Why do people keep trying to weaponize things that can wipe out the human race?

I know, right? It's like he doesn't into mad science.

Congratulations, you and everyone you know are dead because you dont have the first fucking clue how genetics works.

Even assuming that your only goal is genocidal racewar, its fucking inevitable that the virus will jump back to you because there is a whole genetic spectrum of people between you and the target for incremental changes and jumps.

Because if they can wipe out the human race that means they're obviously pretty effective at killing doesn't it? Come on, this is pretty intuitive.

>because you dont have the first fucking clue how genetics works.
If I'm a geneticist working on bio-weapons in this hypothetical I'm pretty sure I do.

That kind of negative outlook is exactly why you'll never be hired for my bioweapon R&D team user.

> Yes, but there is literally no way to do so without hitting yourself.
>Suppose you unleash a zombie plague
President of Madagascar seems to disagree with you.

>Yes, but there is literally no way to do so without hitting yourself.
Yes, and?

The general idea of viral development is that your guys have an inoculation or antidote

That's first law of bioweapons, yes. "Blowback" for bioweapons is kinda binary. Either you can handle it, and are almost entirely fine, or you can't and are pretty fucked. Hence, no messing about with shit like that mosquito sterility plague they've cooked up over in the Imperial College London because ecosystems are fiddly. CRISPR is awesome and also a little scary.

It's a gene drive, so it's inherited by a far greater proportion of offspring than the usual 50% (I think this is ninety-something, actually) and only sterilizes the females. They estimate the species would be gone in about a year if it was released properly.
I don't envy the ethics team who'd be processing that application.

>Considering any alternative for mosquitoes other then complete and utter annihilation.

It's tempting, I admit. I expect a few pretty extensive studies on their possible removal's impact before we Genophage the bastards, though. Satisfying as it may be, ACTUAL mad science has a tendency to end careers. Also islands, but mostly careers.

Because M.A.D. fucking works.

>Still, in a way a nuke is more controllable than a viral weapon, be it just killing everyone or turning them into zombies.
Usually the backstory is that they had big plans to keep it in containment but then somebody made a mistake.

>I'm sure we'll be fine with the abrupt extinction of a major pollinator species

But user, WMD r bad, m'kay. We need WMD control laws because if we don't have any WMDs, there wouldn't be any WMD crime. No modern nation has any need for WMDs, those are for the World Police.

Mosquito larvae are a main foodsource for dragonfly larvae. Dragonflies are a large part of the diet of several species of omnivorous birds, as well as plenty of other species. Omnivorous birds spread seeds from multitudes of plants. Plants give rise to everything else in the food chain.
As satisfying as it would be to watch Jurassic Park knowing full well that mosquitoes were just as extinct as dinosaurs, we can't go full exterminatus on their asses until we understand more about the environment.

Shit like bedbugs on the other hand...

By being in North America when you fire it of course.

t. Cipher

M.A.D. has been obsolete for decades dumb fuck.

I'd ask you to explain yourself if I thought even for a second that you had anything of academic value to say.

But he's right. Haven't you seen all the nuclear states in open war with each other and nuking the place up?

M.A.D. is not the same thing as deterrence. The Soviets never believed in M.A.D. They thought they could win the nuclear slugfest and the conventional one to follow. M.A.D. doesn't work when one side thinks they can win. By the middle of the Cold War and certainly by the end of it, first strikes and limited exchanges were very much on the table. Deterrence is what kept them down.

>M.A.D. is not the same thing as deterrence.

If you want to be totally anal about it, sure.

>The Soviets never believed in M.A.D.

So what stopped them?

>M.A.D. doesn't work when one side thinks they can win.
What the fuck does Mutally Assured mean to you? Also, M.A.D. is literally just deterrence with well defined consequences.

>So what stopped them?
Sanity?

>cold war Soviets
>sanity

M.A.D. is predicated on second-strike capability. This is all fine and good if your mode of thinking is as simplistic as "it's us versus those dirty Reds and they won't dare shoot if they know we can flatten them right afterwards" but that's not how the real world works. The U.S. second-strike strategy of strategic bombers flying toward Moscow 24/7 did nothing but keep Soviet brass anxious and twitchy. People eventually realized this and the strategy changed to being able to match the enemy in a nuclear war and fight them at *every step of the escalation ladder*, which was a much more effective means of deterrence. And especially now, in a post–Cold War climate where rogue states and suicide bombers exist, you can't rely on the assumption that any enemy will just recoil from existential horror when the chips are down. You have to be able to fight.

LTC Stanislav Petrov says "go fuck yourself".

>one example

Better shut down the nut house over one bad diagnosis

God I hope we get another war like the Cold War. Shit gave us some of the most outlandish and fantastical military projects that actually might work.
Case in point, Operation Plumbob.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob
tl;dr We asked the question of what would happen if we built the nuclear equivalent of a REALLY shaken up soda bottle? Answer: the bottlecap breaks escape velocity six times over.

I'm sorry that you're still hung up on magical thinking inherited from Cold War propaganda but while ideologically unsound they may have been, insane they were not.

Yep, the thing you refuse to acknowledge

Your vodka is getting cold

Vasili Arkhipov says go fuck yourself too

So are your Big Macs.

Not even the right continent Boris

> So what stopped them?
Not him, but as someone who is actually familiar with the topic: it would've been political suicide for leaders (and, given radical approach to political discourse, a good chance of literal suicide - by firing squad).

Ruling faction in USSR was relying on populism to be in charge. And the masses were united by the doctrine that was deeply rooted in Marxism. Consequently, Soviet general public never considered themselves at Cold War with America (that would be "reactionary nationalism"; something stupid people do), only with the Capitalists who controlled it.

Initiating WWIII (which would lead to mass-murder of American workers) would've been absolute and total breach of this doctrine (victory through Revolution, not WWIII) and would've immediately lead to Party (multi-million organization by this time) revoking ruling mandate of the leaders who gave such order as failures and anti-Communist, with the new (and eager) generation of politicians replacing them.

Then you have no excuse to be so retarded

Pissing in Russian cereal is a pastime for all

You shouldn't eat it afterwards though

Maybe if they'd feed their people they wouldn't have to

San Diego naval history museum has a nice exhibit in his sub.

>only a Russian could see past the rusty, outdated Russian bogeyman we built

Maybe if you haven't eaten cereal wth a piss before hungry Russians could get their hands on it you master plan could've worked

>being able to match the enemy in a nuclear war and fight them at *every step of the escalation ladder*, which was a much more effective means of deterrence.
Again, M.A.D. is just deterrence with predefined consequences. Just because the first strategy we tried wasn't what we succeeded with doesn't mean that the whole concept of "If you fuck with me, I'll kill us all" doesn't work. Also, the further we progress in technology, the closer we can get to actually assuring destruction of both sides with no survivors. This hardly makes it obsolete. Furthermore, bringing in suicide bombers and rogue states is about as effective argument against M.A.D. as it is against deterrence in general. Just because there's a crazy person that can't think about risks doesn't mean that carrying a gun doesn't make you safer. Even if you don't agree with that, you have to take into account the fact that there aren't simply two nuclear capable countries. If the US is sure of annihilation by Russia, we aren't just going to bomb Russia, we'll go after all of their allies. And so will our allies. The resulting messy spiderweb is what makes M.A.D. a valid concept. We aren't just talking about you dying if you pull the trigger, we're talking about everyone you know and love. You'd have to be insane to think that M.A.D. doesn't work. Either that, or needlessly semantic to the point that we can't 100% "assure" anything.

Perhaps is lost in translations comrade.

Is I who pisses in cereal of mother russias

And it's you who eats it for them

You've the humor of a starved Ukraninan villager

And once again posts carrying real discussion and opinions are buried by two retards who can't actually bring any intellectual worth to the discussion, but think that they're clever. Peacefully ending the Cold War was a mistake.

>I sure do wish my country was developed enough to be part of it

Who said it ended? It continues in another phase.

It only ended peacefully in a military sense. Culturally, McDonalds flags now fly over Moscow, Slav youths don Reeboks and track suits, and the Damocles sword of limited oil/gas extraction hangs over the Slavic economy like a rainbow.

Be thankful that Brazil didn't join your pillow fight.

Yeah it would've been awful seeing you get spanked by both sides of Germany

Could be worse. He could lose a fight to Italy.

If you mean deterrence then say deterrence, don't make an ass of yourself by parading around obsolete terminology. Deterrence is a moving target and dumbing it down to "I'll kill us all" just invites people both to hate you and to want to prod you to see if that port facility or that buffer state is worth 50 million of your own people.
>Also, the further we progress in technology, the closer we can get to actually assuring destruction of both sides with no survivors.
The further we progress in technology the further we throw this capability into question through the development of anti-nuclear countermeasures, because with technology came philosophy and the current philosophy is lowering the stakes, not raising them higher and higher so the next idiot who sneezes in the wrong direction bathes the world in nuclear fire.
>The resulting messy spiderweb is what makes [anything] a valid concept
Sure worked out well in 1914. Israel explicitly maintains a first strike as policy in case of invasion. Fit that, and Abdul al-Islam bin Jihadi next to him, into your fucking spiderweb.
>We aren't just talking about you dying if you pull the trigger, we're talking about everyone you know and love.
The point is by putting the stakes there, you rattle your sabre and you make the enemy keep his hand on his own pistol but you paralyze yourself. Moron. It doesn't work. Deterrence is an optimization problem, not a "push the nukes button until you can't build any more". Another symptom of your mindset inherited from the Cold War. We can't, in fact, kill everyone we know and love with our current nuclear arsenals. We don't intend to. We don't need to. We maintain enough to deter the enemy on a case-by-case basis and keep ourselves open to diplomacy. You're like a pre-schooler waving his black-and-yellow flag and screaming about rattlesnakes. Fit for schoolyard squabbles. Laughed off the world stage.

Someone seems to be taking this a bit personally. Maybe you should calm down and think about how M.A.D. may not explicitly refer to nuclear warfare in the near future, as some anons have brought up in this thread. I'd argue the point of M.A.D. further, but I wouldn't want to be "laughed off the world stage" for the remainder of the thread.

I do take it personally because every day I see idiots stuck in a Cold War mindset where Russia is the Great Enemy with China marches along in lockstep, and yet they still have the right to vote. I'm well aware that deterrence is a concept that transcends only the topic of nuclear weapons, no shit, but that doesn't make M.A.D. any less bunk.

>LTC Stanislav Petrov says "go fuck yourself".

You do realize that he "saved the world" by going against the Soviet doctrine, not by following it, right?

>another individual that went against the grain and prevented a nuclear exchange
>proof that Soviet Union was a sane state not bent on using nuclear weapons

>USSR has no problems going to war with smaller states
>killing millions through conflict, imprisonment and famine
>but won't use nukes, because that'd kill dem workers

wut?

>thread about world ending weapons
>spergs over the use of M.A.D.

Only on Veeky Forums

Keep drinking propaganda koolaid

Until someone is crazy enough to do it.

FOXDIE?

This is actually true, because through your several billion potential targets your bioweapon will mutate considerably in an attempt to become more effective at reproducing. Thus, also at killing.

It's how virii and hemolytic bacteria work, after all.

>Yes, but there is literally no way to do so without hitting yourself.
>It's not like a nuke
People weren't sure if the first nuclear tests would light the entire planet's atmosphere on fire or not. We tested them anyways.

>humans

No, just muricans

express.co.uk/news/weird/694392/Will-Large-Hadron-Collider-destroy-Earth-CERN-admits-experiments-could-create-black-holes
Remember when America made CERN?

>in an attempt to become more effective at reproducing
>ascribing agency to evolution