War
It’s not a new idea. Biological warfare has been around for a long time. Some of the earliest records in human history talk about it. Our ancestors knew how to spread infection and put their knowledge to diabolical use when fighting their enemies.
Scythian archers infected their arrows with mucous from decomposing bodies as far back as 400 BC. Persian, Greek and Roman sources give examples of dead animals being used to contaminate wells. In 190 BC Hannibal won a naval victory by catapulting vessels filled with venomous snakes into enemy ships.
The catapults got bigger and, by the year 1200, dead horses were being hurled over city walls to spread disease amongst the unfortunate citizens. The favorite delivery weapon was the trebuchet, pictured here. Its other use was to knock down walls
The arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the Americas was disastrous for the local people. The Spanish didn’t need to wage germ warfare. Their presence was all that was needed.
The ancestors of the native Americans crossed the Bering Straits towards the end of the last ice age and failed to bring a full quota of germs with them. As a consequence, their descendant’s immunity to disease was limited.
Diseases, to which Europeans were immune, swept through the two continents. In many parts, population numbers fell by as much as 90 percent. Great and powerful nations were conquered by a handful of men. The Incas lost their land and their gold.
Smallpox was one of the main killers. Many Europeans caught it during their lives and carried the disfiguring scars. They were resistant to the disease. The American natives were not.
There are tales of them being given clothes and blankets smeared with puss from smallpox victims. The tales sound true. It would be surprising if the conquistadors did not include germ warfare in their arsenal of weapons.
Similar tales are told of the early British settlers in North America and the British colonisers of Australia. These were frequently denied by government bodies set up to investigate them. The modern tendency is to believe that they are, at least, partly true. It would be surprising if some land-hungry colonists did not resort to nasty measures to rid the land of its original owners.
Of one thing we can be sure: The native populations of North America and Australia were decimated by introduced diseases.
Advances in medical science have opened up some horrifying possibilities. German and Japanese scientists are notorious for the experiments they carried out on captive people during the Second World War. I don’t doubt that the accusations are true but feel bound to remember that history is always harsh towards the losing side and keen to place the winners in a favourable light.
Most scientifically advanced nations have produced biological weapons. So far, international agreements have been successful in preventing their use. Let’s hope it stays that way.
Finally, take a look at the suburb physical condition of the Aboriginal Australians in the photograph (above). You can see the same fine physiques in photographs of “primitive” people in the jungles of the Amazon. Few people in our modern “advanced” societies come anywhere near them.
So much for our modern lifestyle!
Ancient manuscripts, dating back thousands of years, record the use of chemical weapons in China and the West. Poisonous darts, boiling tar, arsenic smoke and other chemical killers were part of the arsenals of past civilisations.
The horrendous weapons that we know today made their debut on the battlefields of World War I. Chlorine and other gases were released from canisters and dispersed by the wind. They resulted in 90,000 deaths and over one million casualties. The injured continued to suffer from the effects long after the war had ended.
After witnessing the horror of chemical weapons during World War I, most countries were reluctant to be the first to introduce them onto the battlefields of World War ll. But, many made preparations to retaliate, in kind, should such weapons be used against them.
The United States and Soviet Union produced enormous amounts. It is estimated that the stockpiles held by these two countries were enough to destroy much of the human and animal life on Earth.
Saddam Hussain used mustard gas and nerve agents against Kurdish villages in northern Iraq in 1988. The horrific pictures of his victims (photo, above) shocked the world and influenced ongoing negotiations in Geneva for a Chemical Weapons Ban.
More recent examples of the use of chemical weapons include the sarin attack in the Tokyo Metro, in 1995, by the Aum Shinrikyu doomsday cult. The attack highlighted the potential use of chemicals by terrorist groups. It is one of the principal concerns of security forces combating the threat posed by Daesh (Islamic State).
The photograph shows the Japanese city of Hiroshima shortly after it was struck by a nuclear bomb on August 6 1945. Three days later a second American bomb fell on Nagasaki. Together, they caused the deaths of 129,000 civilians and military personnel. Thousands died later from radiation sickness. Children born to parents, exposed to radiation, suffered an abnormally high incidence of birth defects.
In 1945 only one country, the United States, possessed nuclear weapons. It was later joined by the Soviet Union (1949), United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), China (1964), India (1974) and Pakistan (1998). Israel is widely believed to have developed nuclear weapons (with help from France) but has never admitted to having them. South Africa developed nuclear weapons (with help from Israel) and was the first country to destroy them. North Korea has successfully tested nuclear devices underground but the nature of these devices is unclear.
Nuclear weapons have been detonated on over 2000 occasions for testing and demonstration purposes. Testing was initially conducted above ground and led to the dispersal of dangerous radioactive substances in the atmosphere. After a huge public outcry testing was eventually done underground.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, new states emerged and some (notably Ukraine) had nuclear weapons facilities based on their soil. These were subsequently disbanded.
Concern was expressed that nuclear material from these facilities could fall into the hands of rogue nations and terrorist groups. If this occurred then the material has not, so far, been put to hostile use.
Advanced delivery systems are not needed. A bomb arriving in a shipping container could do as much damage as one delivered by an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Nor is it necessary for nuclear material to be converted into a nuclear bomb. A traditional explosive device could disperse radioactive material over a wide area if detonated under favourable atmospheric conditions.
Major powers are constrained by the knowledge that use of nuclear weapons is likely to lead to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The same does not apply to groups such as Daesh (Islamic State) and the Taliban.
See Chapter 4.4: Asymmetric Warfare.
We all like the story of David and Goliath. The little guy beat the big guy and is our hero. The giant came at him with a sword and little David overcame him with a primitive weapon. David felled Goliath with a stone, took his sword and lopped off his head.
Now take a look at the picture of French security forces at work in Paris following the recent terror attacks. Suppose the little guy spins round and takes out the five policemen with a series of karate blows. Few of us would jump to our feet and cheer.
This time, Goliath is on our side
The Paris terror attacks were mounted by a handful of men. We call them terrorists. Others regard them as heroes. They killed over a hundred people and put security forces on the alert all over Europe. From Madrid to Moscow, public venues were shut down and functions cancelled.
That’s asymmetrical warfare.
It’s not new. Large armies have been worn down by guerrilla activity in the past. In recent years it has been a determining factor in many conflicts.
The Vietcong employed asymmetrical warfare against the might of the American armed forces. The Mujahedin used it against the Russians in Afghanistan. The Taliban and other Islamic groups are using it over an expanded conflict zone.
The aim in asymmetric warfare is to wear the bigger opponent down. This requires tenacity of purpose and a strong backing amongst the local population.
Outside support also helps.
This was evident in Vietnam where the Russians supported the Vietcong against the Americans and in Afghanistan where the Americans supported the Mujahedin against the Russians.
Similar proxy wars are now being fought in the struggle between the Shiite and Sunni branches of the Islamic faith. There is a growing feeling in the West that the best tactic is not to get involved.
It is easy to forget how much the internet has changed our lives. We are accustomed to meet our friends on Facebook. We use our computers for banking. We send letters by email and we rely on the internet for our work. The internet has changed our lives and we are dependent on it.
Modern societies would cease to function if the internet shut down. Power grids would fail. Transport systems would be seriously disrupted. Global banking would be plunged into crisis. The list goes on ...
The internet is vulnerable to physical attack. Space satellites and communication dishes would become prime targets in the event of a major war. That’s only part of the story. The internet is vulnerable from cyberspace.
Relatively poor nations … even individuals … can do serious damage. No great expenditure is required. Government investigators have sometimes been unable to determine whether a cyber incursion was mounted by a foreign country or teenagers in a student lodging.
A couple of examples give an idea of the sort of damage that can be done by a determined attack.
In 2008, an oil pipeline in Turkey was cyber attacked. Valves were closed and the resulting high pressures caused an explosion. The attackers also immobilised security cameras. As a consequence, the blast was not registered in the control room and safety crews did not respond promptly. The attack was (allegedly) mounted from inside Russia.
In 2009 a complex piece of malware severely disrupted the operation of an Iranian nuclear facility. Valves were turned off and damage done to centrifuges and other equipment. As a consequence, the Iranian uranium enrichment program was slowed down. The attack was (allegedly) a joint US/Israel operation.
Defence analysts believe that major powers are unlikely to launch any concerted cyber-attacks at one another. All have the ability to respond in kind and the outcome would be mutually destructive.
The same considerations do not apply to terrorist groups intent on causing maximum harm at minimum cost.
See Chapter 4.4: Asymmetric Warfare.
My Crime Books
I write mystery thrillers and historical thrillers. If you would like to take a look at one of these then you might start with The Emerald Buddha. You can buy The Emerald Buddha from Amazon for $6,50 or receive a FREE COPY from me. CLICK: http://eepurl.com/bNh_nn