Saturday, January 10, 2004
"WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DO THAT?" My nine-year-old daughter was looking through my bookshelves the other day when she came across Pox Americana, a very interesting book on smallpox in colonial America written by my former colleague Elizabeth Fenn. After leafing through the book and gazing with rapt fascination at some of the rather gruesome depictions of the disease, my daughter proceeded to pepper me with questions about smallpox. How does one get the disease? Is it fatal? Why does it do that to people? And on and on. I reassured her that smallpox is one of the few diseases that have been entirely eradicated from the earth, a triumph of modern medicine, public health, and international cooperation. "And yet . . ." I had to note that it was still possible that smallpox could return because various nations have kept and developed the virus and someone might get a hold of it at release it into the world. That's when she asked me the question that is the title of this post:
"Why would anyone want to do that?"Why indeed? Why is it that when one nation or group develops a weapon that others feel compelled to develop their own versions of that same type of weapon? I am confident that we humans will be perfectly capable of killing each other in all sorts of ways without having to resort to smallpox, VX, sarin, or landmines. Why does the U.S. keep stockpiles of chemical and biological agents? Wouldn't be morally superior (and probably just as effective) to clearly state that those who use CBW against the U.S. or its allies will be subject to swift and effective retaliation using America's impressive arsenal of conventional weapons? Is there really any need to respond to smallpox with smallpox? Sarin with Sarin? I ask this question primarily from a moral standpoint but I think there is a strong tactical component to it as well.
