Why is biological warfare considered bad?
First The effects are incredibly incredibly awfulImagine an entire city and nation gets infected by weaponized diseases , it will make atomic bomb at hiroshima and dresden bombing looks like childplay. Thousands upon thousands of people just fell sick ( military AND civilians) , just like that . Suffering while medics got frustated because they have no idea at all of what the disease is and how to cure it, if they are healty enough to do their job.Men, women and children just... waiting for their death suffering from the new type diseases .Body bags everywhere if you are lucky , if not well, the body will just sitting there. So if humanity employ this well , what kind of world is this?SecondWhat stopping the disease from infecting your own troops? Okay maybe the lab guy got a vaccine of sort , but of course like every single living thing in the world there is always mutation happen everywhere( cancer is one of the most common) . What if it mutated ? You are screwed too , an entire camp just drop dead and your army is gone like really gone, worse than a division sent to stalingrad.Fortunately , as crazy as some of the people on earth, they are not crazy enough to use this , or there is enough sane people to stop them.
Why don’t terrorist organisations use chemical or bio-weapons instead of bombs?
Chemical and biological weapons are NOT more efficient, or more cost-effective.A chemical or bio-weapons program is a costly investment that requires long-term investment of capital and management to successfully weaponize product. Even then, reliable delivery can still be somewhat iffy. While you may be able to throw some ammonia cleaner and chlorine bleach together in your bathtub and give yourself a minor chemical burn and cause your eyebrows to fall out, to consistently create biochem weapons that you can successfully manufacture, store, and deploy (even if you don’t care about the survival of your operators), you need to expend a lot of time, money, and you need to have real estate that you can build secure facilities on that will be in operation for a number of years.How many terrorist organizations attract postdoctorate-level chemists and disease experts? How many of them have the permanently-controlled real estate to set up the facilities to produce anthrax/VX/phosgene/botulism/tularemia/ebola in controlled conditions, and prepare it into specialized munitions and delivery systems? The Aum Shinryoko cult pretty much had to devote all of its resources to its program for years, which only ended up killing 13 people.Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to employ. Japanese experiments with Unit 731 proved that you have to spray a LOT of anthrax to get desired results. Gas chemical weapons are heavier than atmosphere, and so are at the mercy of humidity and prevailing winds. After the first year of gas warfare in World War I, casualties dropped off dramatically and the weapon became more of a means of restricting mobility rather than causing casualties since everyone had chemical protection. It is much easier to train someone to operate firearms and simple explosive devices than it is to teach them all the protocols for successfully employing a chemical or bio-weapon for maximum effectiveness.Explosives and gun attacks also seem to have more media “impact,” with the BOOM BOOM and BANG BANG, the clouds and fires from explosions, and all that. Terrorism, is after all, about perceptions. Dramatic attacks convey power and violence. Gas and germs…not so much, especially if it’s easily contained and low body count.
Spanish conquest of Mexico questions!?
A few questions: 1. Reading and contrasting indigenous and Spanish accounts of the arrival of Panfilo de Narvaez and the Toxcatl massacre, do you think that the Mexica had planned a rebellion? 2. What role might Tlaxcalan informants have played in stimulating Pedro de Alvarado to action? 3. What effect did the differences in military technology have on the fighting in Tenochtitlan? How did the Mexica adapt to the challenge of Spanish arms? 4. How can the two distinct versions of the death of Moctezuma be explained? 5. How might indigenous women have viewed the conquest? I got decent answers I think for the other million questions... Please some help on these ones cause I have no idea and have been sitting here looking for the answers in this book for the past 5 hours. Book is "Victors and Vanquished: Spanish and Nahua Views of the Conquest of Mexico" but some answers aren't just from the book, they're general info anyways, so if you have answers please give them whether they're from the book or not please!