Doomsday machines
Howard Berkowitz
of some things as far future science fiction, but some have gone into
design studies in the 50's and 60's.
Top posting seemed symbolically appropriate.
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:48:18 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Eric, let's take your hypothesis a step beyond current weaponry.
> >
> >Let's assume it was possible to create a bomb that would end life on
> >earth, and relatively cheap to do so. Do you think that such a bomb
> >should be owned by anyone who wants one? If would, after all, be quite
> >useful for preventing the government from getting "uppity", as ending
> >life on earth would, by default, end the government.
>
> Planet busters would be arms, one would assume. Like I said, the
> intention of the RKBA is to preserve freedom. Would society be less
> free if someone could wipe it out?
> Why then, do we trust the government with the power to wipe out
> all life on earth?
> Anti-matter weapons could certainly destroy the planet. As could
> any of a number of genetically engineered super viruses. At some
> future date, the human race will have widespread availability of
> technology that can kill off the entire planet.
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>Hate to say it, Eric, but this ain't a concept of the future. You speak
>of some things as far future science fiction, but some have gone into
>design studies in the 50's and 60's.
>
>Top posting seemed symbolically appropriate.
The technology to wipe out the plane is not widespread. Nuclear
weapons are expensive to build. So far nobody's made a virus that
could kill of everyone.
As technology progresses, it'll only take one antimatter bomb to
do the job, or a well tailored genetic virus. Tough to prevent a mad
scientist from experimenting in a lab somewhere on viral weapons.
Eric Pinnell
(Author, "The Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")
For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"
Howard Berkowitz
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 19:56:07 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Hate to say it, Eric, but this ain't a concept of the future. You speak
> >of some things as far future science fiction, but some have gone into
> >design studies in the 50's and 60's.
> >
> >Top posting seemed symbolically appropriate.
>
> The technology to wipe out the plane is not widespread. Nuclear
> weapons are expensive to build. So far nobody's made a virus that
> could kill of everyone.
Eric, I just went through a specific example of a bacterium, not a
virus, that would have doomsday capability, and is well understood in
the relevant research community. I don't know why you are fixating on
viruses.
But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
> As technology progresses, it'll only take one antimatter bomb to
> do the job, or a well tailored genetic virus. Tough to prevent a mad
> scientist from experimenting in a lab somewhere on viral weapons.
As far as nuclear doomsday machines, cobalt jackets go a good way, as do
subterranean devices in fault lines -- especially at sea.
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>Eric, I just went through a specific example of a bacterium, not a
>virus, that would have doomsday capability, and is well understood in
>the relevant research community. I don't know why you are fixating on
>viruses.
You mean E. coli?
>But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
>Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
Smallpox also has a cure.
>As far as nuclear doomsday machines, cobalt jackets go a good way, as do
>subterranean devices in fault lines -- especially at sea.
Still not enough. If it's a true doomsday device, it has to kill
off the human population. Otherwise, it's merely a weapon of a Whole
Lot of Destruction.
Howard Berkowitz
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:54:27 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Eric, I just went through a specific example of a bacterium, not a
> >virus, that would have doomsday capability, and is well understood in
> >the relevant research community. I don't know why you are fixating on
> >viruses.
>
> You mean E. coli?
Enteric E. coli with Cl. botulinum type A production.
>
> >But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
> >Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
>
> Smallpox also has a cure.
Oh? What? Virologists wait with eager ears to hear the answer.
I vaguely remember some experiments with marcarbazone (?), but I know of
no antiviral agent that's effective against it. It was eradicated by
mass immunization and quarantine.
Fred J. McCall
:On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:54:27 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
:wrote:
:
:>But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
:>Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
:
: Smallpox also has a cure.
No, it doesn't. There is a vaccine to give you virtual immunity to
it, which is something slightly different.
When did you have your last smallpox vaccination, Eric? They make
very little of it these days (if any).
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>Oh? What? Virologists wait with eager ears to hear the answer.
The vaccine prevents smallpox, although a small percentage of the
population will actually develop the disease as a result of taking the
vaccine.
>I vaguely remember some experiments with marcarbazone (?), but I know of
>no antiviral agent that's effective against it. It was eradicated by
>mass immunization and quarantine.
The trouble with virtually all diseases is that they aren't 100%
effective in wiping a population out. To be a true doomsday weapon,
it has to be 100% lethal.
Said weapon would not likely be used unless whoever developed it
also had the cure.
Eric Pinnell
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>No, it doesn't. There is a vaccine to give you virtual immunity to
>it, which is something slightly different.
>
>When did you have your last smallpox vaccination, Eric? They make
>very little of it these days (if any).
A long time ago. I still have that funny scar that looks like
multiple puncture wounds arranged in a big hexagon.
Howard Berkowitz
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:24:28 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh? What? Virologists wait with eager ears to hear the answer.
>
> The vaccine prevents smallpox, although a small percentage of the
> population will actually develop the disease as a result of taking the
> vaccine.
Again, learn some medicine, Eric. The vaccine does not contain
smallpox, which is Variola major. Instead, it has live cowpox, Variola
minor. There is no conceivable way that somone can get smallpox from
the vaccine because it doesn't contain any.
There are, however, concerns about safety of the vaccine. This is not
new. See details at end of message.
>
> >I vaguely remember some experiments with marcarbazone (?), but I know of
> >no antiviral agent that's effective against it. It was eradicated by
> >mass immunization and quarantine.
>
> The trouble with virtually all diseases is that they aren't 100%
> effective in wiping a population out. To be a true doomsday weapon,
> it has to be 100% lethal.
Try rabies. Yes, there have been a handful of saves with intensive
care, but it's generally been considered 100% lethal.
> Said weapon would not likely be used unless whoever developed it
> also had the cure.
Then, by your logic, it's not a doomsday weapon.
---------
SMALLPOX VACCINE HAZARDS
****************************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail, a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:06:47 -0400
From: George Robertson <Robe...@wyeth.com>
Source: AMNews 19 Aug 2002 [edited]
Smallpox vaccine hazards dictate cautious approach
- -------------------------------------------------
With the greater number of immunocompromised people today, there are
more
public health concerns with immunization policy than in past years.
Physicians receiving or administering the smallpox vaccine as part of a
federal plan to counter bioterrorism should be aware that the recipient
of
the vaccine isn't the only one at risk for complications.
"There is a significant possibility of person-to-person transmission,"
noted Scott D. Deitchman, MD, MPH, chair of the AMA's bioterrorism
subcommittee and a member of the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs. The
risk is substantial, as the vaccination site will harbor a large amount
of
live virus capable of replicating, he said. The risk subsides when the
site
scabs over, 2 weeks or more after immunization.
The vaccine itself is probably the "least safe human vaccine," said
Anthony
Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases at a 25 Jul 2002 briefing on smallpox vaccination sponsored by
the
Alliance for Health Reform. Complications can result in death for
vaccine
recipients as well as for those they come into contact with.
Physicians will need to counsel patients about the risk of spreading the
vaccinia virus used in the smallpox vaccine either to other members of
their households or to other parts of their own bodies, said Dr.
Deitchman.
Live virus at the vaccination site poses transmission risks for 2 weeks.
They will have to warn against scratching the very itchy site, keeping
the
site covered with a dressing, washing hands after changing the dressing
and
putting the used dressing in a sealed plastic bag, he said. Additional
difficulties could arise when trying to protect small children from
complications.
Risks posed by the vaccine have led physician groups, including the AMA
and
the Infectious Diseases Society of America, to advise against
[beginning] a
broad vaccination campaign before there is any evidence that the disease
has made an appearance in the country.
The federal government was debating at press time just how many people
should be vaccinated against the disease, which has been eradicated in
its
natural state but is now feared as a possible agent of bioterrorism. A
decision is expected in the weeks ahead.
One plan recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
vaccine advisory committee calls for the inoculation of the physicians
and
nurses who would be expected to care for smallpox victims, with
additional
inoculation of close contacts of an infected person should the need
arise.
The efforts could begin with the immunization of between 10 000 and 20
000
health care personnel as early as this fall.
The federal government is now developing a document that will be sent to
about 100 000 physicians and nurses explaining the vaccine and its
problems, said D. A. Henderson, MD, principal science adviser to Health
and
Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. Dr. Henderson, who played a
large
role in the eradication of the disease in the 1970s, also spoke at the
25
Jul 2002 briefing.
The risks posed by the vaccine are serious and include tissue necrosis
and
encephalitis. One complication, progressive vaccinia, can result when
the
virus continues to multiply throughout the body, said Samuel Katz, MD,
professor of pediatrics at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Dr. Katz is
also
the Infectious Diseases Society of America's liaison to the CDC's
vaccine
advisory committee.
When the smallpox vaccine was discontinued in 1972, little was said
about
its complications, said Dr. Henderson. "And today's population has a
very
different perception of risk than did the population back in the 1960s,"
he
said. One death per 1 million smallpox vaccinations is considered a low
estimate. "Now there is a feeling that every vaccine should be totally
safe, although none is," he noted. "And we aren't willing to accept very
much of a risk." Using data from the mid-1960s, the CDC calculated a
death
rate of one per 1 million people vaccinated. But for today's vastly
different population the death rate would likely be higher.
Now there are many more people with compromised immune systems, and it
is
this group that is at greatest risk for serious complications such as
progressive vaccinia. "People whose immune systems are suppressed,
especially if it involves cell-mediated immunity, may not be able to
contain this virus appropriately," said Dr. Katz. The spread of AIDS,
the
increase in organ transplantation and the thousands of people with
cancer
who are on immunosuppressant drugs all will make a big difference, noted
Dr. Katz.
Today also, for reasons no one seems to understand, there are many more
children who have eczema than there were in the 1960s. The skin
condition
places the children at greater vulnerability from another rampant
infection, eczema vaccinata, which they can contract either from the
vaccine itself or from someone recently vaccinated. Smallpox vaccination
creates a risk of eczema vaccinata among children.
There is a medication, vaccinia immune globulin, available to treat
these
children, but unfortunately there aren't many doses of VIG currently
available. VIG can only be derived from those recently vaccinated for
smallpox and, except for a small number of smallpox researchers and
subjects in clinical trials, no one falls into this category. The United
States halted smallpox vaccinations in 1972, and the last known case of
naturally transmitted smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977. However,
the
United States is gearing up to produce more VIG, and new federal
contracts
with pharmaceutical companies were in the works in late July, Dr. Fauci
reported.
The search is also on for a safer form of the vaccine, perhaps one that
uses killed virus, rather than a live, multiplying virus, but its
development will likely take several years, said Dr. Katz. One problem
is
the lack of an appropriate animal model. "Smallpox is a human infection,
and there is no experimental animal that mimics the human infection," he
noted. More exciting perhaps is the ongoing work on antiviral compounds
to
treat patients with smallpox or patients who have bad reactions to the
vaccine. One drug, cidofovir, has been found to be effective in mice
against mouse pox. But would it be effective in man? "We don't know
yet,"
said Dr. Katz.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
As the federal government debates the formulation of a smallpox
vaccination
policy, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases, identified the following factors:
- - The vaccine, although efficacious, is the least safe human vaccine
and
is unlicensed.
- - Vaccine will soon be available in sufficient quantities to
vaccinate the
entire U.S. population if needed, generally providing full immunity for
at
least 3 to 5 years. Level of immunity beyond that time is uncertain.
- - Postexposure smallpox vaccination within 4 to 5 days may prevent or
ameliorate the disease.
Stockpiled vaccine, not used for 30 years, is now classed as
investigational drug
- --------------------------------------
Unless the Food and Drug Administration decides otherwise, the smallpox
vaccine used in the first round of vaccinations to be administered under
a
new post-Sep 11 public health plan will be classified as an
investigational
drug. As an investigational or experimental drug, all who receive it
must
first be told of the risks posed by the vaccine, and then they must
provide
their signed consent.
Much of the initial vaccine supply will be obtained from the 15.4
million
stockpiled doses of the smallpox vaccine known as Dryvax. The vaccine
has
been in storage since the United States discontinued smallpox
vaccinations
in 1972. Although the vaccine that was routinely administered to most
children in the nation before 1972 was not an investigational drug,
changes
have been made in ensuing years that dictate that status now.
For one thing, the vaccine may now be diluted to one-fifth of its
original
strength in order to stretch the supply, and for another, the diluent
that
will be used to reconstitute the dry vaccine differs from that used in
the
1960s and early 1970s. Recent studies have shown that the vaccine is
still
effective even if used at only one-fifth of its original strength.
A new vaccine being manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Acambis
will
also be an investigational drug as it is being grown in cell tissue
culture
rather than on the skin of calves, which was the method in the 1970s.
As the federal government crafts its plan to fend off a bioterrorism
attack
that employs smallpox as a weapon, it is clear that there is a lot to be
done, said D.A. Henderson, MD, principal science adviser to Health and
Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. One of the tasks, Dr.
Henderson
said, will be to develop the many necessary investigational drug consent
forms.
[Byline: Susan J. Landers]
Weblink
Article, "Smallpox as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health
Management," JAMA, 19 Jun 1999 (vol. 281, issue 22)
<http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n22/ffull/jst90000.html>
Article, "Smallpox: Clinical and Epidemiologic Features," Emerging
Infectious Diseases, July-August 1999 (vol. 5, issue 4)
<http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/henderson.htm>
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>Then, by your logic, it's not a doomsday weapon.
It depends. I consider a doomsday weapon something that will kill
off the other guys. If you want a weapon that will also kill you,
then it's rather pointless. Even in R6, the loony eco-nuts didn't wan
to kill THEMSELVES off to save the planet.
charles krin
wrote:
>Eric, I just went through a specific example of a bacterium, not a
>virus, that would have doomsday capability, and is well understood in
>the relevant research community. I don't know why you are fixating on
>viruses.
>
>But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
>Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
minor nit here, Howard,
Smallpox is much more *communicable*....
both viri are highly infectious...
ck
doc krin
motto for the nuke generation: "you are what you heat!"
charles krin
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:54:27 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric, I just went through a specific example of a bacterium, not a
>>virus, that would have doomsday capability, and is well understood in
>>the relevant research community. I don't know why you are fixating on
>>viruses.
>
> You mean E. coli?
>
>>But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
>>Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
>
> Smallpox also has a cure.
no, Smallpox has a vaccine which essentially prevents or moderates the
disease enough to reduce the deaths from it to essentially the same as
the background...
>
>>As far as nuclear doomsday machines, cobalt jackets go a good way, as do
>>subterranean devices in fault lines -- especially at sea.
>
> Still not enough. If it's a true doomsday device, it has to kill
>off the human population. Otherwise, it's merely a weapon of a Whole
>Lot of Destruction.
good point...but then, I seem to recall that there were theoretical
concerns that the atmosphere might have become involved in a chain
reaction back before the first atomic weapons tests...
charles krin
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Eric Pinnell <see my web site> wrote:
>
>:On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:54:27 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
>:wrote:
>:
>:>But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
>:>Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
>:
>: Smallpox also has a cure.
>
>No, it doesn't. There is a vaccine to give you virtual immunity to
>it, which is something slightly different.
>
>When did you have your last smallpox vaccination, Eric? They make
>very little of it these days (if any).
chuckle...actually, I believe that they have extended the supply by a:
testing a more dilute form which appears to have the same efficacy as
the older style, and b: actually producing the stuff again...
as far as vaccination goes, we did not get updates in 1991 during port
call for Saudi, so my last one was in 1985....
and as far as that goes, the shaved calf proved to be a worth while
mode of vaccina transport in Africa and parts of Asia...
Howard Berkowitz
kri...@aol.invalid.com wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:54:27 GMT, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Eric, I just went through a specific example of a bacterium, not a
> >virus, that would have doomsday capability, and is well understood in
> >the relevant research community. I don't know why you are fixating on
> >viruses.
> >
> >But if you must have a virus, there was Soviet work on combining
> >Ebola/Marburg with smallpox. Smallpox is much more infective.
>
> minor nit here, Howard,
>
> Smallpox is much more *communicable*....
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. You may give me ten lashes with
a Foley.
Actually, I'm not completely off here. I grant the difference between
infection and contagion. I didn't clarify that I was thinking BW here,
with the specific concept of a minimal infective dose.
I was stunned when I found the fUSSR had been working on contagious BW
agents. The conventional military wisdom is that the agents should NOT
transmit person-to-person.
Paul J. Adam
<ch...@noadress.com> writes
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:56:49 -0400, Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net>
>wrote:
>>I was stunned when I found the fUSSR had been working on contagious BW
>>agents. The conventional military wisdom is that the agents should NOT
>>transmit person-to-person.
>
>own troops and people, it would not be of much use?
How fast does it kill and how is it transmitted?
One reason they liked blood gases like HCN and nonpersistent nerve
agents, was the ability to hit the defenders, kill or incapacitate
anyone not masked, and force the defenders into full NBC Black while
their troops attacked unprotected into the dissipated/dissipating agent.
A big advantage on a hot summer's day.
A contagious BW agent that kills "too fast" doesn't spread, because you
don't send your own troops through hot zones and the infected victims
die before they can spread the illness far.
One reason the virus in "Outbreak" could be contained was because it
produced overt symptoms and morbidity so quickly. If it was highly
contagious for a week or two before producing obvious illness and rapid
death... it would be a nasty problem.
--
Paul J. Adam
MikeF703
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@clark.net> wrote in message
news:UuKdnVwJm6....@News.GigaNews.Com...
According to Alibek, they were working on warheads for strategic
missiles for BW weapons. Which suggests that the goal was not just to kill
people in a tactical environment (as tactical nukes and CW would do
effectively), but perhaps as a doomsday device. After all, satelites can
tell that a missile is lifting off out of a silo, they can't tell you what
the warhead is. If they launched a missile, our response would be as if it
were a nuclear missile, regardless of the actual contents, right?
Fred J. McCall
:Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. You may give me ten lashes with
:a Foley.
Oooo, me too! Has to be MRS Foley, though. Her husband sounds like
he would hurt if you were lashed with him. :-)
[See? We can eventually link ANYTHING back up to a TC reference....]
loki
> Howard Berkowitz <h...@clark.net> wrote:
You scare me.
Loki
Fred J. McCall
Howard Berkowitz
<Mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But if they were building it as a doomsday machine, would it matter what
the US response was?
MikeWrite
"MikeF703" <Mike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ktvd9.41362$Or1.2...@news2.east.cox.net...
>
>
> Not really. It's probably a good thing we haven't documented a
nuclear
> capability for Saddam yet... I can easily forsee a situation where we
have
> verified information that Saddam has one or more nuke warheads for the
SCUD.
> We start fighting with him, he launches a Scud with whatever warhead he
> chooses, headed westward. If the Israelis had the same information, the
> response would probably be nuclear, either before the missile hit or
> immediately after Saddam launched one nuke on Israel. If, per chance,
Iraq
> has more than one nuke, I would expect to see Israel launching on warning
> with everything they have.
I suspect the Israelis have as good or better intelligence on Saddam's
capabilities as does the U.S. Put another way, I imagine a fair bit of U.S.
intelligence on Saddam comes _from_ Israel.
But why stop with worry over whether there are nuclear-tipped Scuds? We
_know_ the dirtbag's got plenty of CBW capability, right? If a Scud heads
west some time in the next few months, Israel must seriously consider the
possibility that CBW agents are on board. Do they launch a retaliatory
strike immediately, or wait to see what sort of boom occurs on their end?
I imagine figuring out how to locate and destroy as many Scud launchers as
possible, as soon into an offensive as possible, is an A1 priority these
days in the Pentagon. Perhaps it's even a major roadblock on the road to
war.
M