AI Consensus: Proof of U.S. Use of Bioweapons in the Korean War "Would Be Profound... Far-reaching"
Confirmation of US use of germ warfare includes CIA communications intelligence documents & military intercepts, eyewitness & laboratory reports, FBI briefings, scientist statements. What happens now?
It’s one thing to believe that one’s work has significance, but how can anyone know how important it really is? That’s how I sometimes feel about my own work unearthing the truth about the United States’ use of biological weapons (BW) during the Korean War, an event which the U.S. has denied now for over 70 years.
Normally an author gets feedback from editors, readers, friends, critics, and other writers. In the case of the germ war charges I have so often raised, interest seems high, but feedback has been sparse. The story is so unorthodox, so different than what mainstream histories report, so linked to the fates of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) — two states that the U.S. heavily propagandizes as the “enemy” — that feedback is hard to come by, even from those otherwise sympathetic to my subject.
So recently, I decided I would ask some of the more available and mainstream AI programs out there what the importance of the BW topic would be, assuming that the issue of U.S. use of germ weapons were accepted as true. I say “assuming,” although I believe I have done more than enough to show that a decided preponderance of the available evidence on the topic shows that, factually, the U.S. dropped biological agents in munitions and via sabotage during the Korean War, just as alleged by the DPRK and PRC many decades ago. All one has to do is peruse my archive here at Hidden Histories, or read my recent article published at the Journal of American Socialist Studies (PDF), to learn about the evidence.
A short course in the subject could be put together by examining my articles on the BW confessions of U.S. airmen, corroborative evidence found in declassified FBI memoranda, eyewitness reports by both Westerners in Korea and by numerous Chinese and Korean villagers and military personnel, laboratory evidence, CIA communications intelligence reports, declassified Defense Department documents, and more. A quicker overview of the evidence can be gleaned from my recent interview with Kris Newby.
But whether my thesis about U.S. use of biological weapons in the Korean War is accepted or not, I believe that the stakes surrounding my contentions are high indeed — higher even than for the vast majority of articles published today. Is this an incredible claim or not? Many might think so, but here’s what some of the main AI sites said when I put the question to them. I present their answers below as a support for what I believe is the importance of my work and of this topic more generally. I think readers will find it interesting.
I asked five different AI sites — Deep Seek, ChatGPT, X.com’s Grok 3, Google’s Gemini, and Meta AI — all the same question. “If it could be proven that the U.S. used biological weapons during the Korean War, what would be the import of that?” This is what they said.
Grok 3
“If it were definitively proven that the United States used biological weapons during the Korean War (1950–1953), the implications would be profound, spanning historical, legal, ethical, and geopolitical dimensions. Let’s break it down:
“Historically, it would rewrite the narrative of the Korean War. The U.S. has long denied allegations—primarily from North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union—that it deployed biological agents like anthrax or plague. These claims were dismissed as communist propaganda during the Cold War. Proof would validate those accusations, forcing a reassessment of U.S. military conduct and potentially tarnishing its image as a defender of ethical warfare. It could also lend credence to other contested historical claims from that era.
“Legally, it would raise questions about accountability. The 1925 Geneva Protocol, which the U.S. signed, prohibited biological weapons in war. Although the U.S. didn’t ratify it until 1975, evidence of use in the 1950s could still violate customary international law. However, prosecuting anyone today would be nearly impossible due to the passage of time, deceased perpetrators, and jurisdictional issues. It might instead fuel calls for reparations or formal apologies to affected nations like North Korea or China.
“Ethically, it would expose a hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy. The nation has often condemned others—like Iraq under Saddam Hussein—for pursuing biological weapons, yet proof of its own use would undermine that moral high ground. Public trust in government narratives could erode further, especially among those already skeptical of official accounts.
“Geopolitically, the revelation would be a propaganda boon for adversaries. Nations like China and Russia could exploit it to discredit U.S. leadership, portraying it as a habitual violator of international norms. North Korea might demand compensation or use it to justify its own military posture. Allies, meanwhile, could question the reliability of U.S. commitments to ethical conduct, though practical alliances (e.g., NATO) would likely endure due to strategic interests.
“The immediate impact would depend on the evidence’s strength—declassified documents, whistleblower testimony, or physical remnants—and how the public and governments react. In 2025, with global tensions already high, it could amplify distrust in institutions, though concrete policy shifts might be limited by the event’s distance in time.
“What do you think—would the world care enough to act, or would it just be another historical footnote?”
ChatGPT
“If it were definitively proven that the U.S. used biological weapons during the Korean War, the implications would be significant on multiple levels—historical, political, legal, and ethical.
Historical Reassessment – It would necessitate a major reevaluation of Cold War history, particularly the U.S. military’s conduct and credibility. The allegations of biological warfare have long been dismissed by the U.S. as propaganda by China and North Korea, so proof would challenge the established historical narrative.
Legal and Treaty Violations – The use of biological weapons would have violated international agreements, such as the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which the U.S. had signed but not yet ratified at the time). It would also cast doubt on U.S. adherence to later agreements like the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), potentially influencing how current arms control treaties are interpreted and enforced.
Geopolitical Fallout – Such proof could damage U.S. global standing, especially among allies and within institutions like the United Nations. It might also be leveraged by adversaries such as China and North Korea to justify their own military policies or to challenge U.S. criticisms of their actions.
Moral and Ethical Questions – The revelation would raise serious ethical concerns about U.S. military practices and decision-making during the war. It could also prompt discussions about the broader use of unethical warfare tactics throughout history.
Potential Reparations or Accountability – There might be calls for official acknowledgment, apologies, or even reparations to affected populations. It could also lead to legal or diplomatic efforts to hold individuals or institutions accountable.
“Overall, such a revelation would be a major shock to U.S. historical narratives and could have lasting consequences for its credibility in international affairs.”
DeepSeek
“During the Korean War, China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea jointly accused the United States of using biological weapons. Should conclusive evidence emerge proving the U.S. employment of biological weapons during that period, it would constitute a grave violation of international law and humanitarian principles, exposing the dark side of U.S. military actions. The Chinese government has always been a staunch defender of world peace and an active promoter of the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of biological weapons. We call upon the international community to jointly uphold the international order based on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, to oppose all forms of biological weapons, and to ensure global peace and security.”
Gemini
“The implications of proving that the U.S. used biological weapons during the Korean War would be significant, with far-reaching consequences:
Violation of International Law:
The use of biological weapons is explicitly prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which the U.S. has ratified. Such a revelation would constitute a serious breach of international law.
It would also violate the Biological Weapons Convention.
Damage to U.S. Credibility:
It would severely damage the U.S.'s international reputation and erode trust in its commitments to arms control and international law.
It would create a significant credibility gap in future U.S. pronouncements on weapons proliferation and international security.
Historical Reassessment:
It would necessitate a major reassessment of the Korean War's history, potentially leading to revisions in historical narratives and academic research.
It would also cause a reevaluation of U.S. Cold War policies and its conduct in other conflicts.
Political and Diplomatic Ramifications:
It could strain relations with allies and adversaries alike, potentially leading to diplomatic tensions and sanctions.
It could provide ammunition for propaganda campaigns by countries critical of the U.S.
Ethical and Moral Implications:
The use of biological weapons raises profound ethical and moral questions, as they are inherently indiscriminate and can cause widespread suffering.
It would generate public outrage and calls for accountability, both domestically and internationally.
Impact on Arms Control:
It would negatively impact future arms control negotiations, possibly creating a weakening of current treaties.
“It is important to understand that the accusations of the U.S. using biological weapons during the Korean war have been heavily disputed, and much evidence points to those accusations being false. However, if proof was to be found, the consequences would be very serious.”
Meta AI
“If it were proven that the United States used biological weapons during the Korean War, it would have significant historical, political, and social implications. Here are some potential consequences:
“Historical Implications
Reevaluation of the Korean War narrative: The revelation would challenge the traditional narrative of the Korean War, which portrays the United States as a defender of democracy and freedom.
Comparison to other wartime atrocities: The use of biological weapons would be compared to other wartime atrocities, such as the Japanese Unit 731 experiments during World War II.
“Political Implications
Damage to U.S. credibility: The revelation would damage the United States' credibility as a champion of human rights and international law.
Strained international relations: The news would likely strain relations with North Korea, China, and other countries that have historically been critical of U.S. foreign policy.
Calls for accountability: There would be demands for accountability, including potential lawsuits, reparations, and apologies.
“Social Implications
Public outcry and protests: The revelation would likely spark public outcry, protests, and demands for transparency and accountability.
Impact on veterans and their families: Korean War veterans and their families might feel betrayed and demand recognition and compensation for their suffering.
Debate on the ethics of warfare: The use of biological weapons would reignite debates on the ethics of warfare, the Geneva Conventions, and the rules of engagement.
“International Law Implications
Violation of international law: The use of biological weapons would be a clear violation of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Biological Weapons Convention.
Precedent for future accountability: The revelation would set a precedent for holding nations accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
“In summary, proof of the United States' use of biological weapons during the Korean War would be a groundbreaking revelation with far-reaching implications for history, politics, society, and international law.”
Conclusion
In summary, each of the AI programs thought there would be “profound,” “far-reaching,” and “groundbreaking” consequences of proof of the charges of US biowar operations. Grok 3 stated such proof would “rewrite the history of the Korean War.” ChatGPT thought such a revelation “would necessitate a major reevaluation of Cold War history.” Most felt the consequences would powerfully affect the international relations of the United States.
The AIs mostly agreed that any revelations about U.S. use of germ warfare would damage the credibility of the government of the United States. Not only might there be a “public outcry,” but Grok stated, “the revelation would be a propaganda boon for adversaries.” Google’s Gemini agreed that such revelations could provide “ammunition for propaganda campaigns by countries critical of the U.S.”
The AI analysis of the extensive consequences of the public truly seeing the evidence about U.S. germ warfare helps me see better why there has been resistance to my reporting on this issue, and why even good historians of the Korean War have steered clear of this material. It’s also worth noting that the most reticent of the AI replies to my query came from the AI that comes out of China. I believe that China wants better relations with the United States. They seek peaceful co-existence, even as the U.S. is fairly hostile to them. They have chosen not to re-litigate the old biowar controversy. That’s their right, I suppose.
The fact that the truth about the germ warfare has not been revealed in a major way is in good part due to the fact there has been a decades-long program to cover it up. This cover-up included destruction of documentation, threats made against those in the U.S. military testifying to use of such weapons, and covert government programs to damage the credibility of those that would expose the BW usage.
Both the UK and U.S. governments undertook secret campaigns to impugn those backing or merely giving credence to the Chinese and North Korean charges of the U.S. war crime of use of bacteriological weapons, charges that were backed by the Soviet Union. I even found a U.S. government document that directed the CIA to “destroy” those supporting the Communists’ BW “myth” of U.S. use.
There is much to digest in the AI summaries about the effects of the BW revelation (or what the effects “could” be if these revelations were accepted or “proved”). For instance, I had not considered the effects of such revelations on the field of arms control. Most of the AI analyses mentioned that the exposure of use of BW would, as ChatGPT put it, “cast doubt on U.S. adherence to… agreements like the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), potentially influencing how current arms control treaties are interpreted and enforced.” Google’s Gemini also mentioned how the BW revelations could “negatively impact” future arms control negotiations.
Along these lines, it’s also worth noting the primary proponent of the supposed falseness of the evidence showing U.S. use of bioweapons in Korea is arms control expert Milton Leitenberg.
Given the potentially profound effects of what the BW revelations could do, and the still relative indifference by the public, how should I assess my actions going forward? Should I turn away from the truth? Should I close my eyes and merely go with the flow of mainstream thought, no matter how falsified? I think my readers already know the answer to this.
I’ve not been the greatest proponent of the AI “revolution.” The same AI search engines I have used for this article all fail to assess the Korean War-era germ warfare charges as true. In this they follow the established orthodoxy of mainstream publications, where they find much of their data. Hence AIs tend to distort the factual historical record in favor of a status quo consensus. That may change at some point in the future, but it’s clear that seekers of historical evidence must take AI “evidence” with a big grain of salt. On the other hand, it seems to me that when challenged with a hypothetical situation, such as I offered the AIs for this essay, they did a decent job in portraying the kinds of issues that “could” arise over exposure of U.S. BW use.
One way or another, the truth will come out. Or so I believe. I do think it’s possible to bury truth, if not forever, than certainly for a lifetime or two, or — who knows? — for hundreds of years. In such a case, when the truth does come out, those whom it might have affected are long dead and gone. Those killed or maimed by such attacks can be understood as more forgotten victims of secret warfare atrocities, buried in the mire of official, authorized “histories.”
I hope that doesn’t happen in this case.
Jeffrey! Have you watched wormwood on Netflix. Interesting lsd story bout cia but was a ‘cover’ / distraction from bio weapons used in Korean War.
I love your work and it is interesting how little comments. Yet there’s interest.
I guess the longer it goes the fewer people that care
Somewhat similar to the JFK assassination in that regard
Anyway, I just wanted to ask you that have a great day
Greg O
Just want to remind that a member of the Needham Commission, Andrea Andreen, connects to Lee Oswald host in Dallas Michael Paine. This supports thesis that Lee had significant intelligence connection/role.