I've read that, but am not convinced. It's very dependent on the particulars of the situation, the goals, the acceptable losses, and the belligerent forces.
A couple of situations:
1) Tyrannical government or Upstart AI wants to destroy dug in and dispersed local militias. Government will use existing military delivery technologies. AI will use non-human elements so blowback is not a concern. It seems here that gas is cheaper than bombs or bullets.
2) Upstart State or AI wants to do a surprise attack to depopulate or logisticall overwhelm a strategic city. Civilian casualties are desired. Again, gas seems like a clear win, here.
The idea that militaries have NBC protection that will just negate chem/bio warfare is a bit of a dream. The operational friction from having to use all that protective gear and protocols would be huge. Even just little things like not being able to aim properly through a rifle scope depending on which gas mask you're wearing. Also don't underestimate the fear/terror/shock factor of being on the receiving end of this horrible stuff.
The future isn't pretty, unless we can figure out a way to settle down and coexist.
There are also important questions about warning time and strategic responses.
Let's say an upstart AI or group decide to wipe out humanity, or at least a country or continent. What is the time from initial detection to the realization that we as humans are at the end of the world? What do we do then? Do we nuke someone? Something? Everyone?
Any upstart taking over the world strategy is going to have to grapple with this. Chemical weapons have immediate effects. Bio-weapons will take time to spread - time during which they could be detected and possibly mitigated.
I'm sure a lot of actors have taken note of COVID-19's asymptomatic transmission. I'm sure people are thinking of bio binary weapons. Step 1) Silently infect the target population. Step 2) Flip the kill switch and they all die simultaneously.
I dunno. Chemical plant seems relatively crude and cheap compared to the equipment needed to design and build a reliable, effective, and controllable bio-weapon. Two-photon microscopes and nanopore gene sequencing aren't cheap. If it doesn't have to be reliable or particularly effective, and especially not targeted, then maybe you're right. What am I missing?
Quick/friendly reminder that this is a dangerous conversation to be having in public -- there is no telling what will happen to old comments in a few years (or decades,) when the disruption is further along.
Quite serious. History tends to happen when you least expect it to.
A former employer once forwarded me a deep-dive article about a guy who was archiving old '90s usenet posts. He explained the process by reference to a sample post, chosen at random, from the whole of the Usenet, '91-'99.
That guy's sample-post? A one-off I'd made, complaining bitterly about JDK licensure or something, from around 1998, when I was a loudmouth teenage Stallmanite.
It now occasionally comes up for discussion during job interviews. It came up when I applied for a work visa to USA.
Stay safe, and don't let your next job interview turn to the topic of [checks notes] resource-efficient weapons of mass destruction.
https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...