And that is the totally dreamed-up basis for your conspiracy theory. You ASSUME that Dugway was making anthrax powders using new techniques in violation of international agreements.
But what the Aerosol Science article shows us is that they use OLD techniques BECAUSE developing new techniques would violate international agreements!
I just put a new comment about all this on my web site. Here's what I wrote:
Here's some background information from www.cdi.org about the agreements:
U.S. efforts to eliminate biological weapons began in earnest under the Nixon administration. On November 25, 1969, President Nixon declared that the United States would not use chemical weapons in a first instance, and he renounced the use of biological weapons in any situation. Future biological weapons research was confined to defensive measures such as immunization, detection and safety. Consequently, the Department of Defense destroyed large stockpiles of biological weapons. Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom followed suit and began to abolish their BW stockpiles as well.
The United States, through the United Nations Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, discussed the possibility of an international agreement with the Soviet Union. On August 5, 1971, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a revised draft of the convention and a vote in the General Assembly resulted in 110 for the treaty, and 0 against. The United States Senate ratified the convention in 1974 during the Ford administration.
Developing new techniques for making bioweapons would not be considered a defensive measure in any context allowed under the treaty.
To conspiracy theorists [like TrebelRebel], the fact that the end-product from those old techniques was nothing like what was in the anthrax letters mailed in September and October of 2001 was seen as "proof" that the anthrax powder in the letters came from some NEW and totally illegal program. And their beliefs were enflamed by articles in the media, such as "Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S." in the December 3, 2001, issue of The New York Times, the "FBI's Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted" article from the October 28, 2002, issue of The Washington Post, and, of course, the absolutely absurd, pure conspiracy theory article "Anthrax Powder - State Of The Art?" from the November 28, 2003, issue of Science Magazine.
Your conspiracy theories have taken a BIG hit with this new information. They've always been ridiculous, but now we can see just how ridiculous.
Your new argument is just as bogus as all your old ones.
It would be legitimate to reproduce simulants of what an adversary has developed - in order to test defenses against any new advance in technology.
The Alibekov anthrax would be a new advance in technology.
Weaponized spores are COATED with silica. You were wrong. Get over it.
Ed, you are mistaken. Where a treaty allows you to make small amounts for defensive purchases and a defector comes over who knows how to make the product used by the Russians — known as the Alibekov formula — aren’t you allowed to make it? If not, what would be the point of paying Ken’s visa bill? Otherwise your defensive research would not be effective. Dugway started using simulants in 1992 — after Alibek defected.
The same logic has been used to develop genetically altered strains, I believe — on the grounds that they may be used in an attack.
After Dr. Zanders, I am about the most frequent participant on the BWPP board. So I’m not unacquainted with the very real concerns held by activists in the field.
So not only are you misconstruing language you nowhere cite, but you are putting words in Dr. Rebel’s mouth. You should drop the empty rhetoric of conspiracy theorists, etc. altogether. Your conspiracy theory has 4 people. The indictment, if one ever comes down, likely will contain conspiracy allegations.
Often in the area of biodefense you might be developing small amounts of weapon — a particular agent — for the first time.
Now I am not saying that this is sound policy. Or that it cannot be argued to be illegal. But don’t put words in TrebleRebel’s mouth. If he made that argument, by all means quote it back to him.
For example, by analogy, you argue against an Al Qaeda theory using the straw man argument it is made only by conservatives with a political agenda.