What makes biological weapons so dangerous, and does Russia have them?
The weapons are banned, but the ban is poorly policed
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S forces have committed many atrocities in their invasion of Ukraine. Some fear there is worse to come. America has warned that Mr Putin may be considering the use of biological and chemical weapons. On March 23rd, ahead of a NATO summit, Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary-general, said he expected its members to provide “equipment to help Ukraine protect against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats”. The use of chemical weapons would be nothing new for Russia: it has previously used them in attempted assassinations, and the Syrian regime that it backs has used sarin gas. The use of biological weapons, though, would be novel—and potentially more deadly. What is the difference between biological and chemical weapons, and why are the former so troubling?
More from The Economist explains
Would legal doping change the Olympics?
The impact would be smaller—and worse—than proponents of drug-taking claim
Do vice-presidential picks matter?
If they have any effect on an election’s result, it is at the margins
What led to the bitter controversy over an Olympics boxing match?
A mighty punch by an Algerian boxer has revived a politically charged dispute
Is this the end of Project 2025, the plan that riled Donald Trump?
The right-wing blueprint for governing has taken centre-stage in America’s presidential campaign
Who should control Western Sahara?
France becomes the latest country to back Morocco’s claim
Who are the Druze, the victims of a deadly strike on Israel?
The religious minority has often been caught up in regional crossfire in the Middle East