The September 11th attack
Bioterrorism could pose major threat
Associated Press
As devastating as Tuesday's terrorist attacks were, national security and public health experts know this much:
Associated Press library photo
Something even worse could happen. There are weapons that are invisible and next-to-impossible to trace.
Biological weapons, such as these chemical/biological warfare aerial bombs, are capable of wiping out masses of people at once.
A whiff of nerve gas. A droplet of anthrax. A particle of smallpox.
Infectious or toxic weapons in skilled hands could cause considerably more casualties among ordinary Americans than the estimated 5,000 dead and missing at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The use of biological or chemical weapons — described by some as the poor man's atomic bomb — is a sensitive topic, especially now.
Experts caution that a bioterrorism attack here is not inevitable. Their opinions are the products of war games rather than an immediate and real threat.
And there are those who say that few terrorists could pull this off, that this would be a much more complicated and difficult feat than it may seem.
But the science exists to launch such an attack and, obviously, so does the hatred. President Clinton said as much as early as 1999 when he said a biological or chemical attack on the United States is "highly likely."
| Six deadly microbes | |
| • | Authorities have identified six microbes that could be turned into fearsome weapons: Smallpox tops the chilling list. Tens of millions of infectious virus particles can fit into an aerosol can.
A close second is anthrax, a spore-forming bacterium often carried by livestock that is especially virulent if inhaled. Also worrisome are bubonic plague, ebola, botulism and tularemia. |
 |
|
A commander of Afghanistan's Taliban told the Associated Press last year that Osama bin Laden — described by administration officials as the prime suspect in Tuesday's attacks — was training his fighters in the use of chemical weapons. The New York Times reported yesterday that satellite photos show dead animals at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan operated by bin Laden.
Chemical weapons might have an extraordinary effect, wiping out masses of people at once. But the deadly effects likely would not spread beyond those who came in direct contact with the nerve gas or other poisonous agent.
In contrast, the scope of an attack using certain biological weapons in an airport or a domed stadium would not be apparent for days or weeks until victims showed symptoms of a mysterious illness.
By then, they could have infected many others around the world. Waves of patients might overwhelm hospitals.
The public, panicked, might turn on neighbors unless adequate medicines and vaccines were available. Which, experts warn, they are not.
"This is a critical moment to assess where we are vulnerable," said Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington think tank. "The biological threat has to be very, very high on the priority list."
Others share Hamburg's concern. "I'm very, very alarmed," said Donald A. Henderson, a biodefense expert at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and adviser to former President Bush.
Skeptics said the events of Sept. 11, while horrific, don't mean that a bioattack is on the horizon. Most terrorists, they said, don't have the expertise.
"We need to be realistic in our threat assessments," said Jonathan B. Tucker, a nonproliferation expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Washington. "A worst-case scenario is unlikely."
