Children as Biological-Warfare Targets: A UNICEF Warning

Editorial disclosure: this article is based primarily on Eleonore Pauwels's December 2025 UNICEF Innocenti working paper, "Protecting Children from Biological Weapons in Armed Conflict." The working paper states that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect UNICEF policy. Eleonore Pauwels, UNICEF, UNICEF Innocenti, the Global Center on Cooperative Security, CDC, and NIOSH are not affiliated with CBRNMASKS.COM and have not endorsed the company or any product described here. The opening scene is illustrative. Analysis, preparedness conclusions, and product recommendations are by David Magen alone.

"The pathogen may be invisible. The preparedness failure is not."

The warning arrives after midnight. A family enters the protected room carrying water, phones, and two adult gas masks purchased years earlier. The parents can put theirs on. Their three-year-old cannot. One adult facepiece is pressed gently against the child's face. It covers part of her eyes. The rubber reaches beyond her chin. Air moves through the gaps beside her cheeks. The child begins to cry and pulls at the straps. The family owns respiratory equipment. The family does not have respiratory protection for every member.

UNICEF Working Paper: Why Children May Be Biological Warfare's Highest-Impact Targets

This is the gap Eleonore Pauwels asks governments and humanitarian organizations to confront before emerging biotechnology makes it more dangerous.

This analysis is best read alongside why children need pediatric CBRN planning and how to choose a child's gas mask by age and fit. Together, they connect the threat picture with its operational and civilian-preparedness implications.

The Expert Who Put Children at the Center of Biosecurity

Eleonore Pauwels is a Senior Fellow at the Global Center on Cooperative Security. Her work examines the security and governance consequences created when artificial intelligence converges with genomics, genome editing, cybersecurity, and other dual-use technologies. She has advised international organizations, governments, and private-sector actors on emerging technological risk. In December 2025, UNICEF Innocenti published her working paper, "Protecting Children from Biological Weapons in Armed Conflict." The paper brings together foresight scenarios, legal analysis, and biosecurity policy to ask a question that national preparedness systems rarely place first: how would a future biological weapon affect children differently — and could hostile actors exploit that difference deliberately?

Why a Child Can Become a High-Impact Target

Military language often treats civilians as one category. Biology does not. A child's immune, neurological, and psychosocial systems are still developing. Younger children have specific metabolic and medical needs and depend on adults for movement, communication, medication, food, and decisions. In conflict zones, damage to hospitals, nutrition systems, humanitarian aid, and family structures magnifies these vulnerabilities. That produces a cruel strategic calculation: an attacker seeking maximum disruption may not need to infect the largest possible number of people. Harm to children can empty schools, stop parents from reporting to essential jobs, overwhelm pediatric services, produce international outrage, and destroy confidence in authorities that promised protection. Pauwels writes that in asymmetric warfare, children could be deliberately targeted to inflict maximum psychological, political, and humanitarian impact — attacking the child's body and every adult institution that must stop functioning to save it.

The Body the Emergency Plan Forgot

Many emergency systems are created around an imagined average adult. The standard mask assumes a face large enough to seal. The standard tablet assumes a patient able to swallow it. The standard symptom description assumes the patient can explain chest discomfort. The standard evacuation assumes the person can walk. Children are not simply smaller adults. They have different respiratory rates, different physiological thresholds, different airway dimensions, different drug-response profiles, and different behavioral responses to fear and physical discomfort. What kills an adult may kill a child faster. What incapacitates an adult may kill a child. What an adult can communicate, a very young child cannot. If an emergency plan does not account for every age category in the household, the weakest member has no plan.

Emerging Biology and the Pauwels Foresight Scenarios

Pauwels does not confine her analysis to current weapons. She examines what emerging biotechnology could enable in future conflicts. Pathogen engineering tools are becoming more accessible. AI can accelerate biological research. Gene editing is becoming cheaper and more precise. The scenarios she constructs include biological agents that could theoretically exploit children's developmental physiology more severely than adult physiology; pathogens that spread efficiently through enclosed spaces where children concentrate — schools, nurseries, hospitals, and refugee facilities; and biological weapons designed not to kill large numbers but to overwhelm pediatric care systems, displace child caregivers, and damage the educational and social infrastructure that children depend on. Her warning: the gap between what current preparedness addresses and what future biology could enable is not fixed. It widens with every year that preparedness systems fail to address children as a separate category.

Legal Obligations That Preparedness Has Not Yet Fulfilled

Pauwels places her biosecurity analysis within a legal framework. International humanitarian law, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Biological Weapons Convention each create obligations that extend, in theory, to children's protection from biological weapons. But treaty obligations are not automatic preparedness. They describe what states must not do. They do not automatically produce child-sized masks, pediatric antidotes, or family emergency plans that include every age category. The gap between the legal protection a child is owed and the practical protection a family can provide is not primarily a legal problem. It is a preparation problem.

What Genuine Child-Centered Preparedness Requires

Pauwels identifies institutional gaps and individual gaps. The institutional gap is that most civil-defense systems were designed around adults: their masks, their bodies, their ability to follow instructions, their ability to move themselves to safety. The individual gap is that most families have not prepared respiratory protection for every member — they have purchased equipment for adults and assumed that children would somehow be accommodated. Neither gap is acceptable when the threat specifically exploits the biological characteristics of childhood.

Building a Complete Family Respiratory-Protection Kit

The central lesson from Pauwels's analysis for CBRNMASKS.COM customers is that a family protection kit must cover every age in the household:

Adults: the Israeli 4A1 Black Diamond Simplex — full-face civil-defense mask, panoramic visor, hydration tube, 40mm filter connection. For bearded users: the Israeli Sapphire PAPR hood.

Children, ages 8–14: the Israeli 10A1 child gas mask — dedicated youth-size full-face configuration.

Children, ages 2–8: the MAMTAK / Quartz child PAPR hood — powered transparent hood for younger children who cannot reliably use an adult tight-fitting mask. Must be operated by a trained caregiver.

Infants and toddlers, ages 0–2: the Multipro infant protection system — designed for the youngest children who cannot use any standard gas mask. Children must be supervised by a responsible adult while using respiratory equipment. Parents of children with respiratory, cardiac, developmental, or other medical needs should seek qualified medical advice before relying on any respirator system.

Filters: Israeli PA-12 and M80 Type 80 40mm CBRN/NBC filters.

Explore the Israeli CBRN Family Bundle or the complete children and infant CBRN protection range at CBRNMASKS.COM.

Primary Sources

Analysis and preparedness conclusions by David Magen — former Combat Investigation Officer, Doctrine and Training Division, IDF Operations Directorate; former Staff Officer, National Emergency Authority, continuity planning for local authorities, Haifa region. Founder of CBRNMASKS.COM since 2009. Eleonore Pauwels, UNICEF, UNICEF Innocenti, and the Global Center on Cooperative Security are not affiliated with CBRNMASKS.COM and have not endorsed the company or any product described here.

Back to blog