![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Connorsisk18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under the section "Alleged Uses" it is stated that the book "United States and Biological Warfare" received "mixed reviews". The site it links to lists 18 reviews, 3 of which are in any way negative and one of which is an amazon.com review by a retired general. This review is quoted in the article, calling the book "bad history". The other negative review that is quoted says that the book was "appalling." In fact, the review is not describing the entire book, but a specific claim made in the book.
It seems as if the way the book is being discussed is almost intended to give it less credibility than the majority of reviewers gave it. Edits should be considered to meet Wikipedia standards on NPOV. Timjim7 ( talk) 01:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
-- IvoShandor ( talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I still need sources for the following periods in the U.S. BW program (I think I am talking to myself here).
These are the only significant gaps in the history coverage, I suppose the five years before Korea could use a bit more detail, which I should come across in a search for info on the time periods described above. -- IvoShandor ( talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC) -- IvoShandor ( talk) 06:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I will compile sources here as I come across them, the bolded words below do or will translate to section titles.
-- IvoShandor ( talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
-- IvoShandor ( talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
-- IvoShandor ( talk) 18:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This section on US chemical and biological weapons that were supposedly used by the US seems to have some unreliable sources in them. For example, it has extensive references to Chomsky and Zinn. Now, I wouldn't exactly call these "unbiased sources", or even "reliable sources"; Chomsky's area of expertise is linguistics; Zinn's is history, partisan history, just as partisan as that which he wants to diminish. I would consider both of these authors' recitals of facts reliable if they were in their areas of expertise - but these are not. I would also suggest that both are polemicists when they write about subjects involving US foreign relations, and facts that they allege are the truth might want to be taken with a grain of salt. I would not consider them reliable when talking about an issue where they can score points to support their worldview. For example, Chomsky claims in the ref'd source that the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam, when talking about Agent Orange. (Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon - it was a defoliant, and was never intended to poison. Don't believe me? Call the OPCW and ask them what Agent Orange would be considered if they were to have evaluated it in 1965.)
In general, about these claims of "use" by the US of bioweapons: I wouldn't even call this stuff as "alleged", because "alleged" means there's some doubt about it - there isn't any - Castro's, Kim Jong Il's, and anyone else's claim of US use of bioweapons is bogus. If we have to get into a point by point review of all the claims, that'd be ok by me - because some of this stuff is pretty zany and whacked out. I mean, just because one claims that "the Illuminati are out to get me" doesn't mean that they are, just as someone claiming "the US is using biological weapons against me" doesn't mean that biological weapons are being used against them. And rehashing allegations made by foreign countries does not turn the original unreliable source into a reliable one, in the case of Chomsky and Zinn. Katana0182 ( talk) 06:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
When it is widely known that the US government tested biological and chemical weapons on their own civilians, resulting in death, maiming, and long term harm, its stretches credulity to suggest they would not use those same agents against their enemies out of some moral stance. 59.101.239.4 ( talk) 03:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The article states that "Both the U.S. bio-weapons ban and the Biological Weapons Convention restricted any work in the area of biological warfare to defensive in nature"
That is fairly unambiguous.
The second sentence, "In reality, this gives BWC member-states wide latitude to conduct biological weapons research because the BWC contains no provisions for monitoring of enforcement" is however quite wrong. The absence of provisions for "monitoring or enforcement" does not "in reality" legalise non-complying work. This is like saying "murder is illegal...in reality there is no provision for enforcement" - murder remains illegal, whether the laws are enforced or not.
It would be rather better to say instead:
"Some BWC member-states are conducting biological weapons research in violation of the ban, due to the absence of provisions for monitoring or enforcement". 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 06:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States biological weapons program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The Navy base in Alameda, CA had a BW lab. It is not listed here. Can the Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States) be used to prove its existence? Charles Juvon ( talk) 22:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop the lies 2600:1016:B00B:A92B:7414:6D6F:C04E:4687 ( talk) 02:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
According to the inventory in document 22 here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/ (direct link to document: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/RNCBW22.pdf, declassified Memorandum for the President) the list of agents around the time of the end of the program also included "wheat rust" and "rice blast", but there is no mention of Brucella. It might be that there was a difference between agents "standardized" and agents actually available in inventory.
Also, at that time toxins, including Botulinum toxin and Staphylococcal enterotoxin B, were considered to be chemical agents rather than biological ones (hence why their inventory is not detailed in the memorandum). The discussion at the time on classifying toxins as either biological or chemical agents can be found in other declassified documents on the first link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:4D16:4600:8754:595F:418E:F972 ( talk) 17:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I added this line from the 2008 report, "|According to the same 2008 report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Developments in biotechnology, including genetic engineering, may produce a wide variety of live agents and toxins that are difficult to detect and counter; and new chemical warfare agents and mixtures of chemical weapons and biowarfare agents are being developed . . . Countries are using the natural overlap between weapons and civilian applications of chemical and biological materials to conceal chemical weapon and bioweapon production." It was removed for lack of source. I have added the source to the "sources" section of the page now, which links directly to the US government report that contains this information. 2600:8800:2C16:3600:D8F0:4736:FB01:8142 ( talk) 15:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)