Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
shifted emphasis toward a defensive policy. Moreover, because the Navy
was the service “least concerned with the offensive and defensive aspects
of this form of warfare,” the new draft had advantageously reigned in the
scope and economic scale of activities about which it had only marginal
concern: 61
A change of wording . . . and a rearrangement of the order in which the
objects of research are set out...combine to put the emphasis on the de-
fensive aspects of this work rather than on offense and retaliation. Fur-
ther a paragraph in the earlier directive which might have been taken as
authority for scientists engaged in biological warfare research to range
rather widely over their subject, has disappeared entirely. As the draft
now stands, it does not appear to be much more than an orderly state-
ment of what is in fact going on, and it does not contain instructions
which could be held to cover the Minister of Supply in demanding an
unreasonable share of resources for this purpose. 62
The change of emphasis did not escape the notice of scientists on the
BRAB, who complained that “priority appeared to be given to the defen-
sive and research aspects rather than to the building up of BW offensive
potential by weapon development and production investigations.” 63 The
revised version of the directive nonetheless echoed the Global Strategy
Paper by announcing that, in the event of war, Britain should be able to
“protect her civil population and Service personnel, as well as crops and
livestock, against attack by biological methods, and to retaliate by those
methods against the enemy should the Government of the day decide to
adopt this course.” 64
Research was to concentrate on six areas. Protection and treatment
were the first two items on the list, followed by “practical potentialities of
biological methods of warfare” relative to the cost and effectiveness of
other means of warfare, obtaining suitable agents, bulk production tech-
niques, and the determination of appropriate weapons. Close collabora-
tion with the US was encouraged for the purposes of “economy and ef-
ficiency.” Complementarity was also mentioned at this point, specifically
with respect to weapon R&D: “Since the Americans are concentrating
mainly on the development of weapons capable of early introduction into
the service, our programme of weapon development should put some-
what greater emphasis on the study of long term projects.” 65
Search WWH ::




Custom Search