Preparing for the Worst: Bioterrorism

Preparing for the Worst: Bioterrorism

Whereas an effective terrorist attack involving chemical agents could cause tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties, an effective attack using biological pathogens1 could result in millions. It is well known that members of the Al Qaeda organization have sought to acquire biological agents for attack and have contacts with states that process biological weapons programs. The anthrax2 attacks that followed the September 11 attacks effectively ended the debate about or not terrorists could acquire and use biological agents. They done so and they will continue to do so.

The good news is that biological pathogens are generally difficult to weaponries - that is, it is difficult to take them from a laboratory, prooduce them in large quantities, and turn them into a form that can be effectively dispersed3 to cause mass casualties. The bad news is that terrorists would need only a small quantity of a highly contagious4 pathogen like smallpox5 to infect enough people to cause mass casualties. Each infected individual, in effect, would become a walking biological weapon - a danger whose dimensions are magnified m our modern, mobile society. A local bio-attack could quickly become a national crisis with the potential to destroy the country.

Today's security measures are not adequate to prevent the theft of Dangerous pathogens. Furthermore, literally tons of Cold War-era biological weapons agents are easy to obtain.

In addition, we are ill prepared to prevent the dire consequences of a large-scale bioterrorism attack. We currently lack the stockpiles6 of VfBfcines⁷ and antibiotics⁸ and the means of rapid distribution that would be required for an effective response. We also lack trained and equipped cadres of first responders to cope with such a crisis.

Our governments also lack adequate management strategies, plans, information systems to cope with a bioterrorism attack.

The less prepared we are for a bioterrorism event, the greater the fame that is likely to follow, and the more threats there will be to civil liberties and people's lives.

Only by preparing for this worst case scenario can we hope to limit in consequences.

Abridged from Kurt M Campbell, Michele A. Flournoy. " To Prevail"

State-supported Terrorism

The Secretary of State maintains a list of countries that have " repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. " The information for this list is drawn from the intelligence community. 1 Listed countries are subject to severe U. S. export controls, particularly of dual use technology, and selling them military equipment is prohibited. Providing foreign aid is also prohibited.

In 2000, seven countries were on the " terrorism list": Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Of the seven, five are Middle Eastern nations with predominantly Muslim populations. Of these on one end of the spectrum Iran and Iraq could currently be characterized as extreme active supporters of terrorism: nations that use terrorism as an instrument of policy or warfare beyond their borders. Iran, Iraq, and Libya are major oil producers, producing in 1999 about 11% of the world's oil consumption, 35% of Europe's oil imports, and 10. 8% of Japan's imports. Such dependence on oil complicates universal support for sanctions against these nations.

Countries such as Cuba or North Korea, which at the height of the Cold War were more active, could be placed at the other end of the spectrum. In recent years, however, they have seemed to settle for the more passive role of granting safe haven to previously admitted individual terrorists. Sudan, which continues to serve as a safe haven for members of terrorist groups, has shut down their training camps and is engaged with the Department of State in ongoing dialogue on anti-terrorism issues. Closer to the middle of an active/passive spectrum is Libya, which grants safe haven to wanted terrorists. Syria, though not formally detected in an active role since 1986, reportedly serves as the primary transit point for terrorists and for the resupply of weapons to terrorist groups in the Middle East. The Syrian Government has continued to provide political and limited material support to a number of Palestinian groups, including allowing them to maintain headquarters or offices in Damascus. These facts place it somewhere in the middle to active end of the spectrum.

A complex challenge faces those charged with compiling and maintaining the list. Removing a country from the list is likely to result in some level of confrontation with Congress, so the bureaucratically easier solution is to maintain the status quo, or add to the list, but not to delete from it.

Despite significant international pressure the seven state sponsors of terrorism - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan - in 2002 did not take all the actions necessary to disassociate themselves fully from their ties to terrorism. While some of these countries have taken steps to cooperate in the global war on terrorism, most have also continued the very actions that led them to be declared state sponsors.

" Congressional Research Service " 2000