Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
massive destruction that would already have been wrought by hydrogen
bombs. Tactical biological warfare was also dismissed as unpromising. In
summary, the Chiefs of Staff's report concluded with several telling points
against BW, the key items being:
The strategic value of BW in present known forms is insignificant.
There is negligible risk of BW or CW being used against the United King-
dom which ought to be accepted when deciding upon the scope of de-
fensive measures.
The West must continue to possess an offensive capability in BW and CW,
but this does not require the United Kingdom itself to possess such a ca-
pability.
The degree of risk does not justify defensive measures against BW or CW
being taken by units of armed services, based in the United Kingdom, or
by ships at sea.
The West as a whole must continue some co-ordinated research and de-
velopment effort into the offensive and defensive aspects of both BW
and CW.
92
Once the Chiefs of Staff had all but dismissed BW from the defense
agenda, the possibility of abandoning all UK research in both chemical
and biological warfare was raised. The DRPS issued a report on this mat-
ter early in 1959, which considered both the financial savings and the po-
litical benefits flowing from close collaborative links between research
scientists in the UK and US.
93
The DRPS recommended that the DRPC not
support the closure of Porton. Instead the staff suggested that the com-
mittee inform the Chiefs of Staff Committee that, if all work ceased at
Porton, a maximum of £1.6 million per annum would be saved, probably
less. In addition, they noted, there were too many scientific and political
advantages arising from current collaboration to terminate all CBW re-
search.
Despite being consigned to “insignificance,” work at the MRE contin-
ued, and five more long-distance trials of fluorescent particles were car-
ried out from October 1958 to August 1959.
94
Toward the end of this se-
ries, however, the BRAB was informed that resources for future trials
should be obtained on an informal basis; the DRPC “would not allot a
high priority to the work, and the official priority might in fact be less ef-
fective than the present loosely defined arrangements.”
95
The BRAB, in
Search WWH ::
Custom Search