>>11467187What makes you think the point of a bioweapon is to kill as many as possible?
What if instead its purpose is to cause economic damage, burden the healtcare system and generally grind parts of a country to a halt, which is currently doing splendidly?
In a way, making a virus as deadly as possible might actually slow its spread. What you want is asymptomatic spread or people with mild symptoms going around spreading the virus, but with a real risk of some people getting seriously ill from it.
Not all weapons are made to kill.
Most bombings during wars actually happen on infrastructure.
Anyway, viruses seem shit weapons anyway. They're hard to control and can backfire spectacularly. At the very least you want a vaccine ready before you release it.
