How likely is the use of Soviet bioweapons in a full exchange?

How likely is the use of Soviet bioweapons in a full exchange?

  • 10%

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • 20%

    Votes: 2 6.3%
  • 50%

    Votes: 4 12.5%
  • 75%

    Votes: 4 12.5%
  • 90% or more

    Votes: 16 50.0%

  • Total voters
    32
Towards the end of the Cold War the USSR had a highly advanced and expensive strategic biological weapons program with annual production of thousands of tons of engineered anthrax, plague, smallpox, glanders, Marburg, Q fever, Influenza and other agents in the event of nuclear war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program

If a full nuclear exchange actually occurred in the 1980s how likely is the use of bioweapons by the USSR?
 
Towards the end of the Cold War the USSR had a highly advanced and expensive strategic biological weapons program with annual production of thousands of tons of engineered anthrax, plague, smallpox, glanders, Marburg, Q fever, Influenza and other agents in the event of nuclear war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_program

If a full nuclear exchange actually occurred in the 1980s how likely is the use of bioweapons by the USSR?

Got to remember that Biological weapons are a double edged sword. If the Warshaw Pact is the aggressor then it will most likely not be used in Europe since they run the risk of the infection spreading to their own military and population.

Across the Atlantic or against isolated bases it is possible in an effort to disrupt the logistical system, but it is still highly unlikely since the use of WMD calls for an equal or greater response (Biological or Nuclear).
 
Got to remember that Biological weapons are a double edged sword. If the Warshaw Pact is the aggressor then it will most likely not be used in Europe since they run the risk of the infection spreading to their own military and population.

Across the Atlantic or against isolated bases it is possible in an effort to disrupt the logistical system, but it is still highly unlikely since the use of WMD calls for an equal or greater response (Biological or Nuclear).
Except response is a non factor as the OP is assuming the US and USSR doing a full on strategic level nuclear exchange anyways as the background
 
Except response is a non factor as the OP is assuming the US and USSR doing a full on strategic level nuclear exchange anyways as the background

But even then the use of bioweapons is unlikely since, unlike the direct effects of chemical and nuclear weapons, bioweapons are notoriously difficult to control.
 
Isn't deliverability a problem too? Chemical and nuclear weapons aren't nearly as finicky and are easier to deliver to a target.
 
Isn't deliverability a problem too? Chemical and nuclear weapons aren't nearly as finicky and are easier to deliver to a target.
The USSR successfully developed multiple forms of delivery (ICBMs, spray tanks, bombs, artillery shells etc) for biological weapons.

Look up Biohazard by Ken Alibek for more details. Alibek was the director of the Soviet bioweapon program during the 1980s.
 
How effective are biological ICBM's in practical reality?
You can find more information about it online but the USSR did manage after decades of research and testing to mount warheads containing bomblets filled with bioweapon agents on ICBMs (exact amount is unknown) for use against US and other nations' cities. It was very difficult and costly but they pulled it off by the 1980s.
 
Last edited:
But even then the use of bioweapons is unlikely since, unlike the direct effects of chemical and nuclear weapons, bioweapons are notoriously difficult to control.
If you are throwing your entire nuclear arsenal anyways I think you are past the point of caring about that, especially if you are loading them onto ICBMs aimed at other continents (not the most effective means admittedly), but if you have them why not use them? If they get out of control, they probably aren't crossing the Atlantic or Pacific to Eurasia given the disruption from thousands of nuclear warheads
 
If you are throwing your entire nuclear arsenal anyways I think you are past the point of caring about that, especially if you are loading them onto ICBMs aimed at other continents (not the most effective means admittedly), but if you have them why not use them? If they get out of control, they probably aren't crossing the Atlantic or Pacific to Eurasia given the disruption from thousands of nuclear warheads

Not necessarily. Even when you toss WMD at opponents, one might be hesitant about using a WMD which can bite YOU in the rear.

Also, dispersing bio weapons with an ICBM? If it isn't the heat from the launch then it is the lack of proper distribution of the agent (how do you disperse aerosols from an ICBM) or the big red flair from an ICBM entering the atmosphere and telling everyone to stay out of harms way which makes it really inefficient.

Cruise missiles, bombs and spraying are viable options for dispersal but forget about using ICBM.
 
IMHO bioweapons would be more effectively used in the lead up to a planned attack than during an attack. Diseases can be difficult to attach a "return address" to especially if spread clandestinely. If you are trashing your enemies with a full out nuclear attack the effectiveness of bioweapons may actually be diminished because, while they may be very effective in any pocket of survivors they hit, the destruction of transportation links will outweigh the reduced immune response of survivors due to malnutrition and/or radiation exposure. As noted, using bioweapons anywhere near your borders or where your forces might be risks spread in to your own population.

With the exception of spore forming organisms like tetanus and anthrax, disease organisms (virus, bacteria, rickettsia, parasites) need some sort of reservoir whether human or animal. The reason there is no more smallpox is that it only affected humans and when all smallpox in humans was eliminated (in the 1970s) it vanished - except for (hopefully) only two labs where samples are kept. In the wake of a full on nuclear war human to human transmission, human reservoirs, and animal reservoirs could just as well be disrupted not just maintained or augmented.

By using bioweapons against an enemy physically isolated from you (USSR vs USA) in advance of a planned attack, you could seriously weaken the enemy and kick them when they are down. Another issue with diseases is, once they are identified, procedures to prevent spread even if they are difficult to treat, are well understood and straightforward.
 
Not necessarily. Even when you toss WMD at opponents, one might be hesitant about using a WMD which can bite YOU in the rear.

Also, dispersing bio weapons with an ICBM? If it isn't the heat from the launch then it is the lack of proper distribution of the agent (how do you disperse aerosols from an ICBM) or the big red flair from an ICBM entering the atmosphere and telling everyone to stay out of harms way which makes it really inefficient.

Cruise missiles, bombs and spraying are viable options for dispersal but forget about using ICBM.
Except an ICBMs aimed at North America can't really bite them in their rear during a full exchange, no way for the agent to spread outside the continent

AFAIK the soviets figured it out, it's probably complex and inefficient to protect the agent, a rig to slow down the device and a sprayer system but somewhat easier than manned spaceflight. The Soviets did it, that is not a question. Bioweapons were meant to be a Third or Fourth Strike weapon, there is not going to be an early warning system functional when they launch to warn people

Even if they are inefficient, having to take quarantine measures and watch out for disease is going to take away resources from stabilization and recovery after the nukes fall
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In a full exchange a lot depends on exactly how much of the Soviet's "survivable nuclear war" BS was propaganda and how much was believed by the decision makers. If they actually bought into it the intentional use of bio-weapons is fairly low, say below 20%. If they didn't believe that they (the leadership) would be able to walk away as New Soviet Men, the odds crank up considerably, into the 70% or higher range. In this it is useful to consider that the Soviets actually had a "doomsday system" in Deadhand/Perimeter that was designed to strike back from beyond the grave. It's existence speaks volumes about just how survivable the senior Defense Council actually thought a full exchange might be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

Almost as serious a danger is accidental release in the chaos of a post full exchange world. The U.S., based on available information, was unaware of much of the Soviet program. This opens the possibility of incidental release due to strike damage. There is also the strong possibility that containment systems might fail without power and constant monitoring.
 
You can find more information about it online but the USSR did manage after decades of research and testing to mount warheads containing bomblets filled with bioweapon agents on ICBMs (exact amount is unknown) for use against US and other nations' cities. It was very difficult and costly but they pulled it off by the 1980s.

What would be the point when those cities are going to be hit with nuclear weapons anyways?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not necessarily. Even when you toss WMD at opponents, one might be hesitant about using a WMD which can bite YOU in the rear.

Also, dispersing bio weapons with an ICBM? If it isn't the heat from the launch then it is the lack of proper distribution of the agent (how do you disperse aerosols from an ICBM) or the big red flair from an ICBM entering the atmosphere and telling everyone to stay out of harms way which makes it really inefficient.

Cruise missiles, bombs and spraying are viable options for dispersal but forget about using ICBM.
IRBM/ICBM distribution of bio-weapons is actually very doable. Some materials can be distributed in the form of spores (anthrax is probably the best known agent in this regard), other viruses and bacterial can be released in the form of weaponized dust via bomblet. While an SS-18 is less efficient than a Tu-95, the ability of the launcher to deploy 18 MIRV with counterforce accuracy means that all is needed is a warhead designed to allow distribution of the agent. Since an ounce or so of weaponized small pox virus is more than sufficient to wipe out the entire human race 99.9% of any warhead can be dedicated to survival/distribution of the agent.

A single warhead is likely sufficient to ensure the virtual depopulation of North America (if not the entire Continental Western Hemisphere), with the remaining payload being redundant back-up. Western Europe and the Middle East are actually easy targets for aircraft or, as you note, cruise missile.

This is the problem with weaponized biological agents. The amount of dust that remain in a plastic bag due to static cling is far more than is needed to kill hundreds of millions.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What would be the point when those cities are going to be hit with nuclear weapons anyways?
Because you are only going to hit cities and counterforce targets. Much of the enemy's population and recovery capacity is outside the direct impact zones. Biological agents have the advantage of using the surviving refugees as a delivery system.
 
While the details about Dead Hand are obviously unreliable I have never heard that the Soviet/Russian Bioweapon program was tied into it meaning that unless the Soviets go for a first strike the weapons will never be used once a few Tridents takes out Mount Yamantau.
 
Because you are only going to hit cities and counterforce targets. Much of the enemy's population and recovery capacity is outside the direct impact zones. Biological agents have the advantage of using the surviving refugees as a delivery system.

How would this not prompt the party on the receiving end to launch a countervalue strike as retaliation?
 
Since an ounce or so of weaponized small pox virus is more than sufficient to wipe out the entire human race 99.9% of any warhead can be dedicated to survival/distribution of the agent.
An ounce?

Isn't that in perfect conditions with perfect distribution?
 
IRBM/ICBM distribution of bio-weapons is actually very doable. Some materials can be distributed in the form of spores (anthrax is probably the best known agent in this regard), other viruses and bacterial can be released in the form of weaponized dust via bomblet. While an SS-18 is less efficient than a Tu-95, the ability of the launcher to deploy 18 MIRV with counterforce accuracy means that all is needed is a warhead designed to allow distribution of the agent. Since an ounce or so of weaponized small pox virus is more than sufficient to wipe out the entire human race 99.9% of any warhead can be dedicated to survival/distribution of the agent.

A single warhead is likely sufficient to ensure the virtual depopulation of North America (if not the entire Continental Western Hemisphere), with the remaining payload being redundant back-up. Western Europe and the Middle East are actually easy targets for aircraft or, as you note, cruise missile.

This is the problem with weaponized biological agents. The amount of dust that remain in a plastic bag due to static cling is far more than is needed to kill hundreds of millions.

Funny you mention Anthrax. Anthrax does have heat resistant spores, but there are some notes to consider.
First is that Anthrax is primarily used against livestock. This is due to the fact that while the spores are resilient in dirt, they have a relatively short endurance in places with a lot of concrete due to increased exposure to UV. Regular anthrax is also present in the soil and for a bio weapon to seed a significant area with a significant load the survival of spores from a one way trip with an ICBM is simply too low.

It is not that Anthrax cannot be delivered with an ICBM, but that it is an incredibly inefficient delivery method.

There are some other nasty critters which can be used , but for a bio weapon to be efficient there has to be a reasonable incubation period and that incubation period allows for travel across the Atlantic thus also putting the USSR and countries of the Warshaw Pact at risk.
 
Top