Bioweapons exist, while ethnic-bioweapons are whispered conspiracies. Pandemics can fairly hazardous to human life, the 1918 Flu Pandemic killed 20-50 million people. A man made pandemic could cause complete pandemonium, and an unimaginable death toll. So is the future of biological based weapons.

As technology progresses we must come to secure that which poses such a grave risk to us. This risk becomes exasperated as it moves from theoretical realms into a more tangible reality. Those who seek to wrought destruction through its might will transgress from technologically advanced states and into the hands of nefarious groups of people. Melinda Gates recently declared these people the biggest threat to humanity. Yet, somewhere between paranoia and possibility states could be developing weapons that target people down to the gene. The changing gaze of security.

Genetic bioweapons are weapons designed to target certain ethnic groups. Once released, it would only target those whose genes it was designed to attack. This might seem like the first chapter of a dystopian novel, however, a 2004 report, Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity II, gave heed that construction of such weapons “is now approaching reality”. The rate of progress in some areas of bioscience is exponential. Which makes 2004 a long time ago. It’s possible to write such ideas off as quackery, as an esoteric realm pseudoscience for cranks and idiots, but states may be taking them seriously.

The international arena sees states pitted against each other wondering what the other may do. They reflexively act in their own self interest, for their own protection. The international community on the other hand tries its best to mitigate against state fear by installing institutions and regimes that attempt to curtail the paradoxes bellicosity and trepidation. The most secret of programmes drawn from the darkest parts of defence structures can be black boxes shrouded by monolithic security apparatuses. These are actions we can only speculate about, but sometimes snippets of information are leaked from these boxes, and they become the points we can begin to draw lines between.

In 2008 the US government held a congressional committee on, ‘Genetics and other human modification technologies: sensible international regulation or a new kind of arms race?’ The bulk of which discussed advances of in genetics and its potential to be weaponized. During this they discuss how, “we can anticipate a world where rogue (and even not-so-rogue) states and non-state actors attempt to manipulate human genetics in ways that will horrify us”. They spoke about the using “DNA to create modified infectious agents, new toxins, using genetic DNA techniques”. New bio-weapons.

A testimony to the committee by Richard Hayes, Executive Director, Center for Genetics and Society, elucidated: “we also need to acknowledge that a world still far from having overcome its propensity for racism, xenophobia and warfare, the possibility of a techno-eugenic arms race driven by nationalist fervour cannot be dismissed…in 2003 the Sunshine Project documented nearly a dozen possible uses of genetic science for biowarfare purposes. Including the creation of ethnicity-specific pathogens…we now need to add bioweaponry incorporating human genetic technology to our arms control portfolio.” The threat is almost tangible.

The Snowden files, a leak exposing the surveillance techniques and methods used by the the United States government provides a document that proves they fear the work of others. The file details a cryptanalysis intern’s experience working for the Office of Tradecraft for Analysis in which she states she gained: “general knowledge about genetic engineering research activity by foreign entities and to identify laboratories and/or individuals who may be involved in nefarious use of genetic research.” The threat is digital, and transmittable across a network.

Russia takes things further. The masters of doublespeak and false narratives have weaved a tale all the way back to 2007, when a Russian newspaper, Kommersant, reported the banning of all exports of human biosamples from Russia due to the fear of ethnic bioweapons. Bringing it back in vogue in 2017, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, during a speech at Russia’s Human Rights Council told those gathered: “do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation?”. Adding:” the question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally”.

His statement led to a Russian MP, Gennady Onishchenko, to call for biological security legislation to control access to Russians’ DNA. Russia would have you believe the threat is real.

This a debate that has surfaced for at least a decade. The duel use of novel ways to manipulate the world can lead to novel threats. The realm of science fiction is possibly becoming a rapid reality, so perhaps we should not discount seemingly far fetched possibilities.

Perhaps it is sometimes best to draw those lines where they may not exist, and to ask questions that seem tightly embraced in paranoia. To shine a light into the darkest of black boxes. For what is developed in secret will find its way into the public, and downstream we will all feel the blowback. A threat? We can all indulge in conspiracy.

http://thebadgeronline.com/2018/05/ethic-bioweapons-conspiracy-reality/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/04/us-military-agency-invests-100m-in-genetic-extinction-technologies#img-1

A US military agency is investing $100m in genetic extinction technologies that could wipe out malarial mosquitoes, invasive rodents or other species, emails released under freedom of information rules show.

The documents suggest that the US’s secretive Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) has become the world’s largest funder of “gene drive” research and will raise tensions ahead of a UN expert committee meeting in Montreal beginning on Tuesday.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is debating whether to impose a moratorium on the gene research next year and several southern countries fear a possible military application.

UN diplomats confirmed that the new email release would worsen the “bad name” of gene drives in some circles. “Many countries have concerns when this technology comes from Darpa, a US military science agency,” one said.

The use of genetic extinction technologies in bioweapons is the stuff of nightmares, but known research is focused entirely on pest control and eradication.

Cutting-edge gene editing tools such as Crispr-Cas9 work by using a synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) to cut into DNA strands and then insert, alter or remove targeted traits. These might, for example, distort the sex-ratio of mosquitoes to effectively wipe out malarial populations.

Some UN experts, though, worry about unintended consequences. One told the Guardian: “You may be able to remove viruses or the entire mosquito population, but that may also have downstream ecological effects on species that depend on them.”

“My main worry,” he added, “is that we do something irreversible to the environment, despite our good intentions, before we fully appreciate the way that this technology will work.”

Jim Thomas, a co-director of the ETC group which obtained the emails, said the US military influence they revealed would strengthen the case for a ban.

“The dual use nature of altering and eradicating entire populations is as much a threat to peace and food security as it is a threat to ecosystems,” he said. “Militarisation of gene drive funding may even contravene the Enmod convention against hostile uses of environmental modification technologies.”

Todd Kuiken, who has worked with the GBIRd programme, which receives $6.4m from Darpa, said that the US military’s centrality to gene tech funding meant that “researchers who depend on grants for their research may reorient their projects to fit the narrow aims of these military agencies”.

Between 2008 and 2014, the US government spent about $820m on synthetic biology. Since 2012, most of this has come from Darpa and other military agencies, Kuiken says.

In an email reporting a US military-organised conference in June, a US government biologist noted that Darpa’s biotechnology program manager Renee Wegrzynhad said “the safe genes projects account for $65m, but then mentioned with all other support in the room, it was $100m”.

A Darpa spokesman said that the figure was “a liberal, notional estimate” that included researchers at the meeting funded by Darpa under related efforts.

“Darpa is not and should not be the only funder of gene-editing research but it is critical for the Department of Defense to defend its personnel and preserve military readiness,” he said.

Darpa believes that a steep fall in the costs of gene-editing toolkits has created a greater opportunity for hostile or rogue actors to experiment with the technology.

“This convergence of low cost and high availability means that applications for gene editing – both positive and negative – could arise from people or states operating outside of the traditional scientific community and international norms,” the official said. “It is incumbent on Darpa to perform this research and develop technologies that can protect against accidental and intentional misuse.”

Gene-drive research has been pioneered by an Imperial College London professor, Andrea Crisanti, who confirmed he has been hired by Darpa on a $2.5m contract to identify and disable such drives.

Fears that the research could be channeled towards bioweapons were “all fantasy”, he said. “There is no way this technology could be used for any military purpose. The general interest is in developing systems to contain the undesired effects of gene drives. We have never been asked to consider any application not for the good of eliminating plagues.”

Interest in the technology among US army bureaus has shot up since a secret report by the elite Jason group of military scientists last year “received considerable attention among various agencies of the US government”, according to an email by Gerald Joyce, who co-chaired a Jason study group in June.

A second Jason report was commissioned in 2017 assessing “potential threats this technology might pose in the hands of an adversary, technical obstacles that must be overcome to develop gene drive technology and employ it ‘in the wild’,” Joyce wrote.

The paper would not be publicly disclosed but “widely circulated within the US intelligence and broader national security community”, his email said.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/04/us-military-agency-invests-100m-in-genetic-extinction-technologies

We chatted about different bullets and the wounds they cause. He seemed in no hurry to move on. "What do you know about new biological weapons?" This took me by surprise; old biological weapons were not my strong point. "Advances in biotechnology will enable people to attack specific genetic traits such as black skin - or blue eyes - or even different ethnic groups," he said. This, I was sure, was pure science fiction. "And what's more," he continued, "only the Red Cross can do anything about it!" I smiled politely and pocketed his business card.

My return to the ICRC hospital on the Thai-Cambodian border took me through Geneva. With this conversation in mind, I asked who was responsible for ICRC's concerns about the effects of weapons. "Consult the lawyers," said my medical colleagues. "Genetic weapons - what are they?" the lawyer asked. "I don't really know," I replied, "but I've been told that we should do something about them." I explained what little I knew. "Oh, you mean it's a biological weapon?" His face lit up with understanding. "That's OK then; they would be prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention." He was a busy man.
Science Fiction?
It was clear that the ICRC did not have the expertise to "do anything about" genetic or ethnic weapons - if such things existed. So, for seven years I have been asking different experts in the domains of molecular biology, genetic engineering and biological weapons the question: "Is it or will it soon be possible to target genetic or ethnic aspects of humans with biological agents." I naively stumbled into a complex maze of political, military, legal, scientific and commercial interests.

For every five experts I asked, four thought there was reasonable cause for concern. Their comments included: "My government is very worried; I can say no more," or "If it's not possible now, it will be soon," or "Yes, but this technology will provide huge medical advances - and the commercial stakes are enormous."

Behind these answers were the different and terrifying technical possibilities. Rendering the males of a particular population sterile was one example. Another was a virus that could spread like influenza but only among a certain ethnic group and which produced a toxin of the designer's choice. There was no doubt that advances in the biosciences would dramatically increase the threat of biological warfare or terrorism. The major question was whether such engineered bacteria, viruses or toxins could target differences in the genetic make-up of specific groups of humans. At one conference, a molecular biologist and myself were covering a paper tablecloth with notes and diagrams in an attempt to work out the necessary technical steps. We found that only one such step was not possible at present. (The table cloth has been burnt.) The remainder of the experts were "absolutely convinced" that the creation of such weapons would never be possible and believed even asking the question was irresponsible. Dilemma! If it is not possible, we should definitely not ring an alarm bell. If it is possible, we should sound it. The problem is we don't know! Even so, whether creating such a weapon is possible or not, we must nevertheless consider the responsibility that goes with saying that it is not possible.

In 1996, a symposium, the Medical Professional and the Effects of Weapons, was organized by the ICRC. The objective was to examine the responsibilities of doctors beyond treating the wounded person. As new biological weapons and medical science are subjects with obvious overlap, serious concerns for the medical profession were raised.

The British Medical Association followed up the issues raised during the symposium and made a study which started with the question: Will advances in biotechnology, genetic engineering and specific knowledge of the human genetic make-up permit the production of biological weapons which can target specific genetic characters or ethnic groups? The report, Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity, published in January 1999, answers this question with a guarded "yes". It concludes that the medical profession has a responsibility to address this issue; the Biological Weapons Convention must be strengthened and supported; a strong and effective protocol to verify that states are abiding by the convention must be adopted; controls must be put in place within the medical and scientific communities to ensure that the know-how resulting from these remarkable scientific advances remains in the hands of responsible people.

The assertion of my Nordic colleague that "only the Red Cross can do something about it" seems unfounded. Or is it? How successful have governments and the scientific community been in avoiding the hostile use of technology which was developed and designed to improve the lives of human beings? The answer is "Not very!" Every major scientific or technical advance from chemistry to electronics to aviation to nuclear physics has been used in some way for hostile purposes. The next major scientific advance will be in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering and it is already being looked at with hostile purpose in mind. The equilibrium that man has always held with microbes soon could be profoundly disturbed.

Moral imperative
In 1918, in response to the use of poison gas in World War I, the ICRC protested in a public statement against "une innovation barbare que la science tend à perfectionner." In response to the use of nuclear weapons in World War II, the president of the ICRC stated, "Their inevitable consequence is extermination, pure and simple." But must the weapon be used before morality is voiced? When blinding lasers were prohibited in July 1998, the president of the ICRC, Cornelio Sommaruga, referred to similar challenges that would face us in the next millennium: "New technologies for inflicting human injury are around the corner and the full range of their effects are unknown. International humanitarian law has an essential role to play in sparing humanity the worst consequences of its technical capabilities."

In relation to new biological weapons, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement can help make emergency plans for unexpected and bizarre epidemics. But in terms of preventing the intentional precipitation of such epidemics, are we not dealing here with something that surpasses states and international laws? Who is going to say: "Now we humans have gone too far; we do not have the collective wisdom to have this in our hands"?

Given the speed with which this branch of science is developing why don't we open the moral debate now? Let's engage not only scientific leaders and politicians but also military, moral and religious leaders as well. "Only the Red Cross can do something about it!" Maybe so! Maybe only the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has the moral force to make politicians and scientists learn the lessons drawn from the most awful chapters of human history.

History
One of the first modern fictional discussions of ethnic weapons is in Robert A. Heinlein's 1942 novel Sixth Column (republished as The Day After Tomorrow), in which a race-specific radiation weapon is used against a so-called "Pan-Asian" invader.

Genetic weapons
In 1997, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen referred to the concept of an ethnic bioweapon as a possible risk. In 1998 some biological weapon experts considered such a "genetic weapon" plausible, and believed the former Soviet Union had undertaken some research on the influence of various substances on human genes.

In its 2000 policy paper Rebuilding America's Defenses, think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) described ethnic bioweapons as a potentially "politically useful tool". PNAC went on to provide substantial staffing for the G. W. Bush administration.

The possibility of a "genetic bomb" is presented in Vincent Sarich's and Frank Miele's book, Race: The Reality of Human Differences, published in 2004. These authors view such weapons as technically feasible but not very likely to be used. (page 248 of paperback edition.)

In 2004, The Guardian reported that the British Medical Association (BMA) considered bioweapons designed to target certain ethnic groups as a possibility, and highlighted problems that advances in science for such things as "treatment to Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases could also be used for malign purposes".

In 2005, the official view of the International Committee of the Red Cross was "The potential to target a particular ethnic group with a biological agent is probably not far off. These scenarios are not the product of the ICRC's imagination but have either occurred or been identified by countless independent and governmental experts."

In 2008, the US government held a congressional committee, ‘Genetics and other human modification technologies: sensible international regulation or a new kind of arms race?’, during which it was discussed how “we can anticipate a world where rogue (and even not-so-rogue) states and non-state actors attempt to manipulate human genetics in ways that will horrify us”.

In 2012, The Atlantic wrote that a specific virus that targets individuals with a specific DNA sequence is within possibility in the near future. The magazine put forward a hypothetical scenario of a virus which caused mild flu to the general population but deadly symptoms to the President of the United States. They cite advances in personalized gene therapy as evidence.

In 2016, Foreign Policy magazine suggested the possibility of a virus used as an ethnic bioweapon that could sterilize a "genetically-related ethnic population."

Israeli "ethno-bomb" controversy
In November 1998, The Sunday Times reported that Israel was attempting to build an "ethno-bomb" containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations. Wired News also reported the story, as did Foreign Report.

Microbiologists and geneticists were skeptical towards the scientific plausibility of such a biological agent. The New York Post, describing the claims as "blood libel", reported that the likely source for the story was a work of science fiction by Israeli academic Doron Stanitsky. Stanitsky had sent his completely fictional work about such a weapon to Israeli newspapers two years before. The article also noted the views of genetic researchers who claimed the idea as "wholly fantastical", with others claiming that the weapon was theoretically possible.

Russian ban on export of biological samples
In May 2007, a Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that the Russian government banned all exports of human biosamples. The report claims that the reason for the ban was a secret FSB report about on-going development of "genetic bioweapons" targeting Russian population by Western institutions. The report mentions the Harvard School of Public Health, American International Health Alliance, Department of Medical Biotechnology of Jagiellonian University, United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology Warsaw University, and United States Agency for International Development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon

PLA capable of removing Philippines military base in disputed area of South China Sea, warns Communist Party mouthpiece

China has shown patience, but it is committed to defending its territory, says commentary in the People’s Daily ahead of tribunal ruling on maritime disputes in the region

China is fully capable of removing a Philippine naval vessel set up as a permanent base in a disputed atoll in the South China Sea, but has so far shown restraint, the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece said on Monday.
The commentary in the People’s Daily comes ahead of an imminent ruling from a international court in The Hague on China’s claims to territory in the region’s disputed waters. The case was bought by the Philippines.

The Philippines Navy deliberately grounded an old US built landing craft on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea in 1999.
It has since kept a team of about a dozen military personnel on the ship to maintain occupation.
The shoal in the Spratly Islands chain is also claimed by China and is called Renai in Chinese.
China has repeatedly protested and asked for the removal of the craft.
Chinese coastguard vessels blocked Philippine supply ships’ attempts to approach the shoal two years ago and forced them to drop provisions by air to the already severely corroded craft.
“The story of the Renai Shoal best explains that China is fully capable of dragging away that Philippine vessel hanging in there,” said the People’s Daily.
“But for the stability of the South China Sea, China offers goodwill and patience and has always shown high restraint.”
China was, however, committed to defending every inch of its territory, the commentary said. “It is determined by China’s will and capability,” it added.
The commentary repeated that China would not accept any ruling from the international tribunal in The Hague. It has refused to take part in the hearings.
It also accused the Philippines of launching the arbitration process without consulting China.
By playing this “meaningless games” the Philippines and “the power behind them ”would only end up shooting themselves in the foot, the article said.

The commentary also criticised US involvement in South China Sea disputes.
It said it was militarising the region and raising tensions.
The US demonstration of its military power had deepened China’s concerns about security and triggered its determination to strengthen its defence capability, the article said.


http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplo...ed#add-comment

^I love this Sierra Madre (LT-57)

http://news.abs-cbn.com/specials/sierra-madre


The shoal in the Spratly Islands chain is also claimed by China and is called Renai in Chinese. For the rest of the World, the shoal is called Ayungin or Second Thomas Shoal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thomas_Shoal

Ex-USS Harnett County (LST-821) in Philippines service as BRP Sierra Madre (LT-57) at A.G.& P. Shipyard at Batangas. Vessel was grounded in Ayungin Shoal...

The Sierra Madre from the Space (Philippine Navy should re paint the deck):

gOOGLE MAPs
https://www.google.com/maps/place/9%...5.866667?hl=en

Wikimapia :
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=9....56667&z=19&m=b



 

PLA capable of removing Philippines military base in disputed area of South China Sea, warns Communist Party mouthpiece

China has shown patience, but it is committed to defending its territory, says commentary in the People’s Daily ahead of tribunal ruling on maritime disputes in the region

PUBLISHED : Monday, 27 June, 2016, 1:06pm
UPDATED : Monday, 27 June, 2016, 1:06pm

Comments: 5 




Ex-USS Harnett County (LST-821) in Philippines service as BRP Sierra Madre (LT-57) at A.G.& P. Shipyard at Batangas. Vessel was grounded in Ayungin Island

Repainting is needed


An Army CH-47A “Chinook” heavy-lift helicopter in the process of hooking up a damaged UH-1B Seawolf helicopter from the deck of USS Harnett Cunty (LST-821) for transportation to NAS Binh Thuy for repairs.
Photo from Seawolf.org.




Liu Zhen
zhen.liu@scmp.com 

Related topics

South China Sea 

Related Articles

24 Jun 2016 

Insight & Opinion A bilateral approach will get the Philippines nowhere in its South China Sea dispute with China

23 Jun 2016 

China is fully capable of removing a Philippine naval vessel set up as a permanent base in a disputed atoll in the South China Sea, but has so far shown restraint, the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece said on Monday.
The commentary in the People’s Daily comes ahead of an imminent ruling from a international court in The Hague on China’s claims to territory in the region’s disputed waters. The case was bought by the Philippines.

The Philippines Navy deliberately grounded an old US built landing craft on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea in 1999.
It has since kept a team of about a dozen military personnel on the ship to maintain occupation.
The shoal in the Spratly Islands chain is also claimed by China and is called Renai in Chinese.
China has repeatedly protested and asked for the removal of the craft.
Chinese coastguard vessels blocked Philippine supply ships’ attempts to approach the shoal two years ago and forced them to drop provisions by air to the already severely corroded craft.
“The story of the Renai Shoal best explains that China is fully capable of dragging away that Philippine vessel hanging in there,” said the People’s Daily.
“But for the stability of the South China Sea, China offers goodwill and patience and has always shown high restraint.”
China was, however, committed to defending every inch of its territory, the commentary said. “It is determined by China’s will and capability,” it added.
The commentary repeated that China would not accept any ruling from the international tribunal in The Hague. It has refused to take part in the hearings.
It also accused the Philippines of launching the arbitration process without consulting China.
By playing this “meaningless games” the Philippines and “the power behind them ”would only end up shooting themselves in the foot, the article said.
Philippine aircraft drops supplies to troops at disputed Renai reef

The commentary also criticised US involvement in South China Sea disputes.
It said it was militarising the region and raising tensions.
The US demonstration of its military power had deepened China’s concerns about security and triggered its determination to strengthen its defence capability, the article said.