What was the most devastating use of biological warfare and why

Yeah because most have other hobbies than collecting conspiracy theories like stamps.

>>19281078
Are you aware that you're posting on /x/ right now, sir?

>>19281048
honestly the spanish flu couldnt even happened, you dont have any probe that wasnt "made up" by someone else

The only thing I've personally seen was gulf war fever. Gave guys nasty blisters... Looked like shingles. & made most of them sterile.

>>19281048
>no reason
The reason was travel, same as with the black plague (which killed a third of Europe) and smallpox (which killed probably half of pre-colonial America).

A long time ago, when populations were smaller and travel was slower, anything truly serious would probably kill you before you could spread it far. It burned out pretty much where it started. Now you can fly from any major city to any other major city in less than 24 hours, weather permitting. Branson is working on making that six.

If they hadn't been super careful about Ebola, things might have turned ugly the other year. They still might. But the ones that really get you do that by coming out of left field, being something we haven't seen before. That's why all the fuss a few years back about swine flu, avian flu. They're not the familiar kinds of flu that your ancestors survived thousands of encounters with.

>>19281422
Well the pre-colonial smallpox infection of natives actually was a legitimate biological attack. What I'm saying in the OP is I think Spanish Flu was actually a biological attack, one that possibly went wrong, which would explain why it is so enshrouded in mystery.
Seems to be the best historians can come up with about it's true origins is "awe gee guys we really don't know"

File: captcha_-_Centrum_ENTRY.jpg (4KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x57px

>>19281685
Disease happens. You might as well ask why this particular earthquake or that specific meteorite strike.

Also, no, the introduction of smallpox was unintentional. There may have been deliberate infections at points, but most of it was just that carriers from people who'd adapted to it came in contact with a population for whom it was completely new.

As for whether it would be possible to create a hybrid flu, sure. With WWI technology, though, it would be cutting edge research.

The thing is, anyone remotely competent to be researching a bioweapon would be acutely aware that disease cannot be controlled. You release it and it's out for permanent. Microbes do no obey orders. These researchers know this because if anything goes wrong in the lab, they're going to get to be its first victims. You drop a petrie dish and you're never going home again.

The only way to safely deploy a bioweapon is if you've created an inoculation for it and treated as much of your population as you want to survive. I'm not sure that would be possible with pre-WWII tech, and if it wasn't then why work on an apocalypse weapon, one that would damage your side perhaps more than the enemy one? You'd only deploy such a thing if you were losing and wanted to scorch your own earth rather than let the enemy win. If Hitler had that he would probably have used it at the end, but we're talking about two decades earlier.

Basically, your position implies the possession of advanced tech by some group. That's a stretch. The government is always a few years ahead of the private sector on military hardware and aerospace engineering, but we're talking two decades minimum. How tinfoil do you really want to take this? Because you're on the verge of "alien collusion" / "literally everything is a conspiracy" territory. Occam's Razor suggests a better explanation is that you're just Dunning-Krueger-ing your notion of how well you know history.