Is there any justification for creating non-lethal biological weapons, in which people just get sick, not die?
No. To begin, there’s a problem with the term “non-lethal” when lethality can actually occur. It depends very much who the object of the attack is. We develop a notion of a non-lethal biological or chemical weapon based on the physical reactions of a sturdy 22-year-old. But these weapons are indiscriminate. You don’t know if the target will include a sick older person, a pregnant woman or a child, and, with airborne agents, you cannot control the amount of exposure in an attack. You can call it “non-lethal,” but the probability is that some percentage of victims will die. Q. Now that today we have so many non-state players, is it still worthwhile to pursue or enforce international treaties against biological weapons? A. It’s very important to have the treaties–the Geneva Protocol and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions–and to do everything necessary to enforce them. They create a norm, which if violated, puts the violator–whether a head of state or another responsible pa
