How do you envision technology 50 years from now?

[Coyote]

All that electronic gear we dig-- personal computers, telephones with cameras and GPS, personal digital assistants, search engines and other cool software, watches, TVs with TiVo, satellite radio, etc etc etc... it'll all be combined into one device, maybe worn, likely 3D. It may even hold our bank account info so we just thumbprint a biometric scanner at the store, the store 'puter handshakes with your personal one, and bingo, transaction had.

It may even be that cars come with almost no physical dials/switches/etc except the most basic ones (steering wheels, brakes, accelerators) because as soon as we get inside, the personal and car computers interphase, and a holographic display configured to your personal tastes and body size will pop up. Probably with a personal ID coded to you to help prevent theft, although it'll also be able to be modified by legal writ if you're convicted of DUI. Cars will have that "OnStar" type stuff standard, even a remote shutdown option, possibly a option that can be access by law enforcement while they get a warrant while in pursuit. Satellite uplink and tracking will be standard package, also. Cars will probably be algae-diesel hybrids, with much of the body made up of flexible solar sheet.

You will not be able to walk outside (at least in cities) without being on camera. Period. If you're in a public place, you are being monitored, and that's the way of it.

If guns are still sold to the public (obviously this is for countries where such is allowed) then they will have smartchips in them so that only authorized users can fire them. Bullets will all have barcodes tracing them by lot number to sale.

Search engines software will become intuitive and try to find things or you that you would never have known you needed or wanted. Advertisers will exploit this and we will probably be living in a world where every surface is covered in advertising. Constant, never-ending, droning ads.

Certain cars may have flight capability: emergency services and in some cases perhaps cargo-carrying trucks. Trucks may even be automated and guided by GPS. Darth Wong is correct-- most people will balk at the idea of every moron being able to hurtle a 1-ton car through the skies at 80 miles an hour while lamebrains put on makeup, eat BigMacs, or whatever.

[Broomstick]

All that electronic gear we dig-- personal computers, telephones with cameras and GPS, personal digital assistants, search engines and other cool software, watches, TVs with TiVo, satellite radio, etc etc etc... it'll all be combined into one device, maybe worn, likely 3D.

This is likely, I think - I already use my phone for phone numbers (used to have a paper book with all those written in) and could use it for additional info if I wanted to, as a timepiece, calendar, calculator, and, when I travel, an alarm clock. And I don't even exploit everything I could (no texting, no camera, no internet, etc.)

It may even hold our bank account info so we just thumbprint a biometric scanner at the store, the store 'puter handshakes with your personal one, and bingo, transaction had.

Security will be the big obstacle on that one. But if we solve that, yeah, that's possible.

You will not be able to walk outside (at least in cities) without being on camera. Period. If you're in a public place, you are being monitored, and that's the way of it.

In urban areas, yes. Not so much as you move out of it towards rural or wilderness areas.

If guns are still sold to the public (obviously this is for countries where such is allowed) then they will have smartchips in them so that only authorized users can fire them. Bullets will all have barcodes tracing them by lot number to sale.

Smartchips for the guns, maybe - not sure sure about the ammo being so identifiable. I thought guns made characteristic marks on ammo? In which case just test-firing some samples might be sufficient.

Search engines software will become intuitive and try to find things or you that you would never have known you needed or wanted.

Oh, please, god no! I am so sick of adbots trying to shove shit at me that I Just. Don't. Want.

Advertisers will exploit this and we will probably be living in a world where every surface is covered in advertising. Constant, never-ending, droning ads.

Has been predicted since the 1930's. Has not happened yet.

Certain cars may have flight capability

If they do, they won't be "cars". They'll be airplanes/helicopters/other aircraft.

Trucks may even be automated and guided by GPS.

This could happen. But there are obstacles to letting truly automated vehicles on the road without human supervision on board.

Darth Wong is correct-- most people will balk at the idea of every moron being able to hurtle a 1-ton car through the skies at 80 miles an hour while lamebrains put on makeup, eat BigMacs, or whatever.

On the other hand, I like the idea of the average civilian being able to get a flying license. Said person will have to put some time, money, and effort into the task, but as an average civilian who actually did that, yeah, I'd like to keep the option open.

[General Zod]

Smartchips for the guns, maybe - not sure sure about the ammo being so identifiable. I thought guns made characteristic marks on ammo? In which case just test-firing some samples might be sufficient.

You're thinking of rifling marks. Not really a foolproof identifier unless you have a pretty good idea of what gun it came from to begin with, afaik. Although making it so that the gun won't fire without proper ID tag (wee, MGS4!) would eliminate a lot of accidental deaths.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It may even be that cars come with almost no physical dials/switches/etc except the most basic ones (steering wheels, brakes, accelerators)

This is likely to be true. And even then, the only physical control a person might be permitted is a set of emergency brakes. The only cars I expect you'll see steering wheels on are golf-carts, military vehicles, and some special-purpose 4x4s, where a reclamation crew working on restoring the rusted wreckage of exurbia to ecological balance cannot be expected to use the inner city's smart traffic grid. Personally, I do not see personally-driven automobiles remaining legal anywhere outside of the present Third World in fifty years.

Probably with a personal ID coded to you to help prevent theft, although it'll also be able to be modified by legal writ if you're convicted of DUI.

I imagine that, if you're driving a human-operated automobile, you've got a very difficult-to-get license to operate it. If you're convicted of doing something that would muck up automated mass-transit, your license will probably be revoked, end-of-story.

Cars will have that "OnStar" type stuff standard, even a remote shutdown option, possibly a option that can be access by law enforcement while they get a warrant while in pursuit.

A man-operated vehicle will probably have remote-startup standard, as the vehicle will be able to communicate with the city Wi-Fi network to check for license validity. If your license is good, and you're authorized to operate the vehicle, it will start. If not, the car will e-mail law enforcement. If you get carjacked, and removed from the vehicle, it may stop automatically, since you're no longer synched with the car. This, incidentally, will probably lead to the first mass-accepted use of implanted computers, and the basic mind-machine interface.

Cars will probably be algae-diesel hybrids,

Only special-purpose vehicles. I suspect the common urban runabout will use a battery.

If guns are still sold to the public (obviously this is for countries where such is allowed) then they will have smartchips in them so that only authorized users can fire them. Bullets will all have barcodes tracing them by lot number to sale.

I can see a day where the only countries permitting guns that aren't shotguns or hunting rifles to private citizens will be present Third World nations. In the Third World nation of the future, none of this "smart" gun stuff may apply. Also, I'm dubious of barcoding bullets, unless you're making them in very small lots. Which makes sense if the only firearms allowed are shotguns or hunting rifles. There will probably be a very large black market for pre-2030 or whatever firearms. I'm also dubious of the notion of smart-guns in general. A mechanically-fired weapon will not be amenable to the usage of electronic bits in the action. Smart guns, I suspect, will only become feasible when we develop electronically-ignited caseless ammunition.

Certain cars may have flight capability: emergency services

We already have those. They're called helicopters. The notion of the flying car is, IMHO, a brain-bug.

and in some cases perhaps cargo-carrying trucks.

No. Aircraft tend to make lousy cargo carriers. Small aircraft don't carry much, and their fuel economy is measured in gallons-per-hour.

Trucks may even be automated and guided by GPS.

I suspect that this would almost certainly be the case.

Darth Wong is correct-- most people will balk at the idea of every moron being able to hurtle a 1-ton car through the skies at 80 miles an hour while lamebrains put on makeup, eat BigMacs, or whatever.

In the future, most people, including city-planners planning dense urban centers, backed by more computing power than they know what to do with, will balk at the idea of every moron being able to hurtle a 1-ton car through the ground at any speed over 30 MPH, while their drivers distract themselves with vid-com conversations, Rock Band XXIV or whatever.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Trucks may even be automated and guided by GPS.

This could happen. But there are obstacles to letting truly automated vehicles on the road without human supervision on board.

The chief obstacle (when we are able to bring enough computer horsepower and smarts to the table to eliminate the machine vision and pathfinding problems of today) to letting truly-automated vehicles on the road without human supervision tends to be other human drivers. Human drivers are selfish. They put their own concerns first, foremost, and last. Everyone attempting to optimize their own trips with little regard for others causes accidents, traffic backups that occur for no discernible reason, and every other negative thing one can say about the modern road culture. Ban human drivers, and the high-performance computers that will be present fifty years from now will be able to work out traffic flow for themselves, much as the lowly ant does now.

[Ryan Thunder]

You're thinking of rifling marks. Not really a foolproof identifier unless you have a pretty good idea of what gun it came from to begin with, afaik. Although making it so that the gun won't fire without proper ID tag (wee, MGS4!) would eliminate a lot of accidental deaths.

Heh, for some reason, I have an image in my mind of a guy with a magnetic strip-reader on a gun, madly swiping the card between firings to let him fire again.

[Broomstick]

Trucks may even be automated and guided by GPS.

This could happen. But there are obstacles to letting truly automated vehicles on the road without human supervision on board.

The chief obstacle (when we are able to bring enough computer horsepower and smarts to the table to eliminate the machine vision and pathfinding problems of today) to letting truly-automated vehicles on the road without human supervision tends to be other human drivers.

So... we never have to worry about animals darting into the path of a vehicle (you do recall a couple of geese causing problems with an airliner, recently, don't you?)? There will NEVER be any sort of storm debris in the street? Never any potholes? Never any floodwaters? You sir, are FAR more an optimist than I am.

[Darth Wong]

I have grave doubts about AIs developing to the point that we would trust them with automobiles, never mind small aircraft. Especially since you really couldn't give these vehicles a manual override, because all the assholes would immediately use it, and the knowledge of how to bypass any restrictions on doing so would spread like wildfire.

I know some people are optimistic that this will happen soon, but we can't even make simple computer operating systems without bugs today. Simply declaring that it will happen and we'll trust it with millions of human lives seems completely reckless, and is the sort of thing I'd expect from marketers.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

But can't the control computers be super-reliable as long as they're simple? I mean, if the F-16's computer glitched out its aerodynamically unstable design would shake itself to pieces, but this has never happened in 30+ years.

[Darth Wong]

But can't the control computers be super-reliable as long as they're simple? I mean, if the F-16's computer glitched out its aerodynamically unstable design would shake itself to pieces, but this has never happened in 30+ years.

That kind of computer works on relatively simple rulesets: the sort of work that is ideally suited to computers. The real judgement is still done by the pilot. Replacing the pilot is a completely different kind of proposition.

[Sarevok]

Well the F-16 is flown by a person with millions of dollars worth of training and education compared to a 17 year old who just got a car from daddy.

But the real problem is current programming styles break down in physical world. There are too many variables and possibilities to keep track of that the old style algorithms can't cope. The field of "AI" will need a breakthrough of some kind. Things like the integrated circuit made computers into what they are today, a similar revolutionary development in AI theories is required before thinking machines become mainstream and trusted.

[Ryan Thunder]

I have grave doubts about AIs developing to the point that we would trust them with automobiles, never mind small aircraft. Especially since you really couldn't give these vehicles a manual override, because all the assholes would immediately use it, and the knowledge of how to bypass any restrictions on doing so would spread like wildfire.

Treat it like calling 911. In fact, why not link it to that system? Put it in manual for S&G and get slapped with a $500 fine. That ought to discourage most.

[Darth Wong]

I have grave doubts about AIs developing to the point that we would trust them with automobiles, never mind small aircraft. Especially since you really couldn't give these vehicles a manual override, because all the assholes would immediately use it, and the knowledge of how to bypass any restrictions on doing so would spread like wildfire.

Treat it like calling 911. In fact, why not link it to that system? Put it in manual for S&G and get slapped with a $500 fine. That ought to discourage most.

Yeah, of course. People would disable the driver AI but not the alarm, right?

[hongi]

What are the chances some nations could start using clone armies by 2050s ?

Don't laugh. The advanced countries of the world are very averse to taking causalities. They often "lose" just because they can't fight. If they had expendable cannonfodder available they could flex their muscles more easily. The single biggest weakness developed countries face is inability to occupy hostile nations. If biotechnology advances maybe that could all change. Instead of private mercs of dubious nature legions of fanatical clone soldiers could be used to bring "peace and order".

Aside from the ethical debates that clone armies will stir up, I think it'd be just easier to make a robotic army. Obviously not Terminator style bipedal humans. I think we'll continue to see humans patrolling Fallujah for a long time yet, but automated UCAVs and other sort of vehicles should make occupation and war a little easier.

[Akkleptos]

What if the flying cars -absurd fuel requirements notwithstanding, of course- had just enough AI to stay on predefined flying patterns and routes, like some sort of semi-intelligent super auto pilot?

Also, if more traditional aircraft are a better solution for the more or less affluent people, could we be looking at a Metropolis- or Buck Rogers-like world, with personal aircraft like helicopters and airplanes going to and fro?

PS... I just want to be able to take my grandnephews for a ride on the sky... come on!

Regarding clone armies: with genetic engineering, wouldn't it be possible to alter human DNA so that the subjects reach maturity in, say, 10 years? That way, they could be trained (of course, they would be severely lacking in life experience and would mentally be pretty much like children, but with intensive training since about they were able to walk) and combat ready by the time they're fully "developed" (Human Rights notwithstanding). Of course, this would be horrible from a moral perspective, but so is war altogether. Could that happen withing a culture of "they're only clones, they don't matter", a la SW Episode 2 or Bladerunner with replicants? (of course, this probably would push the timeframe even further into the future, but this clone-army issue seems interesting enough).

[Ariphaos]

What if the flying cars -absurd fuel requirements notwithstanding, of course- had just enough AI to stay on predefined flying patterns and routes, like some sort of semi-intelligent super auto pilot?

Then the point is?

Bury a rail line, or raise it, or enclose it. Have it cross continents and wrap around the entire planet.

Also, if more traditional aircraft are a better solution for the more or less affluent people, could we be looking at a Metropolis- or Buck Rogers-like world, with personal aircraft like helicopters and airplanes going to and fro?

There's a potential market for lifters and hybrid blimp-planes that may see some use, but there's still not going to be any ubiquitous flying car piloted by things physically resembling humans (at least during the piloting).

PS... I just want to be able to take my grandnephews for a ride on the sky... come on!

Buying a plane, hot air balloon, helicopter, blimp, lifter, or hybrid - even a cheap one - and getting the requisite training does not mean it is prudent to take you any and everywhere with it.

Regarding clone armies: with genetic engineering, wouldn't it be possible to alter human DNA so that the subjects reach maturity in, say, 10 years? That way, they could be trained (of course, they would be severely lacking in life experience and would mentally be pretty much like children, but with intensive training since about they were able to walk) and combat ready by the time they're fully "developed" (Human Rights notwithstanding). Of course, this would be horrible from a moral perspective, but so is war altogether. Could that happen withing a culture of "they're only clones, they don't matter", a la SW Episode 2 or Bladerunner with replicants? (of course, this probably would push the timeframe even further into the future, but this clone-army issue seems interesting enough).

By the time we get to this point war is not going to be about how many sacks of flesh you have at your disposal.

[Sky Captain]

Before you can remove manual controls from car you would need AI smart enough not only to drive with the aid of a cities smart transport grid, but also capable of navigating dirt roads often in bad conditions, capable of recognizing deep mud puddle from harmless one, capable of driving on snow and ice and so on. Point of owning a car is that you can go where there is no public transport like visit wilderness areas or your grandmother who lives in the middle of nowhere and where roads are often not in the best conditions. What use would be of car that can only drive itself on a roads equipped with electronic nav beacons and only manual control it has is an emergency brake. Then I`d better use mass transit and don`t bother with additional expanses of owning a car.

[Serafina]

Regarding clone armies:
A clone army is a BAD idea.
First, its slavery - we are talking about human beings, after all. Doesnt really matter how they are born.
Second, they are expensive - even if you, somehow, raise and train a soldier within 10 years, thats pretty expensive - you have to feed him etc.
Third, unless you can somehow "programm loyalty" into them without making them too dumb, you are likely to run into loyalty problems - slaves dont make good soldiers.
Fourth, such heavily altered individuals would not only require expensive research and cloning, but also expensive medical care. With such heavy alteration, there are going to be a lot of "bugs" in the DNA, resulting in various diseases.
And you have to counter the ageing somehow.
Fifth, regulating the size of your army will be very hard. If you are using conscroption (during wartime), you can draw as many soldiers as possible if you have to - or way less if you do not need them. But unless your cloning is a one-shot programm, then you will have a steady flow of soldiers - your army will get bigger and bigger, and due to long incubation time, thats hard to regulate. And a big army is a bad thing, if you do not need it. Conscription gives you soldiers whenn you need them, and releasing them when you dont.

There are some possible benefits: Having the "ideal soldier" (whatever thats supposed to be) and no worry about own civil losses. But only ruthless war-drivers are likely to use a slave-army, and they do not have to worry about that anyway.

About biological warfare: There is a severe problem: You can not target biological warfare unless you have vaccine.
If there is a vaccine, others may find it, too. And you would have to give that vaccination/treatment to EVERY citizen of you and your allies. You have to vaccine around 95% of a population to eleminate a disease (which is necesarry to prevent mutation).
Bio-weapons are nice to drain the enemys resources, but this is fairly limited - you force him to put research/resources into medical research, but you have to spend those, too.
Bioweapons are nice "doomsday devices", possibly able to kill of the entire human population (or at least get close).
But who wants such a indiscriminate weapon?
A bioweapon as described above would be a "everything or nothing" situation with NO other use.

[Broomstick]

What if the flying cars -absurd fuel requirements notwithstanding, of course- had just enough AI to stay on predefined flying patterns and routes, like some sort of semi-intelligent super auto pilot?

The sky is not empty. Birds do not follow flight plans. Remember, a couple of birds recently resulted in an airliner in the Hudson. What do you think impact with a Canada Goose would do to a flying car? Not to mention weather limitations.

How would you program such routes? How would you avoid traffic conflict? Wouldn't it be easier just to take a bus?

Also, if more traditional aircraft are a better solution for the more or less affluent people, could we be looking at a Metropolis- or Buck Rogers-like world, with personal aircraft like helicopters and airplanes going to and fro?

No. Aircraft aren't really suited to short hops. They make more sense for long distance travel

PS... I just want to be able to take my grandnephews for a ride on the sky... come on!

Rent a plane. Or a helicopter.

[Broomstick]

Buying a plane, hot air balloon, helicopter, blimp, lifter, or hybrid - even a cheap one - and getting the requisite training does not mean it is prudent to take you any and everywhere with it.

It's nitpicking, but complete private ownership is not a requirement for aircraft. Myself, for the ten years I was a pilot I always rented, never needed to own. Even large corporations will buy "shares" of an airplane in joint ownership with other corporations

Frankly, I'm always a little surprised at these threads and the blanket "humans will no longer drive/fly!" bombast. Trained drivers aren't that horrific, the problem is that many locations do a poor job of both training and enforcement of the rules. Cars are ubiquitous in part because they're so damn useful. Yes, in urban areas mass transit can substitute for most (but not all) purposes, but despite declarations to the contrary not all people will be in dense, urban areas. High fuel prices alone will discourage driving, and combine that with greater restrictions on cars in urban areas and that should accomplish most of what's needed. While most of Europe's large cities were designed to function without private transport, in the US very few of them were - before the automobile Americans used buggies, carts, and rode horses much more commonly than people in Europe did. That, and quite a few of our cities had their major growth in the 20th Century. Sure, we could perform a draconian restructuring of our urban areas, but who is going to pay for that?

[TheLostVikings]

What if the flying cars -absurd fuel requirements notwithstanding, of course- had just enough AI to stay on predefined flying patterns and routes, like some sort of semi-intelligent super auto pilot?

Then the point is?

Bury a rail line, or raise it, or enclose it. Have it cross continents and wrap around the entire planet.

Heck, if you have the tech to pump your subway tunnels into near vacuum, you can build mag-lev trains that would give even hypersonic planes a run for their money. Unlike said planes they would be entirely unaffected by storms and the like, with the exception of quakes, but then airstrips doesn't take so kindly to quakes either.

The deeper you are able to tunnels your subway lines, the shorter distance you need to travel to get to your destination. Which contrasts with high speed planes which needs to go as high as possible to lower the friction from the denser atmosphere at ground level.

Sure we probably will get a few Concorde Mk II type of super fast orbital planes to jump the Atlantic/etc, but for inland use trains are a much more likely development, and unlike planes they are good for large scale goods transport as well as people.

[Sarevok]

The reason I brought up something seemingly far fetched like clone armies is because of the very stalemate situation we face today. The biggest hindrance facing advanced militaries is public opinion over their own soldiers getting killed. Clones, even if costing ten times as much as a normal man doing a 5 year service in the army would be terrific next time Israel goes into Lebanon or USA ponders occupying Iran...

The main problem would be growing clones artificially in some kind of factories. But if biotech does prove worth the hype someone somewhere will look into it despite the ethical issues. If it does work out technically it would be a matter of propaganda campaign to convince civilians into supporting the measure. People love the ability to hurt others without a scratch to themselves. I imagine right wing conservatives everywhere from Christians fundamentalists to wealthy arab jihadis to Indian hindu fanatics would jump on the bandwagon and start up their media spin machines. They will cherish the moment they realize they can now fulfill their xenophobic fantasies about whatever countries they dislike without the backlash at home from peoples sons, husbands and brothers in the army coming back in coffins.

[Stuart]

The human population is now so large than 97% lethality would not bring the species even close to extinction. You would need something like 99.99% lethality on top of 100% infection rate, which is very difficult to achieve even with a slowly incubating pathogen.

Not so. In fact, a 40 percent die-off will bring about a pretty thorough collapse of civilizations. 30 - 40 percent is the magic casulaty figure when it comes to bring down complex systems - as another example, guaranteeing nailing about 30 percent of the inbound missiles is enough to make the complexities of planning a ballistic missile strike unmanageable. If the suggested pandemic strikes, we'll see a rapid collapse of trade, commerce, personal movement and communications and following that mass starvation and further epidemics, this time naturally occurring ones. As a rule of disaster relief planning, the initial casualties from a disaster of this magnitude are about one third of the total casulaties. Now, it is quite likely that in the aftermath of the postulated pandemic there will be human survivors, isolated groups and so on plus the tiny number of people who are naturally immune to the disease (there always are some). But, the human civilization we can see around us now will be extinct. It'll be a long, long time before it gets back on its feet again.

Yo also somewhat underestimate the resources needed for advanced genetically engineered bio-weapons. It would require a well equipped genetics and microbiology/virology lab with large well-trained staff and years of development time to pull it of.

Actually no. Basic virology can be done very simply and very easily - doing it absolutely safely is what takes time and costs money. Again, I'd refer you to Ken Alibek's book Biohazard which is a very good primer on what a covert biological warfare effort can achieve. Hybridized diseases etc are all withing the grasp of a relatively low level of technology. Remember because we do things the expensive, complicated and ultra-safe way doesn;t mean that other people have to follow the same route.

It would be a stretch for terrorist organizations; in fact making a simple gun type A-bomb would be easier if you can get you hands on the fissile uranium.

'Fraid not. You've got them flipped. Even making a simple gun-configuration nuclear device is a much more complex activity than getting into biological warfare in a big way. That's why where WMD are concerned biological and chemical warfare capabilities are so much mroe easily acheived than nuclear. Iraq is a good example of that; they were working on all three in parallel, they got their chemical up and running (and used it), they got their biological up and running (and might have used it, evidence is sketchy) yet they never got their nuclear up. Iran has chem and bio but is still working on nuclear.

Most third world countries have only one barely suitable facility in the main university of the country and the poorer and smaller ones have none. Anthrax may be easy, but it's not an extinction level threat even if the terrorists could come up with some efficient way to deliver it.

Once again, you're underestimating the capability of organizations such as terrorist groups to pull stuff like this off. Equally, you're over-estimating the requirements needed to do it. All of the biowar things are relatively easy to do, its the safety side of it that's hard. If you don't care about safety, then its very easy to do, one can buy the required glassware over the counter, just pray that the joints don't leak. The delivery system is why one would concentrate ona product that has a long incubation period, that way one simply infects one's suicide plague-rats and sends them out. Once they've infected a plane-load of people, that's it, the complexity and speed of international transport will do the rest for them. It's a strategic form of judo in many ways, its using the weight and bulk of our civilization to bring it down.

About biological warfare: There is a severe problem: You can not target biological warfare unless you have vaccine.

That's not correct; we may think that way but quite a few other people do not. In fact, one of the main drivers behind bioweapons research in a number of countries is to produce versions of extant diseases (notably smallpox and anthrax) against which vaccines are useless. That's very easy to do. Other diseases that have been (note past tense) weaponized like Marburg Fever have no vaccines. So, I am afraid the "must have a vaccine" argument isn't viable.

If there is a vaccine, others may find it, too. And you would have to give that vaccination/treatment to EVERY citizen of you and your allies. You have to vaccine around 95% of a population to eleminate a disease (which is necesarry to prevent mutation).

We've already dealt with the the "we must have a vaccine" argument. Turning your comment on its head, its actually why biowarfare is so dangerous. Faced witha new and unprecedented pandemic, we have to identify the disease, develop the vaccine to it, distribute it to the population under attack and make sure 95 percent of the survivors are immunized. In the chaos of a major biowar attack, that is simply impossible, we'd try but we'd die trying. The mutation argument also goes to the effectiveness of biowarfare, there won;t be one wave of infection, there'll be several as the disease mutates in the wild and then re-infects.

Bio-weapons are nice to drain the enemys resources, but this is fairly limited - you force him to put research/resources into medical research, but you have to spend those, too.

They can do a heck of a lot more than that. They can bring industrial and economic activity to a virtual halt. They force the target country/society on to the defensive and give one's own position the initiative. They can catastrophically weaken a technology-based society while havinga lesser effect on a non-technology-based society (and, as we've already covered, the bad guys don't need advanced technology to produce effective biowar weapons).

Bioweapons are nice "doomsday devices", possibly able to kill of the entire human population (or at least get close). But who wants such a indiscriminate weapon?
A bioweapon as described above would be a "everything or nothing" situation with NO other use.

And your point here is??????? Seriously, you've given the rationale behind all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. They're all doomsday devices and pretty much every country with ambitions wants them. It just so happens that biological weapons are much easier to make than nuclear ones. The Norks, for example, had no problems in making and weaponizing large numbers of chemical and biological weapons but their one shot at touching off a nuke was a ridiculous failure. If you want an example of how a major pandemic could start, here's one. The Norks decide to head south for whatever reason and uses a biological attack on South Korean population centers as a way of spreading panic, disrupting South Korean defenses and generally making a thorough nuisance of themselves. Panicked South Koreans flee to (say) Japan and the Philippines unwittingly taking the diseases ith them. By the time the world wakes up, its too late, the pandemics are spreading along the airlines. You can take it from there but whatever you can think of, it isn't bad enough.

[Stuart]

Hell, the Native Americans survived a 90-95% die-off when the Europeans introduced the diseases that had been bouncing around in the Old World for centuries.

That is indeed true and it does suggest that small hunter-gatherer groups would survive. However, the Nations didn't have the massively interdependent and complex societies that we do. That means when our society goes down, it is going to go down very hard indeed. After all, think of a small group from The Nations. They're mostly self-sufficient and independent. If they lose 95 percent of their people, they still have the resources to keep going (although they genetic diversity will take a real hit). Now imagine a small American town that has suddenly been reduced from 10,000 people to 500 and has no access to outside resources. Sure, they have a lot of local supplies stored up that will keep them going (although not as many as one might think, these days stores don't keep the huge inventories they used to - typically a supermarket has enough good on hand to keep going for 72 hours). But what happens when all that stockpiled food and supplies runs out? It may take a month, it may take three or six but those supplies will run out. Winter's coming (you can bet that the bioattack will be timed to make sure that's the case) food's running out and none is coming in from outside. The problem is that even doing basic engineering is hammered - one might have a machine shop but where does the feedstock come from. I've done a lot of work on this over the years (primarily concerned with the after-effects of nuclear attack but the same basic logic applies) and one effect has been a certain level of contempt for survivalists. Our society is so interlinked and so mutually self-dependent that its collapse will be all-embracing. As I said before if we're lucky, we'll go back to the 17th century level of society.

It's ironic isn't it; in the event of a bio-attack, The Nations may end up getting their land back, albeit rather used.

[Serafina]

About biological warfare: There is a severe problem: You can not target biological warfare unless you have vaccine.

That's not correct; we may think that way but quite a few other people do not. In fact, one of the main drivers behind bioweapons research in a number of countries is to produce versions of extant diseases (notably smallpox and anthrax) against which vaccines are useless. That's very easy to do. Other diseases that have been (note past tense) weaponized like Marburg Fever have no vaccines. So, I am afraid the "must have a vaccine" argument isn't viable.

If there is a vaccine, others may find it, too. And you would have to give that vaccination/treatment to EVERY citizen of you and your allies. You have to vaccine around 95% of a population to eleminate a disease (which is necesarry to prevent mutation).

We've already dealt with the the "we must have a vaccine" argument. Turning your comment on its head, its actually why biowarfare is so dangerous. Faced witha new and unprecedented pandemic, we have to identify the disease, develop the vaccine to it, distribute it to the population under attack and make sure 95 percent of the survivors are immunized. In the chaos of a major biowar attack, that is simply impossible, we'd try but we'd die trying. The mutation argument also goes to the effectiveness of biowarfare, there won;t be one wave of infection, there'll be several as the disease mutates in the wild and then re-infects.

Bio-weapons are nice to drain the enemys resources, but this is fairly limited - you force him to put research/resources into medical research, but you have to spend those, too.

They can do a heck of a lot more than that. They can bring industrial and economic activity to a virtual halt. They force the target country/society on to the defensive and give one's own position the initiative. They can catastrophically weaken a technology-based society while havinga lesser effect on a non-technology-based society (and, as we've already covered, the bad guys don't need advanced technology to produce effective biowar weapons).

Bioweapons are nice "doomsday devices", possibly able to kill of the entire human population (or at least get close). But who wants such a indiscriminate weapon?
A bioweapon as described above would be a "everything or nothing" situation with NO other use.

And your point here is??????? Seriously, you've given the rationale behind all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. They're all doomsday devices and pretty much every country with ambitions wants them. It just so happens that biological weapons are much easier to make than nuclear ones. The Norks, for example, had no problems in making and weaponizing large numbers of chemical and biological weapons but their one shot at touching off a nuke was a ridiculous failure. If you want an example of how a major pandemic could start, here's one. The Norks decide to head south for whatever reason and uses a biological attack on South Korean population centers as a way of spreading panic, disrupting South Korean defenses and generally making a thorough nuisance of themselves. Panicked South Koreans flee to (say) Japan and the Philippines unwittingly taking the diseases ith them. By the time the world wakes up, its too late, the pandemics are spreading along the airlines. You can take it from there but whatever you can think of, it isn't bad enough.

My point is that bio"weapons" are not viable weapons. You can not use a no-vaccine 100% infection 97% fatality bioweapon without wiping out your population, too.
The difference to nuclear weapons is that you can scale down nuke usage. You CAN use small nukes, only a few, only hit certain targets etc. Such things are not possible with high-grade bioweapons. You will kill your enemy, but you will also kill yourself.

Another difference: The main barrier in the creation of bioweapons is knowledge, not equipment. For nukes, its the other way round (of course, you need both). To build a nuke, you need big facilites (adn the more nukes, the more facilites you need). But to build a bioweapon, you need a lot of experts - in difference to nukes, you have to do a lot of research all over again.
Creating a high-grade, doomsday bioweapon is not an easy task. Illnesses that are highly fatal tend to be quick in killing their victims. Diseases without notable symptoms tend to be so weak that the immune system is not working hard.
Of course, there are expections from those rules - but creating something that combines high fatality, high infection rate and a long incubation time AND can be effectively delivered (you have to start on a larger scale, otherwise you CAN isolate the disease) is more than a bit challenging.

Again, my main point is that there is no real reason to want such a weapon, unless you are a blind fanatic.