U.S. military is studying an insect army to defend crops. Scientists fear a bioweapon.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: dreamingawake

So a defence mechanism equals a weapon?

I didnt catch in your source where this is perceived as a weapon, please point me in the right direction?

There's this excerpt from the OP's second linked source that mentions the potential to use it as a weapon, stating the technology could be used "for hostile purposes" and then going on to state that "The DARPA program is easily weaponized". The excerpt includes links to additional articles that makes these claims about the potential for technology to be weaponized:

A team of skeptical scientists and legal scholars published an article in the journal Science on Thursday arguing that the Insect Allies program opens a “Pandora’s box" and involves technology that “may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for hostile purposes and their means of delivery.” A website created by the critics puts their objection more bluntly: “The DARPA program is easily weaponized.”

a reply to: Alien Abduct

The op says "scientists fear a weapon."

When somone develops a way to alter crops genetics on a mass scale through insects..

How can you not see the potential weapon. Simply insert different dna.

Mass starvation is one way to end a war.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

What year was that?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: dreamingawake

So a defence mechanism equals a weapon?

I didnt catch in your source where this is perceived as a weapon, please point me in the right direction?

There's this excerpt from the OP's second linked source that mentions the potential to use it as a weapon, stating the technology could be used "for hostile purposes" and then going on to state that "The DARPA program is easily weaponized". The excerpt includes links to additional articles that makes these claims about the potential for technology to be weaponized:

A team of skeptical scientists and legal scholars published an article in the journal Science on Thursday arguing that the Insect Allies program opens a “Pandora’s box" and involves technology that “may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for hostile purposes and their means of delivery.” A website created by the critics puts their objection more bluntly: “The DARPA program is easily weaponized.”

That's right. However you and anyone else in this thread still have yet to show any evidence that the United States military is developing the program in question as a weapon as opposed to a defence measure.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Alien Abduct

The op says "scientists fear a weapon."

When somone develops a way to alter crops genetics on a mass scale through insects..

How can you not see the potential weapon. Simply insert different dna.

Mass starvation is one way to end a war.

I never said that I couldn't see the potential for this to be somehow used as a weapon that much is obvious. What I am saying for the hundredth time is that you guys have offered no evidence that the United States military is developing this program as a weapon as opposed to a defence mechanism.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Alien Abduct

The United States doesnt develop biological weapons as per the Geneva Protocol.

Ya reckon?

en.wikipedia.org...

Throughout its history, the U.S. bioweapons program was secret. It became controversial when it was later revealed that laboratory and field testing (some of the latter using simulants on non-consenting individuals) had been common. The official policy of the United States was first to deter the use of bio-weapons against U.S. forces and secondarily to retaliate if deterrence failed.

in the very next paragraph from your source which you conveniently left out....

In 1969, President Richard Nixon ended all offensive (i.e., non-defensive) aspects of the U.S. bio-weapons program. In 1975 the U.S. ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)—international treaties outlawing biological warfare.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Mass starvation is one way to end a war.

Yea it is. But the opposite is also true. Agriculture can be considered a weapon in a logistical sense. Armies need food. Further, creating enough food to make a population dependent upon you can be used as diplomatic leverage or a trade advantage. Both can have some bearing upon national security.

We learned the hard way in Australia. Just look at how we got cane toads.

Add genetic modification and the problems will end up worse than a few feral plants and creatures I fear.

And to think we're the species that came up with "if it aint broke, don't fix it."

Curious though, if it can be considered a biological weapon, can the rest of the world invade the U.S like it is Iraq?

Oh wait, America doesn't do biological weapons and WMD's do they?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: dreamingawake

So a defence mechanism equals a weapon?

I didnt catch in your source where this is perceived as a weapon, please point me in the right direction?

There's this excerpt from the OP's second linked source that mentions the potential to use it as a weapon, stating the technology could be used "for hostile purposes" and then going on to state that "The DARPA program is easily weaponized". The excerpt includes links to additional articles that makes these claims about the potential for technology to be weaponized:

A team of skeptical scientists and legal scholars published an article in the journal Science on Thursday arguing that the Insect Allies program opens a “Pandora’s box" and involves technology that “may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for hostile purposes and their means of delivery.” A website created by the critics puts their objection more bluntly: “The DARPA program is easily weaponized.”

That's right. However you and anyone else in this thread still have yet to show any evidence that the United States military is developing the program in question as a weapon as opposed to a defence measure.

Yeah, but the OP's title and the title of the linked article was:

U.S. military is studying an insect army to defend crops. Scientists fear a bioweapon.

...Scientists "fear" a weapon, as in they fear it could be weaponized. The article states how there is the "potential" for this to be weaponized.

The OP (at least not in the original opening post) never said it was in fact being developed to be used as a weapon. The OP was making the assertion, backed up by the article and links within the article, that there are experts in this field of research who indeed feel that this technology can be weaponized.

And that statement seems to be true -- i.e., there are scientists who fear that this technology can be weaponized.