The US Biological Weapons Program - Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 - page 21

DOD. The committee firmly believed that BW attack could be deterred
only by being prepared to use BW and by announcing to any potential
enemy US determination to retaliate in kind. 64 The JCS and the secretary
of defense agreed that work on BW preparedness should be intensified. 65
Any agent chosen for military use would have to pass through seven pro-
cedures: screening through laboratory work, pilot plant testing, field test-
ing, assessment, standardization, weaponization, production.
CmlC funding between 1946 and 1954 rose steadily but not dramati-
cally until the Korean War. After the war it declined slightly. 66 Histo-
rian Henry Stubblefield noted that “the greater part of appropriations
for Chemical Corps construction and improvement went into long-range
programs for research and development and industrial facilities.” 67
In April 1952 the Office of the Chemical Corps listed 271 projects,
among them CBR proposals, for its formidable FY 1953 program. The BW
programs had a considerable range, including development of weapons,
testing of potential agents, the development of dissemination techniques,
warheads for missiles, decontamination procedures, detection devices,
and protective equipment. 68 Similarly long lists were drawn up by the
CmlC's Technical Committee throughout the US offensive program: a
cornucopia of R&D proposals were floated. Many of them got no further
than the laboratory. 69
Numerous biological agents were screened in the Camp Detrick labora-
tories. Only a few became agents of major interest. The criteria for anti-
personnel agents were infectivity, virulence, persistence, wide but con-
centrated dispersion, and stability. Initially the US program sought major
killing power. The antipersonnel, antianimal, and antiplant agents fa-
vored in 1949 are listed in table 2.1. Other agents studied during the of-
fensive period of the US program are listed in table 2.2. Some of these (for
instance, VEE) were eventually standardized; most were not.
What uses did the planners project for different biological agents? In
February 1951 the Committee on Biological Weapons envisioned a num-
ber of operational uses for selected priority agents:
If, for example, the objective were to kill many people, botulinum toxin
might be used, whereas Bacterium tularense [ Francisella tularensis ]
would be more suitable if protracted disability . . . were desired. Like-
wise, spores of Bacillus anthracis could best be employed to produce per-