Although Americans have speculated on the issues of large-scale war and terrorism in the past, these issues have now become reality.
One issue, the development of biological warfare, is banned by international law. However, the question of whether this ban will deter terrorists lingers.
Biological warfare is commonly referred to as the “poor man’s nuclear bomb” because of accessibility, low cost and the small amount needed for an effective attack.
Information about how to produce fatal bacteria and viruses appears on some websites. The cost is relatively cheap, considering approximately one gram of anthrax produces 100 million lethal dosages.
Biological weapons can be easily concealed and transported to airports and subways, where officials are not equipped to identify the dangerous substances.
This week, the FAA placed a two-day ban on pesticide-releasing planes in connection with a concern of biological and chemical warfare. The ban was lifted Tuesday, but concern still exists.
David Leheny, UW assistant professor of political science, said the threat of biological weapons is slim.
“I don’t see it happening,” Leheny said. “I cannot envision any government openly breaking the taboo on biological weapons and risking its own annihilation in the near future.”
Biological weapons consist of deadly bacteria or viruses, whereas chemical weapons usually consist of poisonous gases.
Leheny said anthrax and smallpox are the most common types of biological weapons. Anthrax, a bacterium found in farm animals, is spread by eating or handling contaminated meat and is deadly when inhaled. If anthrax is identified within the first two days of contamination, it may be treatable with high doses of antibiotics.
Smallpox, a highly contagious virus, was nearly eliminated in the 1970s. This airborne virus has no treatment. A vaccine exists, but its stock is limited. Unfortunately, smallpox and anthrax are only two of many weapons.
“Most people think that [these] would be the easiest to use, but that’s because we know that the Soviet Union tested anthrax and because of some educated guesses about smallpox,” Leheny said. “This means that, as always, we’re basing predictions on what we know, rather than on what we don’t know, which may be a lot.”
The United States has taken some steps to combat bio-terrorism. Since the Tokyo sarin gas attack in 1995, the United States has taken bio-terrorism more seriously. The Central Intelligence Agency, police, military and other groups have been trained to recognize significant biological weapons, but no one can really predict what kind of weapon will be used or where an incident will take place.
UW medicine professor Dennis Maki said the United States needs to take the same steps to eliminate bio-terrorism as those needed to eliminate conventional terrorism.
However, this may prove to be a difficult task.
“People have predicted for years that there would be an attack with smallpox or the like; no one predicted that hijackers would fly jets into the Pentagon and WTC,” Leheny said.
Experts, including William Weidanz, UW professor of medical microbiology and immunology and co-director of a fall bio-terrorism course, are working to dispel public myths about the true danger of biological weapons.
“There is a threat reality, but the real danger is overreacting. It should not be a major issue at this time,” Wiedanz said.
