>>13741189Because they are bad weapons. Either they don't do anything or they are deadly and smother themselves out too fast to cause damage. Even if you engineered a perfect airborne super aids that transforms into ebola after a set time period they would be bad weapons since they don't guarantee damage where you hit, can spread to areas you don't want to damage like your own or allied territory and even if you add a genetic marker to only target the enemy you are still left with a bad weapon that disproportionately targets children and elderly and leaves fighting age men and high institutions like military or government more functional than conventional weapons. Finally the collateral damage they cause also means you will almost guarantee to unite your enemies and even your allies against you, countries don't condemn nuclear weapons because they are op, they condemn them because nuking one country damages another country, same thing with biological weapons. That's not to even consider the fact that even if you make the perfect biological weapon that dodges all the issues above, it's still alive so at moments notice a gene can (and will) change and now suddenly your plan goes up in smoke as the drug you made to combat it doesn't work or it attacks the wrong people or fails to spread properly or any number of issues. That is in comparison to some gunpowder and iron where barring a miracle from god or a bad day in the assembly plant will do exactly what you want it to every time.
Anyone without massive resources won't be able to pull it off, anyone with massive resources won't bother.
