This essay examines why biological warfare should remain prohibited under international law. It defines biological warfare as the use of infectious agents or toxins to harm humans, animals, or plants during conflict, and traces international prohibition efforts including the 1925 and 1972 treaties. The paper presents three primary arguments: biological weapons produce effects lasting far longer than conventional weapons, they cause indiscriminate destruction extending beyond intended targets, and they inflict prolonged suffering that violates humanitarian codes of conduct. The essay concludes that despite ongoing illegal research by some nations, maintaining these prohibitions is essential to prevent pandemic outbreaks and protect civilian populations from uncontrollable disease spread.
Science and technology advance together, and many issues concerning science remain controversial. Biological warfare, also known as germ warfare, represents one such contentious topic. Biological warfare is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, or fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals, or plants as an act of war. In response to the threat posed by these weapons, two international treaties were implemented to outlaw their use: one in 1925 and another in 1972. Despite the clear intention of these treaties to eliminate biological weapons globally, countries continue to conduct research and produce biological weapons even though doing so is illegal under international law. Understanding why biological warfare should remain illegal requires examining three critical concerns: the effects last much longer than those of other weapons, the destruction is far greater than conventional arms, and the victims suffer slow and painful deaths that violate humanitarian principles.
The first reason biological and chemical weapons should remain illegal is that their effects persist far longer compared to other weapons. Consider the example of Ebola: this virus currently has no cure, and without a vaccination or cure, it is extremely difficult to contain, control, and stop the spread of. Being unable to control an outbreak creates the potential for incapacitating populations that were not the initial target of the attack. If this were to happen, an epidemic would likely occur. Such epidemics could cause worldwide panic, riots, and widespread confusion. This uncontrollable spread could also lead to much greater destruction than the initial attack intended.
Releasing a toxin or viral infection creates destruction that goes far beyond what most other weaponry can achieve. One significant reason is that biological weapons are cheap and more accessible to terrorists and other malicious actors. By contrast, weapons such as nuclear bombs are much harder to obtain and are often extremely expensive. Even building a nuclear weapon requires an immense amount of work and resources. Large-scale attacks would be easier with the use of biological weapons, considering that many disease agents are readily available. As mentioned earlier, biological weapons can cause massive outbreaks of viruses or toxins, whereas conventional weaponry typically affects only the targeted area. This indiscriminate spread means that the destruction caused by biological weapons extends well beyond what other types of weaponry can inflict.
Another critical argument is that biological weapons are far more cruel and inhumane compared to conventional weapons. Certain diseases cause long-term suffering and pain if they cannot be treated immediately, and most can cause death if left untreated. This suffering constitutes a form of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. If a biological weapon were unleashed on a country, it would violate established codes of military conduct. The U.S. Code of Conduct explicitly states that military personnel do not inflict terroristic acts on other human beings. Compared to other weapons that cause immediate death, biological and chemical weapons are deeply unethical because they prolong suffering and create prolonged agony for victims.
Based on these three arguments, biological warfare should remain illegal under international law. First, the ability of biological weapons to produce effects lasting far longer than other weapons is deeply concerning, especially considering that no cures currently exist for certain diseases. Second, using diseases can cause destruction far exceeding what conventional weapons produce, from unnecessary deaths of innocent civilians to the possibility of global chaos and uncontrollable epidemics. Finally, biological weapons are extremely cruel, subjecting human beings to the prolonged suffering of deadly diseases that do not kill immediately. This extended agony is highly unethical and directly violates the United States Geneva Conventions Code of Conduct. Maintaining strict prohibition of biological weapons is therefore essential to protecting human populations and upholding humanitarian principles in warfare.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.