The plague is both home! Biological weapon as a taboo

Focus translated Michel Bentley's article about taboo on biological weapons and discussions around it. This interest is mainly focused on biological weapons taboo. Tabua is the idea that the bio -embarrassing is so disgusting, immoral and unacceptable that the subjects will never apply it. Previously, the taboo was rejected as unjustified and insignificant for state and international security and even criticized it as a "potentially dangerous" way of controlling bio -embarrassment.

However, Tabua is now experiencing something like Renaissance due to the advent of Covid-19. The pandemic has re-demonstrated the potential power of the bivirus, thus strengthening the taboo and laying a new approach to prevent the development of bio-weapons. This new shift in perception has significant consequences not only for understanding what the subjects think about the biosphere, but also for how we prohibit these weapons.

Taboo changes politics in the field of bio -embarrassing, significantly removing it from more traditional methods of controlling weapons. The World Health Organization defines bio -organisms such as viruses, bacteria or fungi, or toxic substances produced by living organisms that are produced and spread intentionally in order to cause disease and death in humans, animals or plants. " Biosblama is not an actively used and normalized part of the military strategies of the states.

Even in cases where states approved the strategic possibility of using bio -embarras, they rarely resorted to it in practice (except for some limited examples, such as Japan in the Second World War). Some analysts explain the non -use of bio -weaving a lack of military expediency. It is difficult to make and control biospra. Agents of infection are the biggest problem, as the disease can spread inadvertently and on a huge scale.

The infection can be released on the attacker, which is known as "boomerang effect". There is also an opinion that bio -weaving avoids the stroke in response. These explanations do not take into account the power of taboo on biological weapons. Tabua shows that a disgust to biological weapons forms understanding and policy on this threat, having a strong normative prohibitory effect, which leads to the refusal to use the bio -tingle.

Such taboo is already associated with other types of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and chemical, but it has not yet been analyzed as deeply as the taboo for the use of other types of weapons of mass destruction. It is often combined with a taboo on chemical weapons, but these are completely different types of weapons, and should be compared with caution. Biabrows are taboo in the sense that infection agents are potential mass murderers who harm the disgusting ways.

According to Al Mauroni, bio -embarrassing is considered a "dirty" way of struggle. A disease is a reflective threat, and we are afraid of infection of our body, especially if it is intentional intention "Terror's Weapon. " On this topic Mahatma Gandhi said, "Fear of illness kills more people than the disease itself. " Biosblama is also tabooed because this aggression differs significantly present. Infection in itself. BiospBroma is tabooed due to the possibility of infection.

Ordinary weapons cannot spread death as the infection does. Infection is associated with another statement: Baitala is forbidden because it is non -refined. This statement is unhappy. Non -communicable agents (such as anthrax) can be selective, and ordinary weapons can be non -selective - for example, land mines. However, the perception of bio -body as non -selective and immoral remains one of the main factors that determine the tabooness of these weapons.

The stigmatization of bio -weaving is traced in such agreements as the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 biological weapons. The latter document states that Biosbroe is "disgusting to the conscience of mankind. " The officials who participated in the negotiations on the ban stated that they did so in order to codify this taboo. The US Ambassador to the United Nations James Leonard said that the approval of the Convention by Americans is the case when the agreement would "be registered.

" Many doubt the power and significance of the taboo. The Biological Weapons Convention was also criticized for failing to fully ensure that the taboo and did not establish clear control measures. With such criticism, we run the risk of releasing that taboo and the Convention on the Biological Weapon Prohibition have been considered extremely important for preventing the development of biosagrosis.

The National Strategy for Combating Biological Threats, developed by President Barack Obama in 2009, confirmed the importance of the Convention and argued that normative restrictions are crucial for the termination of biological threats. The 2018 National Biography Strategy adheres to a similar point of view and speaks of norms as a necessary means of combating biosagrosis. Covid-19 took the taboo to a new level.

If some analysts were ready to write down the taboo from the accounts, now the interest and commitment to the taboo from the international community has increased. Attention to taboo has increased due to the fact that the Covid-19 effectively demonstrated the appearance of an attack with the use of bio-embarras. It is clear that a natural outbreak is not the same as a military attack. However, this outbreak still gives an idea of ​​what biosbumbers may look like.

Former US National Security Advisor John Bolton said the pandemic has become a "warning for people who control biological weapons or seek to create it. " The picture is extremely unattractive. The Covid-19 demonstrates not only a terrible threat to life, but also for our way of existence, which is manifested in closed rooms and closed borders. The world has already encountered extreme outbreaks of diseases such as Ebola fever in 2014-16.

However, the Covid-19 became a real example of how dangerous it is to use the disease as weapons. Biosblama has turned from an underdeveloped threat to something more real. This new perception directly plays on the taboo feelings of disgust, rejection and priority of the bio -body as the main threat. The latest concern about the bio-embarras is often reinforced by statements that the Covid-19 was the result of Chinese tests of biospar.

In response, China claims that it was the United States who brought the Bosbra in Uhan. Many accusations are rejected as a conspiracy theory. However, even these statements have strengthened the relationship between Covid-19 and a biospar as a taboo topic. Tabua now plays a new, more prominent role not only in understanding the causes of our rejection of biosagrosis after the Covid-19, but also how to stop this threat.

In the updated version of the National Biodom Protection Strategy for 2022 and in the National Security Strategy for 2022, priority is a commitment to standards as a basic means of combating biospar. The updated Britain's biological safety strategy for 2023 also refers to the need to strengthen the "global norms that underlie global non -proliferation.

" At the 9th Conference on the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons in 2022, taboo was noted as a necessary condition for improving the Convention. There is also a less optimistic point of view. Skeptics claim that the Covid-19 can increase interest in the development of biospar, which will cause taboo disruption. Special fears are caused by subjects that may not adhere to a ban, such as terrorist organizations.

The pandemic has caused fear that terrorist groups can use Covid-19 in their attacks. In March 2020, the FBI released a warning that groups of white supremacists use applicants-usengers who urge their members to spread the virus among Jews and police officers. The Council of Europe Committee on the fight against terrorism stated that the Covid-19 virus could inspire terrorists because it showed how vulnerable societies are before the disease.

A new interest in pandemic diseases as a serious threat can also play a taboo. Extraordinary attention of the media and fear caused by the Covid-19 may be exactly what terrorists need. The question of whether terrorists of the same norms that restrain state entities are complied with, in question, including the weapons of mass destruction. Violation of generally accepted norms is the purpose of terrorism. Terrorism can also violate international expectations that state entities put on it.

An example is how a taboo is broken on the use of torture in connection with war with terrorism. However, there is no evidence that terrorists have used mass biovirus weapons or that such an attack would undermine the obligation of States to comply with taboo. Even serious biological threats from other states have not been able to undermine taboo in the past.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union, in violation of the Convention on the ban on biological weapons, carried out a large program of bio -weapons called "Biological Product". The Soviet Union publicly recognized this program in the early 1990s. The exposure did not forced others to give up taboo - for example, the United States did not restore their program of Biosbrai, which they abandoned in 1969.

Instead, the Biological Product contributed to a more active condemnation of biosagrosis development and strengthened the taboo. The development of biotechnology can change the perception of taboo. Scientists are trying to develop a so -called "design" weapon that can be biologically designed so as to impress only specific goals, for example, by ethnicity. If biological weapons become more devastating, more targeted or more efficient, then this new potential may weaken the taboo.

In the Covid-19 era, biotechnological studies have become even more widespread. Biological studies have always been dual purpose - the same health -aimed studies are often used to create weapons. Perhaps the Covid-19 really opens up opportunities to create even more effective biospar than before? This view would be too pessimistic. Biotechnology achievements often encounter serious resistance, which can be judged by counteracting genetic engineering.

The Covid-19 also represents the disease as something you need to stop, not use for offensive purposes. Changes in the field of biotechnology will not lead to automatic taboo removal and can strengthen it even more. In general, taboo is not an ideal limiter. It is impossible to say that no one has ever thought and thinks about bio -embossing as a real option. However, bio -weapon is not an active part of the military strategy, and taboo has always been one of the main factors that explain it.

The response to the Covid-19 greatly strengthened this taboo. Seeing what a disease is capable of, society around the world was tabooed by the development of Biosbroma more than ever before. The use of this taboo to stop the development of bio -embarras has already become an important and integral aspect of an international strategy to prevent this terrible threat.