U.S. Army To Ramp Up Anthrax Purchasing 436
An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist reports that the U.S. Army wants to purchase a large supply of an anthrax strain." From the article: "A series of contracts have been uncovered that relate to the US army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. They ask companies to tender for the production of bulk quantities of a non-virulent strain of anthrax, and for equipment to produce significant volumes of other biological agents ... Although the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans and is used for vaccination, the contracts have caused major concern. 'It raises a serious question over how the US is going to demonstrate its compliance with obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention if it brings these tanks online,'"
BTWC site (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
The US signed Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction [un.org] and thePROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE [state.gov]
Both of which allow having biological agents for peaceful and protective purposes. I.E. Exactly what the US is doing here.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:3, Informative)
There's also an another article [washingtonpost.com] that you might want to read to undestand why some of us have suspicions about this issue.
Re:No! (Score:2, Informative)
I love the stupidity of the argument that the US is just in it for the oil. Not saying you claimed the argument, but you're right, most of the world and half the US thinks the same thing.
Except, that argument doesn't hold up one bit. At the end of major conflict with Iraq, the average US gas price was $1.51 (May 5, 2003). As of September 5, 2005, the average price for gas in the US was $3.07. Crude oil went from $21.53 per barrel (May 2, 2003) to $59.84 per barrel (September 2, 2005), mirroring the world's averages of $22.04 to $60.75 at the same points of time. These figures come from the Energy Information Administation website [doe.gov].
Gas prices have more than doubled since the US declared an end to major conflict in Iraq, mirroring trends in the world economy. This is very inconsistent with the claim, "we went in it for the oil."
Re:no treaty obligations (Score:3, Informative)
I recommend you actually read the Geneva Conventions sometime. Like it or not, it is very clearly intended only for protecting _uniformed soldiers_. If you want it to be more broadly applicable, write a new treaty and submit it to the UN.
-Erwos
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
I will not have A, B, or C;
you may look to see if I have A, B, or C anytime and anyway you see fit;
If I either have A, B, or C or do not alow you to look for them I go back to prison without credit for the time served on parole period.
Consistant with Army Inoculation Policy (Score:2, Informative)
While I'll be the first to admit that the US operates covertly no too many situations to count, or at least does not publically announce everything, it is always difficult to have a big-picture understanding of something if you are either not looking for the truth (but only what you want to see) or you do not have access to the other pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to understand what the real picture is.
Within the last year, the Army has reinstated [military.com] the Anthrax [dcmilitary.com] inoculation [army.mil] policy and has re-started their efforts in getting all troops their vaccines. This issue is near and dear to my heart as I'm in the Army and that vaccine is particually painful (not to mention tests that have variable evidence of short term memory loss).
Dugway Proving Ground [army.mil] seems a logical place for these types of biological defense activities to be undertaken. We'll need plenty of vaccines to take care of all the Soldiers and probably Airman, Saliors, and Marines too. I'm not saying that this is definitvly the answer, but it is at least consistant with other Army reporting.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:3, Informative)
You mean Hussein's democratically elected government?
No. Saddam Hussein wasn't elected. I was talking about Guatamala, Venezuela, Iran, etc. take your pick.
Re:no treaty obligations (Score:3, Informative)
Of course it could be argued that a trade agreement signed by congress and the president isn't a treaty but it still shows how little the USA obeys international law and why they are untrusted.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
2.) He used WMD's on Iranian soldiers and civilians and its OK
3.) He used WMD's on his own citizens and its OK--only until almost a decade later when we decide its not ok.
"He refused to allow a vigorous inspection to prove he didn't have them."
When you're making a case for war--any excuse is used.
a.) The inspecors were in there for years befor ehe initially kicked them out.
b.) Inspectors were initially let back in befor the war.
c.) inspectors themselves said it was extremely unlikely he had WMD's.
US Criticism (Score:3, Informative)
[Heckler]- Well they toppled democracies in Chile, Iran, Guatemala, and other countries.
Ok, but apart from those misunderstandings.
[Heckler]- Well apart from toppling democracies they have supported and continue to support brutal dictatorships around the world. These include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Suharto in Indonesia (hundreds of thousands were Slaughtered). Most recently of course is Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan who likes to have demonstrators mown down with machine guns.
Yeah, ok maybe there were some mistakes made. But apart from toppling democracies and supporting dictatorships, what has the US ever done? I mean, what about the Kurds, we've really helped them out haven't we?
[Heckler] - Yes they're in a strong position now. Let's just hope they forget US support for Saddam while he was gassing them. And lets hope they never realise that the US massively stepped up military aid to Turkey and looked the other way while they were bombing the Kurds.
Ok, but apart from toppling democracies, supporting dictatorships and screwing the Kurds, what is the US so guilty of? [Heckler] - Well how about the support for terrorist acts against Cuba, and other countries? For example, Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA agent was behind the bombing of a Cuban Airliner in 1976. The US refused to extradite him.Then there was the Cuban hotel bombings in 1997, also involving Luis Posada Carriles. And what about those poor Cuban pigs? CIA-Backed anti-Castro terrorists introduced swine fever into Cuba in 1971. This economic sabotage resulted in the slaughter of 500,000 pigs.
Hold on. Cuba is a special situation. It's a dictatorship, so we're just trying to topple it and bring freedom to the Cubans.
[Heckler] - Ok, forget Cuba. We must not forget the 1985 Beirut car bombing. That was a CIA-backed attempt to assassinate Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. They missed him but killed 85 civilians. Lets also not forget the support for terrorism in Nicaragua. It got so intense that the World Court made a decision in 1986 against the US, ordering it to terminate the unlawful use of force and illegal economic warfare.
Alright, alright, but apart from toppling democracies, supporting dictatorships, screwing the Kurds and supporting terrorism, what has the US ever done?
[Heckler] - Well lets not forget about the vast numbers of civilians killed by US military action. A well-researched article in the Lancet concluded that around 100,000 Iraqis have died since the war started, mostly as a result of "coalition" air strikes. Lets also not forget the several million civilians bombed to death in Vietnam. They weren't all bombed of course, we mustn't forget the My Lai massacre [wikipedia.org].
We also must not forget the thousands killed during the invasion of Panama in 1989, who's purpose was to removed another CIA-backed dictator, Manuel Noriega.
Okay okay. We've made some past mistakes. But now we're setting it all right in Iraq.
Yes. That's exactly what I thought when I watched footage [indymedia.org.uk] of a US helicopter slice several farmers apart while one of the pilots says "He's wounded. Hit him!". Or the F16 footage [fromtheinside.us] showing a crowd of civilians (not fighters as has been claimed) being bombed while the pilot says "Aw, dude!".
We'll you obviously just hate freedom!
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:2, Informative)
Venezuela? When did the US government try to topple Chavez?
2002 [wikipedia.org] allegedly. Even if you believe the official Whitehouse version their behaviour was hardly pro-democracy. Chavez had popular support and was deposed undemocratically, and the US government immediately recognised rather than condemning the suspiciously oil-friendly junta that took control.
Iran's government is not democratically elected. Plus, the US is not going to attack Iran.
Too late. It already happened [wikipedia.org].
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&q=
I've also read that they used Bell helicopters fitted for the job--the Commerce department won over the State department.
So when the administration used the gassings as a reason for war, they were just "crocodile tears".
-b
Re:You stupid Americans (Score:2, Informative)
I am an American citizen, and I am, like most American citizens, more-or-less completely unaware of what our government is doing in foreign countries.
From some of the stuff in your comment I can guess you're in Iraq or somewhere in the middle east that we've decided to make a warzone. So you obviously have all the right in the world to say what you believe.
I have one qualm with your dissertation however. You constantly refer to America as the people in the country and/or those running the politics.
Although political leaders in America are elected by the citizens, we the citizens have no further control of government. Many citizens dislike our current administration, but we cannot change it. We cannot impeach a leader who hasn't broken a law.
Your problems are with American foreign policy, with our President, with our Army. Please don't lump the citizens in with that group. The only wrong we have done is be ignorant enough to elect an idiot like George Bush for president twice in a row.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:3, Informative)
You DO have other sources besides Wikipedia for the first one?
The fact that the Whitehouse welcomed rather than condemned the 3-day junta is a matter of public record. First one up in a Google search is an account in The Observer [guardian.co.uk].
If you cite something which happened in 1953 as a proof... just think a little.
Sure, I appreciate it was a while ago, but the four examples I've given (Iran:1953, Guatemala:1954, Chile:1973, Venezuela:2002) show a fairly healthy disdain for democracy. The question is how can you tell whether a leopard has changed its spots? The Venezuela incident may or may not have been directly contributed to by the USA, but it certainly doesn't look good.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
(**For some mysterious reason the government-licensed test facilities want a big pile of money before they play with sarin gas or anthrax. And you generally don't get your equipment back afterwards, since it is now covered with a thin layer of Nasty Death.)
And anyway, anthrax production equipment is not even slightly suspicious. Commercial companies already make bioreactors to grow almost any microorganism you care to name, including bacillus thuringiensis [google.com], a very close relative of the anthrax organism b. anthracis. In fact, b. anthracis, b. thuringiensis, and the common soil bacterium b. cereus*** have been called strains of a single species [asm.org].
(***B. thuringiensis is used commercially as a biowarfare agent against insects. It's basically anthrax for bugs. B. cereus is ubiquitous and can cause food poisoning.)
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
Yes he did. Americans supplied him with plenty.
Now the question is did he still have them in any significant amount in 2003? The evidence today indicates that he did not.
2. He actually used them in attacks on civillians.
Yes he did, during the 1980's. It's funny that it didn't seem to bother anyone back then enough to invade. Oh wait, he was an ally against Iran back then. Right...
3. He refused to allow a vigorous inspection to prove he didn't have them.
Last I remember the UN weapons inspectors were satisfied with the access they had in 2003, they didn't feel like they couldn't perform their work, and they were confident that there were no major nuclear or chemical weapons capability in Iraq.
That was the opinion of experts who were inside Iraq with access.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:2, Informative)