The Economist explains

What makes biological weapons so dangerous, and does Russia have them?

The weapons are banned, but the ban is poorly policed

Hazardous materials training for policemen, France. Officers of the Gendarmerie Nationale being trained in protective hazmat (hazardous materials) suits. This training is preparing the officers for situations where biological or chemical weapons may have been used.

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?

Discover more

What is Kamala Harris’s record as a prosecutor?

Republicans say she was soft on crime. Progressives say she was too harsh

Can Donald Trump use songs against a musician’s will?

Many stars have complained, and some have filed lawsuits


What is the Fed’s preferred inflation measure?

The PCE gauge is broader and more dynamic than its better-known relative, the CPI


Will Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris matter?

Celebrity endorsements are unlikely to change voters’ minds. But they may boost turnout

Donald Trump says immigrants are eating Springfield’s pets. What?

He repeated the bizarre—and false—claim in his presidential debate against Kamala Harris

Who will lead Britain’s Conservative Party?

Here are the four candidates vying for the daunting job