Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Anti Agriculture Warfare

  1. #1 Anti Agriculture Warfare 
    Forum Freshman Sobek52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    20
    What do you think?
    A bio/chem weapon that, when released over an area, would kill off/prevent the reproduction of plant species. This would cause mass famine, economic devastation, and ecosystem destabilization.

    Would a weapon such as this...
    -Hold enough of an advantage over conventional weapons to be worthwhile?
    -Would the long term implications make this weapon too destructive with massive collateral damage?

    Naturally, this might be considered too immoral, but, well, all is fair in love and war, and we already have weapons capable of wiping cities off the map, so I don't think governments would have too much of a problem adding this to their arsenal.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Are we talking temporary agricultural destruction or permanent agricultural destruction? If we're permanently destroying farm land, then I think it's not worth it. Then we're pushing the border a little too close to the WMD level.

    The main drawback to nuclear war is not the people it kills so much as the ecological disaster afterward that would make existence difficult for the survivors. That's what creates the potential for all of humanity to die out.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Sobek52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    20
    Since this is a train of thought and reasoning, why not pursue both?

    Well, assume that the effects of the weapon would wear off over time, perhaps a period of perhaps a decade or two.

    Anyway, what would be the collateral damage possible from either, and are there advantages enough over more conventional methods to warrant its use?

    One problem i could see... besides the obvious and what Kojax stated above:
    Natural Selection steps in. Suppose a species of plant survives the destruction, with a higher survivability than any other. It becomes an invasive species, starving out other flora as it spreads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    If it just killed one crop and didn't disable the land fine. But it's not really relevant in today's war. Sherman or FDR would have loved it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Anti Agriculture Warfare 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Sobek52
    What do you think?
    A bio/chem weapon that, when released over an area, would kill off/prevent the reproduction of plant species. This would cause mass famine, economic devastation, and ecosystem destabilization.

    Would a weapon such as this...
    -Hold enough of an advantage over conventional weapons to be worthwhile?
    -Would the long term implications make this weapon too destructive with massive collateral damage?

    Naturally, this might be considered too immoral, but, well, all is fair in love and war, and we already have weapons capable of wiping cities off the map, so I don't think governments would have too much of a problem adding this to their arsenal.
    Sounds like Agent Orange.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Sobek52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    20
    That would be the foliage killing chemical agent used in Vietnam, if I'm not mistaken.

    Something like that, yes, though it might need to be something more potent, perhaps biological in nature. It would be hard to "Dust" a nation with a competent air force, at least, by conventional methodologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    81
    Giant African Land snails, if you want permanent destruction.
    Three released into the wild caused an infestation, and costed millions to clean up.
    They cannot be killed with flamethrowers.
    But I don't think permanent destruction is necessary.

    Like if you doused the land with something only toxic to mammalian blood or some such thing, which do exist, the plants could grow, but humans couldn't eat them until the toxins diffused through the environment. Would that work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Sobek52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron
    Giant African Land snails, if you want permanent destruction.
    Three released into the wild caused an infestation, and costed millions to clean up.
    They cannot be killed with flamethrowers.
    But I don't think permanent destruction is necessary.

    Like if you doused the land with something only toxic to mammalian blood or some such thing, which do exist, the plants could grow, but humans couldn't eat them until the toxins diffused through the environment. Would that work?
    I suppose so, but wouldn't the toxins affect humans outright? Essentially standard chemical warfare, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •