Conclusions

Although biological weapons have been used only sporadically throughout human history, and their military effectiveness has never been clearly demonstrated by use in war, the impact of natural disease outbreaks continually reminds us that they are potentially very effective weapons. For that reason there has been a continual fascination with them by nations in the last century, a fascination that continues today. Particularly where regional hegemony (or resisting it) may require unconventional weapons, they remain a major threat. The legal regime prohibiting them is clear and in place, but it lacks effective mechanisms to verify compliance and to build confidence in the existing legal regime. Repairing that gap constitutes an urgent agenda for the international community.

The urgency is made greater by the rapid scientific progress stimulated by genomics, proteomics, and a host of related research technologies [37]. These promise increasingly rapid advances in understanding human physiology and microbial pathogenesis. The scientific advances are matched by rapid changes in biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industries, as they too assimilate the new methods. All of this is likely to bring new military interest in biological weapons, perhaps even in countries not now considered proliferation risks.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McNeill, W. 1976. Plagues and Peoples. Garden City, New York, Anchor Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leitenberg, M. 2001. Biological weapons in the twentieth century: a review and analysis. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 27 (4): 267–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayor, A., 1997. Dirty tricks in ancient warfare. Quarterly Journal of Military History, Autumn 1997: 32–37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wheelis, M. 1999. Biological warfare before 1914. p. 8–34 in E. Geissler and J. E. v. C. Moon (Eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mayor, A., 1995. The Nessus shirt in the new world: smallpox blankets in history and legend. Journal of American Folklore 108 (427): 54–77.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fenn, E. A. 2000. Biological warfare in eighteenth-century North America: beyond Jeffery Amherst. Journal of American History March 2000, 1552–1580.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wheelis, M. 1999. Biological sabotage in World War I. p. 35–62 in E. Geissler and J. E. v. C. Moon (Eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris, S. H. 1999. The Japanese biological warfare programme: an overview. Biological in World War I. p. 35–62 in E. Geissler and J. E. v. C. Moon (Eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris, S. H. 1994. Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare 1932–45 and the American Cover-Up. Routlidge, London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams, P., and D. Wallace, 1989. Unit 731: The Japanese Army’s Secret of Secrets Hodder & Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alibek, K., and S. Handelman 1999. Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World—Told from the Inside by the Man Who Ran It. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bojtzov, V., and E. Geissler 1999. Military biology in the USSR, 1920–45. p. 153–167 in E. Geissler and J. E. v. C. Moon (Eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Croddy, E., and S. Krcalova 2001. Tularemia, biological warfare, and the battle for Stalingrad (1942–1943). Military Medicine 166; XXXX.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moon, J. E. v. C., 1932. Biological warfare allegations: the Korean War case. p. 53–83 in R. A. Zilinskas (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense research: Ethics, Politics, and International Security. New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    International Scientific Commission 1952. Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China. Peking. 616 pp.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leitenberg, M., 1998. The Korean biological warfare allegations resolved. Center for Pacific Asia Studies at Stockholm University Occasional Paper 36. May 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zilinskas, R. A. 1999. Cuban allegations of biological warfare by the United States: assessing the evidence. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 25, 173–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nass, M., 1992. Anthrax epizootic in Zimbabwe, 1978–1980: due to deliberate spread? PSR Quarterly 2, 198–209.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nass, M., 1992. Zimbabwe’s anthrax epizootic. Covert Action Quarterly No. 43, 12–18.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martinez, I. 2002. The history of the use of bacteriological and chemical agents during Zimbabwe’s liberation war of 1965–80 by Rhodesian forces. Third World Quarterly 23, 1159–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seeley, T. D., J. W. Nowicke, M. Meselson, J. Guillemin, and P. Akratanakul. 1985 Yellow Rain. Scientific American 253, No. 3, 128–137.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robinson, J., J. Guillemin, and M. Meselson. 1990. Yellow Rain in Southeast Asia: the story collapses. p. 220–238 in S. Wright (ed) Preventing a Biological Arms Race. IT press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Selth, A. 1996. Burma and exotic weapons. Strategic Analysis 19, 413–433.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carus, W. S. 1999. Bioterrorism and Biocrimes: The Illicit use of Biological Agents in the 20th Century. Working paper from the Center for Counterproliferation Research, National Defense University, Washington DC. 215 pp.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carus, W. S., 2000. The Rajneeshees (1984). p. 115–137 in J. B. Tucker (ed). Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaplan, D. E., 2000. Aum Shinrikyo (1995). p. 207–226 in J. B. Tucker (ed). Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geissler, E., and J. E. v. C. Moon (Eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meselson, M., J. Guillemin, M. Hugh-Jones, A. Langmuir, I. Popova, A. Shelekov, and O. Yampolskaya. 1994. The Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak of 1979. Science 266, 1202–1208.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guillemin, J., 2000. Anthrax: The Investigation of a Deadly Outbreak. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burger, M., and C. Gould, 2002. Secrets and Lies: Wouter Basson and South Africa’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme. Zebra Press, Cape Town.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gould, C., and P. I. Folb, Non Proliferation Review, 2003 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zilinskas, R. A., 1997. Iraq’s biological weapons: the past as future? JAMA 278, 418–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trevan, T., 1999. Saddam’s Secrets: The Hunt for Iraq’s Hidden Weapons. Harper Collins, London.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 2000. Biological weapons proliferation. Report # 2000/05. June 9, 2000.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mierzejewski, J. W., and J. E. v. C. Moon, 1999. Poland and biological weapons. p. 63–69 in E. Geissler and J. E. v. C. Moon (Eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garthoff, R. L., 2000. Polyakov’s run. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Sept/Oct 2000, 37–40.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wheelis, M., 2002. Biotechnology and biochemical weapons. Nonproliferation Review 9 (1): 48–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Wheelis
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations