Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article analyzes the role of biological weapons in international politics. In order to understand why states might want these weapons, I examine the utility of biological weapons as counterforce weapons on the battlefield as well as their ability to serve as a strategic deterrent. I argue that despite recent scientific advances, biological weapons are not well suited to battlefield use. Instead, it is the ability of biological weapons to serve as a strategic deterrent that make them attractive to states. Although there is greater uncertainty about the effects of a biological attack than there is about the effects of a nuclear attack, I argue that the potential destructiveness of a biological attack is great enough to compensate; even a small probability of a successful retaliatory strike with biological weapons should deter an attack on a state's vital interests. This ability of biological weapons to serve as a strategic deterrent has important implications for international politics. In particular, the spread of biological weapons may lead to a 'biological revolution' comparable to the nuclear revolution that occurred among the major nuclear powers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Susan Martin (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: