Canadian, is the depth of corruption of the U.S. government. The oil companies and the weapons makers and those who benefit financially from violence give money to government officials, and the government officials help the corrupters make more money. U.S. Senator John McCain, a Republican, has been talking about this for years. Here's just one New York Times article about the corruption: Bush Got $500,000 From Companies That Got Contracts, Study Finds.
Jerry Falway and Pat Robertson "embraced" the 9-11 attacks, too. Did you forgot about that already?
You are right, the US is powerful, and pursuing their self interest with extreme prejudice. That's what powerful states do.
Some of us hope for more than that from Homo Sapiens, perhaps naiively. What the rest of the world also hopes for (I am not American and therefore much better informed on US foreign policy than most Americans) is for the population of the US to wake up and manage their goverment like a real democracy.
At the heart of 9/11 is a people feeling like their culture and way of life is being consumed by a more powerful culture. They are reacting the only way they feel they can - using violence.
No, I'm not condoning it. I don't condone violence like you have just done. If you can rationalise your governments behaviour as "we are powerful, you can't do anything about it, so tough", then I would imagine that is what the hijackers might have said to the flight attendants before cutting their throats. And with your argument we should just accept that.
You are welcome to such a world my friend. The rest of us strive for what we can become, not what we have become.
Whether it's the human race or nature herself that decides to decimate our population with one of their inventions, the result is the same. Humans have a very tedious and horrific, yet truly amazing ability to think way too much. We quite often stick our hands, heads, and whatever else we can get into places we should remain shielded from. Either we create a immuno-suppressive virus or nature finds away to do it is not the issue. Human interaction with areas of the world not previously touched has brought viruses such as Lassa, Ebola, Rift Valley, Oropouche, Dengue, Monkey Pox, Kyasanur Forest brain virus (et cetera ad nauseum) into the light as having the potential to become extremely deadly epidemics. Out of this I think the only thing we can control is our own mischeivous minds, but who knows, many have been slaughtered in the name of "progress", and who am I to say anything for or against human nature?
but you need to back up your assertion that moral relativism is fallacious. Absolute morals are an assumption, not an outcome of any scientific argument. Science could show us how ideas of morals and ethics developed in our social evolution, but cannot say anything about some being right and others not; matters of right and wrong are purely subjective.
Not to mention that you assume there is such a thing as free will (otherwise matters of right and wrong are meaningless as you don't really have a choice in what you do). The brain is a physical device working according to physical laws and there's no place for free will in that picture. While not deterministic due to quantum uncertainty, the resultant randomization surely does not equate to free will.
The assumption of absolute morals is tantamount to religion. It's bullshit. It's all in your head.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
The Cold War is over but obviously we need an enemy so we claim the Evil Doers are working on this, Iran come on, maybe we should invade them then. This is just another aggressive move by the US, which then gets turned into THOSE other people are the danger and we are just reacting to them.
It is being developed at a US military base, another government would think the government is planning something for THOSE who aren't with us and therefore against us. I'm sure the CIA would love an non-contagious sure fire assassination weapon like that.
9-11 CANNOT be used as the answer to everything. We cannot do anything we want and then when asked say, ohh remember Sept. 11, be Patriotic. I don't think guys using boxcutters, AK-47s and C4 are really up to genetic engineering, you do enough damage without seeking perfection.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
quality lockpicking book for sale at http://cafeshops.com/hackingtexts
It is interesting in discussing history, we had an alternitive atomic bombing plan that was discussed, that being, dropping the atomic bomb on uninhabited islands to show what would happen to populated areas. Japan did not surrender after the bombs were dropped, they surrendered after we assured them there emperor could hold a figurehead position that would give japan a saving face from complete surrender (one of Mcarthur's smartest decisions to save both or one of the countries from further imense bloodshed), with out this the extreme radical military personal would have fought to the death. Actually if we would of given Japan the "emperor stays as a figurehead" consession beforehand (they asked for it but we wanted complete surrender, unconditional) they might of surrendered before the A bombs were (needed to be) dropped. Please excuse my spelling where needed.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
"They are simply right."
Well, yes, that's what you said before. The problem with this statement is, that somebody is to judge whether they are right or wrong. Saying the USA is right "not because they are the USA, but simply because they *are* right" is nonsensical.
"So...my argument is that the USA are the good guys because they do good and have good motives. Syria (for example) is a bad guy because it does bad."
Wel, that's the black and white thinking again. If you have read some other posts here, you will see that the USA has done an enormous amount of bad things too, including sending chemicals to Sadam, full well knowing what they were used for (but not caring at the time, because he was fighting the big evil foe Iran, at the time), and including toppling democratically elected leaders and replacing them with murderous dictators, and including invading illegally another country.
Syria surely has done some bad things too (though I doubt they have attacked and invaded as much countries as the USA - remember Grenada?), thus the point is not 'bad versus good' as you always claim, but who gets to decide when bad is bad enough, and good is good enough.
Clearly, one can not rely on the USA themselves for making that judgement: if one is at the same time judge, juror and executioner, then it's no wonder they can claim they are right. (A bullie in school will also always claim he's right). More sense would it make to ask the rest of the world what they think about it.
And while you claim the world does not 'abhor' the USA, this is strongly contradicted by the facts. (Depending on what you mean by 'abhor' of course). In any case the VAST majority of the world does not look favorably at the USA, and do not think they are the good guys, nor that they are 'right'. In fact, many think the USA is on an imperialistic expension and aren't all that 'good and benevolent' as they themselves seem always so keen to believe. And certainly concerning the invasion of Iraq, the world does not deem the USA as being 'right' AT ALL.
And saying what Syria thinks of it does not matter a whit, is just indicative of how arrogant the USA has become. Indeed, they do not care much what Syria thinks about it, nor what France and Germany thinks about it, nor europe, nor the UN.
But following your own reasoning, if the opinion of the world is indicative of whether the USA is right or not, then the USA most certainly is not right at all, leaving your assertation that they 'just are right' where it belongs: in the realms of self-interest and dellusion.
Call in Hans Blix immediately!
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Are you saying that the US is a self-appointed global policeman?
Defending our freedom? We are lazy, cowardly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't America one of the most obese nations in the world today? That's what I'd call lazy.
Cowardice is hiding behind your nuclear arsenal while saying no one else can have one. If as you say the rest of the world is against you, then shouldn't it behove you to at least ask why?
The US killed millions when it dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US is the ONLY country to ever USE nuclear weapons on the battlefield.
And as for restraint! I don't call invading two countries (disclaimer: this number may increase) an act of restraint. If that is restraint, what is the alternative?!
It is NOT America's responsibility to "defend freedom" for the rest of the world. The world is more than capable of doing that in a consensual way, prevented only by continual US vetoes of UN security council resolutions.
You need to pull your arrogant head out of the sand and wake up to WHY the rest of the world has gone from grudging respect to open hatred in two short years.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
"Remember a few months back when it was announced that Hillary Rosen was leaving the RIAA to help write intellectual property laws in Iraq? Why is an american media executive writing laws for Iraqis?"
Why? Because she's had prior experience writing them for the US government. You think the government comes up with those draconian IP laws themselves???
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
A really sick sick nation. Makes you wonder who is the real massmurderer and terrorist. Guys like Stalin got their fame because of bad publicity.
I am going to beat the living hell out of them. Seriously, I am flabbergasted (finally got to use that word) that they would do such a thing. Don't we have enough f*cked up viruses/diseases in the world without us creating more. Some times I think the best thing to happen to this planet would be the exstinction of the human race. WE don't deserve to go on with people doing stuff like this.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
We have to develop this so that when we give it to a momentarily friendly tin pot dictator, we'll know how to defend against it when he inevitable turns on us.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Thank you for actually responding to the substance of my arguments. I do not know how long this back-and-forth can continue, since I don't know how long users can comment on a story before it gets archived. Hopefully at least a little longer...
Not everything is black and white, as you say, and the USA has certainly made some grievous errors (e.g. giving chemical weapons to Saddam), but their motives were generally right (in the case of Saddam, he was the lesser of two evils. He turned out to be a pretty substantial evil, but at the time he was lesser). "Having the right intentions" is not as strong a moral position as "doing the right thing", but since most complex problems don't have one perfectly correct solution, "doing the right thing" is not always an option and "having the right intentions while doing as much good as possible" is about the best that can be achieved.
How do I know that the world does not abhor the USA? Referring back to my first post:
a) Immigration to the USA continues at a steady pace.
b) Investment in the USA by foreign investors has not been withdrawn.
c) Movies, music, fashions -- the general culture of the USA has continued to flourish throughout the rest of the world.
Imagine the change of world opinion if the USA completely destroyed France, Syria, or North Korea with nuclear bombs. That is what I mean by the USA becoming anathema. Or on the domestic front, what would happen if the USA really did restrict the personal freedoms of its citizens: locking up the press and crushing dissenters the way China does. That type of thing would turn the USA into a rogue nation.
In a simplified model, "world opinion" is a vote by the peoples of each country, and each vote is weighted based on the economic strength of their country. In this way Syria's vote doesn't matter, but the votes of the English and Japanese are very important. I doubt you will like this method of voting (since it's not fair and balanced), but that's the general idea.
You believe that the world does abhor the USA. I consider the protestors to be a vocal minority. This is mainly because of the economic facts above. Also, when listenning to the protestors, they are not concerned with what is right, but rather, they have other motives. These motives are easily understood. That is why the protestors are a minority.
1) Polititians (Schroeder, Chirac, Howard Dean) who stand to gain from convincing their constituants that the USA is bad and they need to be voted into power to guide the USA in the right direction. This can easily be seen as a politian's ploy.
2) Liberals/Democrats in the USA who are sick with rage at the very thought of President G. W. Bush. This is even worse then the grudge Republicans held against Clinton. Unfortunately, many of their reasons are not rational ("he's too dumb", "he is using the war on terror to silence his opponents", "the war in iraq was just for oil/his dad/haliburton" etc.). There are many reasons to object to Bush but most of the most vocal objectors are irrational. When people choose irrational reasons, they undermine their position.
3) Governments of failed states (Syria, Palestine, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea) who are afraid that the USA will use its newly rediscovered strength and sense of purpose to continue to foster freedom in the Middle East (either through regime change or through the growth of a free Iraq). There is no love lost for these governments. Their bluster may sway people momentarily, but is not morally consistant with their own practices.
4) People who hate the USA, mainly because of it's "cultural hegemony". These people are necessarily in the minority because of c) above. These people want to see the USA fail primarily because it is part of human nature to want the leader to fail. This is not a reason that will convince many besides the envious.
So, that's why the voices in the world that abhor the USA are generally ignored by the people they are talking to.
"He says his work is necessary to explore what bioterrorists might do."
Well, now im sure the bioterrorists "know" what to do. At least he has a "noble" cause to get more funding.
To have gotten a doctorate without requisite social skills is harmful, i think.
My apologies for the formatting of the first reply. See if this looks better:
> Are you saying that the US is a self-appointed
> global policeman?
Of course not. But we have an obligation to find the balance between protecting our national interests and protecting the human rights and interests of other countries. There are times when those two goals are so much in sync that we must act.
> Defending our freedom? We are lazy, cowardly?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't America one
> of the most obese nations in the world today?
> That's what I'd call lazy.
Obesity is obviously a problem in the U.S., but personal laziness has nothing to do with collective national laziness when taking responsibility and taking RISKS to defend your freedom. For example, I couldn't give a rat's butt about defending France's freedom now, but the U.S. saved Europe in WWII. Tell me we didn't. You are deluding yourself.
Remember it was Europe, particularly France, that coddled Hitler and ignored his atrocities for years. It was France that surrendered to Hitler immediately without a fight. It was France that VOLUNTARILY rounded up Jews to hand over to him without even being asked. (These are historical facts, but you will certainly deny them.)
It was France and Germany that kept Hussein in power for the last 10 years. Along with Russia, they were Iraq's biggest trading partners. They sold Iraq weapons in violation of the U.N. resolutions, they built bomb shelters for Hussein. They had huge oil contracts with Hussein. They kept him in power while he tortured and brutalized his own people, mutilitating them, cutting off their fingers, hands, tongues-- stealing fathers and brothers in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Europe did NOTHING. The U.N. did NOTHING. The U.N.'s Human Rights Commission is headed by Libya for cripe's sake! I haven't heard anyone in Europe doing anything to protest that disgusting monster.
Can the U.S. stop these things everywhere in the world, NO! We don't have the resources or the moral authority to do it alone. But, when the combination of our national interests and the human rights interests reach a certain point, we have to do something.
> Cowardice is hiding behind your nuclear arsenal
> while saying no one else can have one. If as you
> say the rest of the world is against you, then
> shouldn't it behove you to at least ask why?
Cowardice is hiding your head in the sand while
the devil works to destroy you. Just pretend there is nothing wrong while the tanks are bashing down the walls of your house.
Once again you show absolute ignorance of the real world. When the Soviet Union had 1,000 nuclear missiles pointed at EUROPE popular opinion among the population of Europe was that they could live with it. Were they nuts? The USSR had just invaded Afghanistan and Europe thought they had no aspirations for other countries? When Reagan went to negotiate with the USSR, he proposed TOTALLY ELIMINATING ALL of the U.S.'s and ALL of the USSR's nuclear weapons in Europe. He pushed that over and over. It was the USSR that refused that option.
> The US killed millions when it dropped two
> atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US
> is the ONLY country to ever USE nuclear weapons
> on the battlefield.
Total exaggeration once again. Those bombs killed one quarter of a million people. Those aren't U.S. numbers, they are the numbers as reported by Japan. They saved MILLIONS of deaths by dropping them. I'm quite honestly not convinced we should have dropped them (I'm very much not convinced...), but the fact is they saved 10 times the deaths by ending the war immediately.
> And as for restraint! I don't call invading two
> countries (disclaimer: this number may increase)
> an act of restraint. If that is restraint, what
> is the alternative?!
This is an ignorant response. We were ATTACKED. Any country that sup
Yes, this looks like a pretty good use of the scientific research capabilities. Now that almost all the evil human-dignity-destroying stem cell research is over, it's time to do something worthwhile. The hypocrisy is simply staggering.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Actually it was JOKEbait, but whatever.
Despite what many people seem to think, something that kills people very quickly, although terrifying, won't likely become widespread. The worst virus for humanity would be slow working like HIV, but airborn.
Imagine one with no symptoms other than five years after you got it you suffered major organ failure, became airborn easily. That is your doomsday virus. One that kills within days even if it is easily transmitted will likely be contained regionally aka SARS... although I think we should be ready for SARS this winter.
Here is that article I forgot to link in my message above.
Sorry about that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
"The U.S. has never systematically mutilated people the way Germany, Iraq, Iran, and others have."
Perhaps not systematically, but, please tell me what happened to the 'Native American Indians'..
I'm more concerned about American hypocracy where it is alright to do the same as the ones you condemn (bomb indiscriminately, fund WMD and attack other countries without any justification).
I think even Hitler had more justification when he attacked Poland (Germans staged fake Polish a border incident and used this as a reason to invade Poland).
Dubya just decided that he had to kill the guy who tried to kill his dad. (Both Dubya and Saddam apparently failed in their attempts).
I'm sorry, but you keep rationalising the conduct of the USA with the goal of finding excuses for it. You have lowered the 'ethics' of it by making it "Having the right intentions" instead of "doing the right thing".
Alas, I do not subscribe to the idea that good intentions are enough to make an act good, nor justifiable. Furthermore, you seem hopelessly naive concerning the 'good intentions' you claim your government has. For instance, in your exampling showing your government had such good intentions that it delivered chemicals, well aware he used them on civilians, you imply that they were justified in doing so, because they thought back then that Iran was a greater threath. I fail to see the morality in that viewpoint, which I think is detrimental to the issue, since I doubt many Amricans, nor their governement, *do* so they are morally long in supplying WMD to a dictator, and taking the civilian deaths because of it as acceptable collateral damage.
An even more immoral-pointer would be, IF they thought Iran was SUCH a bad thing, that even civilians could be sacrificed for it, then why did they supply them with weapons too? It's by now a well known fact the USA supplied both sides with weapons; how do you reconcile this with your 'good intentions'?
Thusfar, you have made a very poor argument for it.
and then another thing, which, quite frankly, stupifies me. I had these kind of discussions earlier, but I never thought to get such a prime example of it. It seems americans truelly are entrenched in their ultra-capitalistic viewpoint. I can not believe you equate the opinion of others by their economic value. I really can't.
Dude, for your information, a question of morality or ethics does NOT weigh more or less, depending on the ecomomic force a person or country has. The idea is absurd on itself. Maybe in your simplified model and view of the world it does, but not in my, equally simplified, but a lot more democratic view that every country has one vote, just as any individual has one vote withing that country. What absurdity would it be, if rich people could vote more (which was actually tried in the utltra-capitzlist europe of the 19th century), according to their economic prowness, let alone claim they are 'right' by it?
Saying the USA is right, because the world opinion says so, but then counting on the world opinion in regard to their economic force, well knowing the USA is the biggest economic force on the planet, is rather self-serving. Why not just claim only the countries that have substantial military forces count, then? What you say is a derivative of 'might makes right', only with military might being substituted by economic might.
and that's the whole problem with the rest of your argumentation. Your prove for the fact that the world opinion is favorable towards the USA is based on the same economic principles. The most obvious and logical way to know what the world opinion is towards the USA would be to just ask what their opinion is about the USA, point. Polls have done that, and, even in europe, the USA has not come out favorably at all. Saying "Oh, but those people/countries (opinions) don't count, because they have a much weak economy" just doesn't cut it.
And you seem to forget one obvious criteria as to why 'investment' and other economic signs are no good criteria for knowing what the public/world opinion is: greed. Companies invest, and companies have a very bad record in upholding moral positions, certainly when it involves profits. they do not care if a country is being unethical, indeed, their (CEO, stockholders)personal convinction may well be that the USA is entirely wrong; but they will go for the bucks anyway. Companies are not ruled by ethics or opinions, they are in the first place ruled by profits. therefor, what *you* consider a proof of the USA being right, is a mere indication of the nature of people and companies, that they often set their greed higher then their ethics.
This point has been proven before, btw, b
Do you have an email, of sorts?
We could continue this discussion in another kind of way in another kind of 'public forum' (let me know if you are interested), as it were. It's interesting to portray different viewpoints, and all to often these things just vanish into oblivion (as with slashdot, eventually).
In short, I would like to (online) publish our discussion. My email is: swiebeln@operamail.com. Let me know if it interest you.
No, they obviously haven't, however we don't live back then.
I'm seriously curious: at what point do you think Christianity magically made this transition you're saying it underwent -- from the old, whacked-out ideas about good and evil to our supposed modern enlightened ones?
Hey...re-read what I said...did I say anything about Christianity??
Get off yer little box.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)