Non-nuclear weaponry offers several avenues for military applications; each has it's pros and cons.
First, radiological or 'dirty' bombs. Somewhat feared nowadays, in the 1940's with radiation much less well understood, they would be seen as little more than an exotic explosive device. Military utility is essentially nil, morale effect likewise.
Second, biological organisms used as a weapon. The balancing act with a bacterium or virus as a weapon is a difficult one; make it too infectious and it threatens you as much as your foe, just delayed by a few weeks. Not infectious enough, and you have to distribute ridiculous quantities of it.
Anthrax meets the latter criterion. Equally, distribution is a problem no matter what quantity you are using - as any microbiologist will attest, do your best to kill the wee beasties and they'll stubbornly stay alive, but if you do your best to move them around without killing them they'll perversely die on you.
Personally I am not of the opinion that biological weapons were an effective weapon in WW2. It was sufficiently plausible to be a useful threat, a decent sized stick to wave, but as it was once said of the Soviet Union's anthrax stocks "They've got enough piled up to kill the whole world, and if they try to use it all it won't get more than West Berlin."
Thirdly, bio-toxins, such as Botulinum or Ricin. These are capable of killing in minuscule doses, but again the problem of distribution occurs. Unlike chemical weapons, the toxins are complex protein chains. As such, temperatures much above 40 degrees C will have a good chance of de-naturing them and making them useless. So, the use of toxins is akin to traditional chemical weapons, but more susceptible to heat.
Chemical weapons; while nerve agents are very nasty and can kill by absorption through the skin, the gas stocks left over from WW1 could be defended against by a respirator, such as those issued to civilians in the UK in the early stages of the war. Easiest distribution of these is by artillery, bombing or (wind dependent, this) spraying.
While all these weapons are to a greater or lesser degree horrifying, the fact is that with a 1940's level of technology chemical gases are the most effective, with Sarin, Tabun et al topping the list. The advantages of bio-toxins and other biological weaponry are out-weighed by the difficulties of distributing them effectively and limited production capacity; as well as, of course, the problem with bacteria/viruses of a substantial risk existing of their coming back to bite you.
Just my 2p-worth.
First, radiological or 'dirty' bombs. Somewhat feared nowadays, in the 1940's with radiation much less well understood, they would be seen as little more than an exotic explosive device. Military utility is essentially nil, morale effect likewise.
Second, biological organisms used as a weapon. The balancing act with a bacterium or virus as a weapon is a difficult one; make it too infectious and it threatens you as much as your foe, just delayed by a few weeks. Not infectious enough, and you have to distribute ridiculous quantities of it.
Anthrax meets the latter criterion. Equally, distribution is a problem no matter what quantity you are using - as any microbiologist will attest, do your best to kill the wee beasties and they'll stubbornly stay alive, but if you do your best to move them around without killing them they'll perversely die on you.
Personally I am not of the opinion that biological weapons were an effective weapon in WW2. It was sufficiently plausible to be a useful threat, a decent sized stick to wave, but as it was once said of the Soviet Union's anthrax stocks "They've got enough piled up to kill the whole world, and if they try to use it all it won't get more than West Berlin."
Thirdly, bio-toxins, such as Botulinum or Ricin. These are capable of killing in minuscule doses, but again the problem of distribution occurs. Unlike chemical weapons, the toxins are complex protein chains. As such, temperatures much above 40 degrees C will have a good chance of de-naturing them and making them useless. So, the use of toxins is akin to traditional chemical weapons, but more susceptible to heat.
Chemical weapons; while nerve agents are very nasty and can kill by absorption through the skin, the gas stocks left over from WW1 could be defended against by a respirator, such as those issued to civilians in the UK in the early stages of the war. Easiest distribution of these is by artillery, bombing or (wind dependent, this) spraying.
While all these weapons are to a greater or lesser degree horrifying, the fact is that with a 1940's level of technology chemical gases are the most effective, with Sarin, Tabun et al topping the list. The advantages of bio-toxins and other biological weaponry are out-weighed by the difficulties of distributing them effectively and limited production capacity; as well as, of course, the problem with bacteria/viruses of a substantial risk existing of their coming back to bite you.
Just my 2p-worth.