2007-04-23 15:16:44 · 18 answers · asked by Brian L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It's never been used probably by the fact that its so good at what it does. Agents good as a weapon usually don't kill and if they do they probably have no visible signs of infection and kill 2 weeks later. Ebola is evident when contracted and it kills to quickly. The host would be dead before he spread effectively, and also it transmission method isn't through the air making it a bad choice for weaponry. honestly the worst thing someone could use is Small Pocks... It only exist in labs now, so no one is immune and if it were released no one would recognize it till it spread significantly. I was a Chem Specialist on my ship in the Navy, Bio weapons are used to slow an enemies progress... that's better done with Casualties who take up space and supplies, not the dead who are more or less not an issue anymore.
2007-04-23 16:08:55 · answer #1 · answered by Mateo 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ebola is an extremely powerful virus, and if it spreads, then there will be no stopping it. There is no vaccine. If you want to know more, read The Hot Zone, by Robert Preston. It's a book about an outbreak of Ebola.
2007-04-23 22:34:38 · answer #2 · answered by palazzolojr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THe most important thing to make a virus or bacteria into a weapon is the ability to control the virus or bacteria. When you drop it on a site, You want to kill or injure your enemy, while your own troops are harmless. THis is usually doon by making a vaccine and giving it to your soilder. A good biological weapon doesn't need to kill. If your enemies all have severe diarrhea, it would reduce their fighting capacity and give you a distinct advantage. The problem with Ebola is that we haven't got a vaccine for it.
2007-04-23 22:30:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ebola in its current form is a blood borne pathogen. That means it is spread like AIDS. Good for wiping out civilian populations bad for taking out military targets. If an airborne strain is developed it would have a military application but it must still be containable to the battlefield. A disease with no control (vaccination, short life span or selective infection) is not practical as a military weapon.
2007-04-23 22:28:58 · answer #4 · answered by RomeoMike 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are yo serious? Using Ebola as a weapon is like using a weapon of mass destruction! No one in his right mind will use this as a weapon... you can kill even the innocent and probably in the long run may hunt you and your nation if this virus becomes unstoppable!
2007-04-23 22:23:06 · answer #5 · answered by Ron 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason being is even if you are smart, the person handling the device could be a complete idiot. For instance 1/3 or Russian nuclear missles are considered too defective to reach their target. They could blow up right after launch. Now imagine a country posioning itself while trying to poison others. Nobody wants that headache.
The U.S. has MOABs that can do more damage quicker and if they blow up in a local neighborhood, the damage ends right there.
2007-04-24 00:30:14 · answer #6 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the Geneva conventions exist. It's a biological weapon, and biological weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Do I need to explain any further?
2007-04-23 22:24:39 · answer #7 · answered by azrael505 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has not been used as a weapon of war ,same way CYNAIDE has not been used as beverage.But if you want to see it use as weapon of war try and gulp three cups of raw acid and it will give you an elevation that you desire to see the end of Evil
2007-04-23 22:27:42 · answer #8 · answered by Ogbunigwe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you knew how Ebola is spread that would answer your question.
2007-04-23 22:33:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a very poor choice. It's strikes too fast and is too lethal. It has a tendency to "burn out" an area fast. This limits it's ability to spread.
2007-04-23 23:27:10 · answer #10 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋