Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Army To Ramp Up Anthrax Purchasing
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist reports that the U.S. Army wants to purchase a large supply of an anthrax strain." From the article: "A series of contracts have been uncovered that relate to the US army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. They ask companies to tender for the production of bulk quantities of a non-virulent strain of anthrax, and for equipment to produce significant volumes of other biological agents ... Although the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans and is used for vaccination, the contracts have caused major concern. 'It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention if it brings these tanks online,'"
how did the US know Saddam had those WMDs?
They have the receipt
all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
FYI: the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention has a website.
It's not going to be used for weaponry, and the US has enough nuclear firepower to not need biological weaponry, which are much more unpredictable in effect, and less reliable.
Bad journalism, coming straight from NewScientist.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
The nuclean non-proliferation treaty calls for all nuclear weapon armed states to steadily reduce their nuclear weapons stockpile, not try and develop new mini-nukes or stall weapons reduction.
They could just want all that anthrax strain, which is used for vaccinations, to do just that. Vaccinate all the armed forces people first and then the whole of the US population. It is realistically possible that for just once this is on the straight. Now, as my previous postings show, I'm not Uncle Sam's lover, but don't ascribe to malice ...
How is this "insightful" and not "flamebait?" Its like they'll let anybody moderate.
Oh well.
There are lots of countries that have WMD. The US government has no problem with WMD per se, just problems in the hands of those who might attack the US or its allies.
IIRC, Bush hasn't actually asked for the disarming of all these countries. He has asked that we take them out of the hands of nutcases who will use them as a first line of attack rather than a last resort; people who find ethnic cleansing an acceptable thing (he clouded the issue a bit by labeling them terrorists, but the reason they are terrorists seems clear enough to me).
The request itself, unlike the mechanism put in place to do it, seems reasonable enough.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
What the DoD is doing here is making some anthrax vaccine, because we're out. We used a lot of it with our second Iraq deployment, and the fear is very real that someone will use an anthrax weapon in a terrorist attack. The army wants to get some vaccine, and start making their own so they aren't reliant on outside contractors to produce it. It's always been a weak point in our policy I think to rely upon civilan companies to produce vaccines for biological agents (and checmical for that matter).
A crop duster full of anthrax would cause some serious mayhem in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, think about it.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
The logic is the reverse: If its NOT ok for these other nations, why is it ok for the US?
Stop the US bashing
Stop bombing people. Stop toppling democratically elected governments. Stop preaching about democracy when your own government is controlled by corporate lobbyists. Stop torturing people. Stop imprisonment without trial. Clean up your pollution.
I have good friends who are citizens of the USA. Lots of you are nice people, but as a nation you face justifiable critisism.
If people criticising the USA makes you unhappy then do something about the bad things your country is doing. Don't try and stop the free speech that your great nation was founded on.
The fact that Anthrax got loose in Washington, and the way the investigation was stonewalled seems to indicate that the US has not been adhering very stringently to the spirit of any convention.
"got loose"? You mean: "was mailed there" by some loon. You're making it sound like the Downtown Washington DC Anthrax Depot, badly handled by some sort of yukapuk guarding it with a whistle and a nightstick, somehow sprung a leak. Rather, someone who knew what they were doing with the organism and had the specific will to cause some chaos with it acted to do just so. How is that any example of the U.S. not adhering the "spirit of any convention" (my emphasis)? That sentence (and concept) just doesn't make any contextual sense whatsoever.
That's like saying that because some maniac in Japan slit the throats of some school children, that Japan is "once again going to war." Or that the Spanish guy who raped and murdered a French schoolgirl shows that there the spirit of the Geneva convention is being ignored by Spain in their conflict with France. What? That's crazy? Right.
On the other hand testing your weapons on your own population does not infringe on any treaty AFAIK.
Wow! You sure know something that no one else does! Unless of course you're just BSing because it's fun to pretend that a secret US method of testing a bio-weapon on its own citizens would be to mail it to people. What complete, tinfoil-lined crap, and you know it. I can't believe this was modded insightful. Wait... where am I? Slashdot? I suppose I can, actually.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is very inconsistent with the claim, "we went in it for the oil."
It's entirely consistent. The people behind the war didn't start it to reduce fuel costs for ordinary Americans. They started it to control the production of oil in order to increase their own wealth.
It's about oil producers. They don't give a rats arse about oil consumers. Look at the price gouging that's happening right now.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I'd like to quote you Article 4 of the Geneva convention:
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Not sure how it applies in the case of armed fighters not fighting on behalf of a government or fighting on behalf of a government not signatory to the geneva convention.
I'd also disagree on the "terrorism against captives" bit, terrorism is against civilians. Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack for example. A captured enemy fighter is not a civilian by definition.
Yeah, you sure done showed us good!
Seems he has if you can't even log in to post.
Fearmongering?! Are you for real? Only morons trust their government. I'd go so far as to say that people who trust the government are traitors to their nation.