Please define a WMD

Breacher, from what I read smallpox has up to a 30% morbidity rate. That would require the infection of 3,000 people to achieve 1,000 deaths - which sounds like a feasible scenario given it's 12 day incubation period. However small pox does not spread as easily as the measles or the flu, to get it started would probably require an aerosol distribution in a crowded area, which could be discovered quickly - and the cdc has contingency plans that go into immediate effect upon first discovery. So, all in all it would probably not be a huge threat, but certainly something of a threat.

Pneumonic plaque has even less of a chance to do damage.

Question: Why haven't terrorists used either of these somewhere already?
 
From what I've read the Iraqis had the ability to grow and purify anthrax spores and for all we know still have them in storage. The microbiologist in charge of that particular effort was a woman trained in, you guessed it, the US of A.

Their use of Sarin in the 1980's was well known, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, possibly over a hundred thousand Kurds and Shiites. Again, we are talking about WMD that doesn't take much storage space. It is conceivable they still have it in storage in the form of artillery shells.
 
WMDs? A term best applied to mainstream media both "left" and "right".

Weapons of Mass Deception.
 
MeekandMild

Well there were numerous captures of what initially tested as chemical munitions, this include several post major combat operations detonations of chemical rounds in IEDs, a few ammo dumps loaded with 55 gallon drums of what initially tested as chemical and later as "bug spray" and several units capturing ordnance with what was initially thought as a chemical weapon, to include my Battalion capturing an Al Samoud missile which initially the EOD team classified it as having a "chemical warhead." However further testing later classified all these finds as "bug spray." Which begs the question why would anyone store "bug spray" in 55 gal drum deep inside ammo dumps, with those same dump containing empty carrier artillery shells and rockets? Also why put "bug spray" warheads on ballistic missiles and artillery rockets?

There are potentially two simple answer. The first being the Iraqis produced their own chemical munitions in the 80s, most were considered weak and to be of poor quality. Which would not be a problem if stores in a controlled environment. But the Iraqis generally stored their munitions incorrectly, they left tons and tons of munitions in open air ammo dumps. These dumps would have been subject to daily heating and cooling for over a decade. Heat is one of the number causes of a break down/degradation in chemical munitions. Which is significant when you remember nerve agents were developed initially as basically a very strong bug spray and many bug sprays you can buy today are nothing more than a weak version of nerve gas. The second and also possible answer was the mass amounts of bug spray was meant as a bluff, they were using it to make people think they had tons of chemicals, when they in fact knew it was bug spray.
 
why would anyone store "bug spray" in 55 gal drum deep inside ammo dumps, with those same dump containing empty carrier artillery shells and rockets? Also why put "bug spray" warheads on ballistic missiles and artillery rockets?
Click to expand...
Ummmmmm the sand fleas are really really really bad over there. ;)
 
teaspoon of Anthrax......

dirty bomb.... ionizing radioactive materials strapped to some high explosive
which could be fitted into a cardboard box

This incedent was accidental

http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/MedRef/OnlineRef/CaseStudies/csGoiania.html

the containers needed to scrape away the topsoil were minboggling.

Imagine the cost of clearing a big area that was contaiminated in the middle of a big city. The medical costs as people come down with ilnesses years after the attack.
 
I stipulate to nuclear, and dirty bombs.

Anthrax on the other hand would not be nearly as effective as people seem to think.
 
Serious disagreement on biologicals

a few pounds of weaponized anthrax, properly disbursed could kill many thousands...It is not however, transmitted person-to-person....But, other carefully contructed bugs, with a long gestation period, that CAN be passed via casual contact, could easily kill millions... And it takes a LOT less knowledge and equipment to produce biologicals than a nuke of any size.

(Yes I have a degree in molecular biology/biochemistry).

The use of biologicals scares me FAR more than a nuclear or chemical attack. Only requires one person (and that could simply be a infected person, doesn't even need to bring the agent)...And most any trained biochemist could cook some up with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment, even in a basement someplace.
 
biologicals are indeed scary stuff. They have been used for hundreds of years.....

"Nothing instilled fear in American soldiers and civilians so much as the prospect that the British might use smallpox as a weapon of war. The concern may seem farfetched and sensational, but it was not without merit. British officers had already demonstrated their willingness to use biological warfare in 1763, when Indians organized under the Ottawa leader Pontiac had threatened the safety of Fort Pitt, on the Pennsylvania frontier. "Out of our regard to them," wrote a trader on the scene, "we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." This act had the sanction of an impressive array of British officers, including Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander in chief at the time, and General Thomas Gage, who replaced Amherst and signed off on reimbursements for the "Sundries" used "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians." But would the British use germ warfare against their own subjects? Would they use it against individuals of European descent? American colonists seemed to think that they would. It was Gage, after all, who commanded the British army during the first months of the colonists' siege of Boston. Seth Pomeroy was an American officer who had served under Gage during the French and Indian War. "If it is In General Gages power," Pomeroy wrote in May 1775, "I Expect he will Send ye Small pox Into ye Army--but I hope In ye Infinight Mercy of God he will prevent It, as he hath don In Every attempt that he has made yet." Rumors of germ warfare at Boston had circulated as early as March 1775.1"
 
another interesting story........

yes anthrax isnt as effective as some biologicals could be

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/sverdlovsk/

some more to give you a comfy feeling...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81167,00.html

No telling how many of these beacons and machines used to irradiate seeds are sitting around the Soviet Union in places no one knows about....I think the soviets dont even know how many there are and where they are. I wonder how many have left the Soviet Union? I think the Soviets are being lwess than candid about this.
 
Small pox and anthrax can be treated with a large measure of success after contact. It would take a while before it was recognized that a biological agent had been used, but once recognized then the CDC would go into action and they would - I believe - severely limit the casualty count from that point.

I can just about bet that any sign of anthrax or small pox in a clinic or hospital anywhere in the US will trigger an immediate alarm and action will be implemented very rapidly.

I still question how readily available biological agents are: If they were readily available why have the terrorists not been using them?
 
The "basic" biological agents ARE available

however, "weaponizing" them is a bit trickier....As far as the CDC being able to treat some of them, yes they could, IF THEY WERE "normal" strains, and if the number of infected people was relatively small.

However, one of parts of weaponizing a "bug",would be to develop a strain that is resistant to "normal" treatments, which is not that difficult...

Anthrax and smallpox would not be a first choice...But how about the Asian bird flu? Not only transmitted from person-to-person, but a huge supply of vectors (any and all birds) to help spread the disease...Mad cow disease anyone?...caused by prions which are essentially "less than living organisms", and thus hard to treat, and are contiuously mutating...Maybe Ebola?

In short, still a much more realistic threat than a nuclear or chemical attack....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top