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
Who will lead Britain’s Conservative Party?
Here are the four candidates vying for the daunting job
When can parents be held responsible for their children’s crimes?
Mass shootings by young assailants are raising the question
Will the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump matter?
Normally presidential match-ups hardly move the needle—but this is no ordinary year
What are the Murdochs fighting about in a secret Nevada court?
The outcome could shape the political orientation of the family’s media empire
The battle between drones and helicopters in Ukraine
Small cheap drones could pose a new threat to expensive Russian craft
A short history of political meddling with the Federal Reserve
Donald Trump’s attacks on the Fed are a throwback to the era before central-bank independence