Talk:United States biological weapons program

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Discussion of the Book "United States and Biological Warfare"
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.


 * The authors acknowledge that after 20 years of research they have failed to turn up a single document in American archives that provides direct evidence for their claim. They therefore build a circumstantial case that relies heavily on documents provided by the North Koreans and the Chinese. In fact, the authors reproduce some of the nine Chinese photographs and captions, but they make no mention of the article in The Times, even though their bibliography cites a standard reference work by Milton Leitenberg that discusses the forgeries, mentions the experts by name and summarizes their conclusions. This is appalling.

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)

Missing history
I still need sources for the following periods in the U.S. BW program (I think I am talking to myself here).
 * 1943-1945
 * 1950-1969
 * Immediately after WWII (Shiro Ishii)

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)

Other sections
I will compile sources here as I come across them, the bolded words below do or will translate to section titles.


 * Alleged use:
 * Korean War: (subsection)
 * Cuba: (subsection) -, , , , ,


 * Budget history:
 * Post 1969:, , ,
 * Public opinion:

--IvoShandor (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Related Articles
--IvoShandor (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * War Bureau of Consultants:, , , , , , (FR)
 * Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989: THOMAS.gov, GHW Bush Signing Statement,, , , , , ,  ,  , , , ,  , , ,  ,

Vigo
--IvoShandor (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vigo Ordnance Plant:, , , , , , , , ,  (EL), , , , p. 9, , ,  (EL)


 * Russian tour of Vigo: ,

Reliable sources on "alleged use" by the US of bioweapons.
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)


 * We can use different sources, it doesn't matter. These accusations are pretty much common knowledge and have been published by dozens of sources. It is notable that these accusations exist, I don't think the article attempts give them any veracity, but to exclude them wouldn't exactly be neutral. I don't think it matters much, because these claims are not difficult to source, and you present no evidence that a book co-authored by Zinn isn't reliable, other than your opinion. Your confidence that all accusations of U.S. BW use are bogus is perplexing, while I agree with you on the accusations pointed out in the article, there is no way either of us possess the information necessary to assert such a thing. Anyway, I'm open to compromise but there's no way I'll let anyone whitewash the accusations, they are out there and they are notable. That I will not budge on.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if I am reading you right your beef is mostly with those two sources. I don't think there is anything at all wrong with the North Korea section, those accusations were notable enough to be refuted by the U.S., the International Red Cross, the World Health Organization, etc. The truth of the accusations in question is completely irrelevant to their inclusion in the article. The Cuba stuff is arguable, and again, I do think it can be sourced differently if that needs to happen, but I'm not sure I agree about the Zinn book, but if you insist we can find something agreeable together, I am sure. He was only a co-author. I can't really argue with you on Chomsky, but he is only cited one time. I'll shut up now.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And just for full disclosure here, I really am trying to be neutral. I think these accusations are ridiculous too, but I want to be fair and neutral for this article. I think it's a very important part of history. Your comments about Agent Orange are interesting too, and I agree with them for the most part, but you must admit that Agent Orange's status is a point of contention among even those with expertise in CBW, presentism not withstanding. I'm a pretty liberal person but I want these articles to be neutral and accurate, and actually - interestingly - I am of the opinion that CBW is not as horrible and world-ending as it has been made out to be since the Vietnam-era, but that's a whole different discussion. I just wanted you to have an idea where I am coming from in this discussion.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should take into account the sensitivity of this issue. We all know the United States Government doesn't handle criticism well and an admission of guilt on their part would make them war criminals. You should also remember the pressure put on US academicians and other writers in the capitalist world, at the time, to produce favorable propaganda or face being labeled un-patriotic and losing their positions or going to prison on bogus charges of being communist spies. The reliability of the US material produced during the cold war is highly questionable, especially given the fact that they do not have first hand access to witness testimonials or bomb fragments. An international team of observers agreed with the North Koreans so I dont know how you can call the Korean claims "bogus". I agree that Noam Chomsky is not an ideal source, but who else has the courage to stand up? Alicechamp (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything we add, tweak or otherwise has to be supported by source material. We can't just institute our own suppositions or opinions and Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. I am more than willing to work with you here but the allegations by North Korea have been refuted by many reliable sources, including the WHO, the International Red Cross and historians - after the end of the Cold War. The book by Endicott has been widely panned. So while you bring up some pertinent points, we must adhere to standards of NPOV and reliable sourcing. Let's work together on this. If you've read my comments above, you can see that I have strived to avoid bias, while not inserting my own personal opinion.IvoShandor (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2010 (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)

Legality of research
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524213923/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/981116/archive_005192.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

BW lab not listed here
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)

Why they lieing on here it never ended
Stop the lies 2600:1016:B00B:A92B:7414:6D6F:C04E:4687 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency in agents used?
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)

2008 Report
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)