USA Response To Biological Terrorism

[Zenster]

Please bear with me.

I am having an extremely difficult time formulating an appropriate response to the recent discovery of intentional anthrax infection inflicted upon American citizens. This seems to me to be the height of cowardly attack and merits direct reply in kind. However, I have a really difficult time advocating the launching of biological weapons upon any group, sect or nation on this entire earth. Such replies are all too comparable to nuclear weapons in their enormity.

That said, how is one to respond to such an insidious assault? There are few ways to isolate such callow elements from the general background of a given populace. Nonetheless, to allow such an attack to go unanswered is almost more foolish that to have instigated such an assault in the first place. Make no mistake that such an attack should, nay, must be responded to. How does one do this?

Those who would lever militant action over the edge of such a dastardly precipice are deserving of only the harshest condemnation and retaliation. What shall be done against them? The response doctrine of the United States dictates that any such attack merits a reply in kind. Using any of the deadly trio of NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) weapons is both justified and called for against those who would be so cruel as to launch such an attack. How should we go about retaliating against those who would be so cowardly?

I would first and foremost advocate the use of conventional weapons against those who resort to such dastardly means. Nonetheless, what delimitation is there when such revolting measures are called into play? I attempted to bring this into consideration in my own thread "What Price Perception?" that appeared in Great Debates. I do not quite know what the correct decision is. Yet I must recognize that the United States is rapidly being driven towards the brink of initiating a level of military reply that is both hideous and yet so close to justifiable as to call into question all that has been held hallow for nearly a century.

How does one respond to biological attack? How does one combat the most unutterably disgusting degree of assault besides nuclear war upon our nation? I know that there is no simple answer to this query. Yet, we as a nation must rapidly formulate a correct and appropriate reply to such a previously incomprehensible situation.

Without taking into account my own qualms concerning massive retaliation against organizations and governments responsible for the assaults against our country, people have felt free to attack me for these questions I have raised about how, where, when and why we (as a nation) should respond to the attacks we have undergone. I wish to bring to the forefront of discussion exactly what should be the appropriate response to those who would perpetrate such a cowardly attack against America.

Please know that I in no way wish to fan the flames of bigotry. Yet I am obliged to ponder how we, as a nation, can effectively reply to the prejudice of those who would do us harm. What shall we do to delimit, deter and destroy those who would instigate such a horrific attack upon us? The revulsion we all feel for the World Trade Center atrocity may well be overshadowed by ongoing biochemical attacks being launched against us as I type this.

Do not think that I enjoy this close and careful examination of something so unsettling. There is no alternative to the frank and detailed discussion of what our reply must be to such rank and horrible aggression upon the American people. What are our alternatives?

[London_Calling]

Is it 'international' terrorism ?

I recall but a week ago Pressy Putin saying the same thing about the plane that came down between Israel and Siberia yet in the debris a pieces of a Ukrainian ground-to-air missile have since been discovered.

If it is 'international' terrorism then it's certainly a new approach to everything that has passed before. According to Dick Cheney:


"I think the only responsible thing for us to do is proceed on the basis that it could be linked," - well, that makes perfect sense but the use of "could" also says they don't have the first clue about who might be responsible.

In addition, Attorney General John Ashcroft has said there was no evidence linking the four cases with terrorist actions.

Both responses seem, given the present climate, perhaps unusually cautious about presuming responsibility.



From an analytical perspective, I find the Anthrax attacks to be particularly interesting. There is something quite odd, something not quite right about it all.

- Why go biological at this point ?

- Why use such an ineffectual method (introducing the stuff to a ventilation system would be vastly more effective) when they've so recently demonstrated a desire to kill as many as possible ?

- Who else has something to gain by upping the stakes in this particular way ?

Too much doesn't quite make sense: The media are such an obviously inflammatory target...... I believe some of the envelopes have been traced to a Malaysian (and therefore Muslim) posting origin.......

Too many have something to gain from doing this and I think the entire development bears very considerable scrutiny. It wouldn't surprise me if we never got to the bottom of this one.

[Crusoe]

The whole thing reeks to me of copycat opportunists: as London_Calling says, random envelopes are hardly an effective means of infecting a lot of people. What are the chances that this is the sick work of individual extremists in any one of a hundred countries, or even from within the US?

I think that the US should continue on the current means of waging war on terrorism. Any retaliatory use of NBC weapons unleashes something that, potentially, cannot be controlled and cannot discriminate between a bunker and a hospital. It'd also shatter any allied coalition: I doubt even Blair would support Bush in that case.

[China Guy]

If a government or an identifiable group is using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, I am all for termination with extreme prejudice. Put it another way, destroy the military and government of those responsible. A case like Iraq using chem weapons on their own population, or usage during the Iran-Iraq war are a bit of a grey area. North Korea setting off a suitcase bomb in Dallas, then we take 'em out. The first time might cost a lot of American lives, hopefully that would deter any other nation from trying a second time.

In the current case, it would be very possible that this is some rouge lunatic, perhaps American, piggy backing on 911 with some malicious attacks. If so, these guys you want to catch alive, find out everything they know, and put 'em away for life or the death penalty.

[coosa]

Considering the crudeness of the 'bio-attack', especially in comparison to the patience, intelligence, and careful planning of the hijackings, I'm really hesitant to assume that there is a direct connection between the two. I suspect this is either some other group, emboldened by the success of the 9/11 attacks and hoping to curry favor with the REAL bad guys (like bin Laden), and/or some more 'home-grown' terrorism.

Or, as suggested in another thread, this is not meant as a serious biological attack, but rather a way to spread fear and panic. Or maybe there WAS a scheme to spread anthrax through, say, crop-dusters, but it was found to be unworkable, or the expected supply of anthrax failed to come through, so this is a case of 'do the best you can with what you've got'.

The timing suggests a connection, but the targets, method of distribution, etc. doesn't. The Microsoft letter-returned-from-Malaysia thing is very weird, if it is being reported accurately.

Anyway, I think a 'response-in-kind' would be an extremely poor move, as it would certainly kill innocent people. And I don't think ANY of the countries bordering Afghanistan would be thrilled with us. I've never heard of a virus, bacteria, or gas that noticed when it crossed an international border.

But I swear I'm getting paranoid - this very peculiar bio-attack sure is keeping everybody angry and frightened, and likely creating more sympathy for the US's position. And with only one actual life lost!

Never mind, I don't think I want to go there. :(

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

There have been exactly four--4 people infected. Not 4000---FOUR.


Only 1..O*N*E one died.

Most badasses could do better with a .22 derringer pistol.

In fact, more people probably get shot & die with .22 pistols in Los Angeles every weekend than have suffered from this feeble "assault".

If this is the best they can do, I ain't sweatin'.

GET A GRIP, PEOPLE!

[coosa]

L_C's post was the last one here when I started mine, I swear! How'd you two guys sneak in ahead of me?

::grumble:: Now I feel like a copycat.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Yeah, let's not go off the deep end here, folks. I just had this identical conversation with Bonzo, who finished up a Saturday morning session on his teen MB totally panic-stricken (or at least as panic-stricken as a kewl high school freshman will allow himself to be, in front of his mother), because someone had linked to this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/10/13/anthrax/index.html) and had posted a "don't open your mail!" warning.

So I sat him down at the computer and showed him the following little nit-picky details.

1. The Sony Pictures envelope is still being tested. They don't know that it was anthrax culture--it could have been talcum powder. They don't know. So they put the guy in the hospital just in case.

2. The NBC News envelope was tested and was not anthrax. The woman tested positive for anthrax but, therefore, she got it somewhere else.

3. They are still testing the New York Times and Microsoft envelopes. They don't know yet, and until they say it was anthrax, it's silly to worry about it. It's more likely just some idiot copycat mailing talcum powder to Bill Gates the Antichrist.

4.
The FBI said the envelopes sent to NBC [which was not anthrax] and The New York Times [which is still being tested] both were postmarked from St. Petersburg, Florida, and had similar handwriting.
First, this means that the New York Times envelope is probably not anthrax, either. Second, this means that whoever perpetrated this one, at least, is particularly clueless--handwritten envelopes, with the same postmark? As soon as they find a suspect, all they need to do is ask it for a handwriting sample. Like I told Bonzo, "It reminds me of those bank robbers who put the note on the back of their deposit slip."

In other words, two of these "anthrax" cases were probably not perpetrated not by a ferociously well-organized terrorist cell.

[Zenster]

The reason why I have started this thread is because of this bit of information contained in a CNN article (http://news.excite.com/news/r/011013/00/attack-anthrax-nevada):

---------- excerpt----------

The letter was sent to the Reno office of Microsoft Licensing, a unit of the Redmond, Washington-based software firm, apparently from Malaysia, a spokesman for Guinn said.

"It was return mail from Malaysia containing a check, a bill and the porn. The check and bill were all right but the porn material tested positive for anthrax in the first test," said spokesman Greg Bortolin..."

----------------------------
(bolding mine)


It is common knowledge that bin Laden has operatives in south-east Asia and that there have been Muslim demontrations against the US in that region. Although there is the remote possibility of some lunatic attempting to ride the coattails of 9/11 in this hideous fashion, I remain deeply concerned that there is some outside effort being made to launch a biological attack against our country. The crudeness of this operation should in no way serve to dissuade one from thinking that it was not the work of bin Laden's network. The technological requirements of such an assault are very demanding and money alone cannot entirely facilitate the needed methodology to correctly implement such a covert attack. Fortunately, we have the ability to assay the spores' genetic markers and determine what region of the world they are from. I am extremely eager to see the results of such testing.

I think it bears mention that the odds of so many people suddenly being exposed to what is probably the rarest form of this toxin are billions to one. It is also a known fact that documents in the possession of bin Laden's operatives detailed the steps required to launch exactly this sort of a biological attack. This operation has all of the hallmarks of the same cowardly motivations displayed in New York and I am extremely suspicious of this event. If, by chance, this was the work of some domestic maniac, then the perpetrator should await trial on charges of a capital offense with the death penalty pending a conviction.

I would still like to discuss the complex and dire implications of how to go about retaliating against such an attack. I think it is something that needs to be considered in detail and may well prove to be necessary in light of the high probability that an attempt of this sort will be made in the future.

[Zenster]

The reason why I have started this thread is because of this bit of information contained in a CNN article (http://news.excite.com/news/r/011013/00/attack-anthrax-nevada):

---------- excerpt----------

The letter was sent to the Reno office of Microsoft Licensing, a unit of the Redmond, Washington-based software firm, apparently from Malaysia, a spokesman for Guinn said.

"It was return mail from Malaysia containing a check, a bill and the porn. The check and bill were all right but the porn material tested positive for anthrax in the first test," said spokesman Greg Bortolin..."

----------------------------
(bolding mine)


It is common knowledge that bin Laden has operatives in south-east Asia and that there have been Muslim demontrations against the US in that region. Although there is the remote possibility of some lunatic attempting to ride the coattails of 9/11 in this hideous fashion, I remain deeply concerned that there is some outside effort being made to launch a biological attack against our country. The crudeness of this operation should in no way serve to dissuade one from thinking that it was not the work of bin Laden's network. The technological requirements of such an assault are very demanding and money alone cannot entirely facilitate the needed methodology to correctly implement such a covert attack. Fortunately, we have the ability to assay the spores' genetic markers and determine what region of the world they are from. I am extremely eager to see the results of such testing.

I think it bears mention that the odds of so many people suddenly being exposed to what is probably the rarest form of this toxin are billions to one. It is also a known fact that documents in the possession of bin Laden's operatives detailed the steps required to launch exactly this sort of a biological attack. The operation has all of the hallmarks of the same cowardly motivations displayed in New York and I am extremely suspicious of this event. If, by chance, this was the work of some domestic maniac, then the perpetrator should await trial on charges of a capital offense with the death penalty pending a conviction.

I would still like to discuss the complex and dire implications of how to go about retaliating against such an attack. I think it is something that needs to be considered in detail and may well prove to be necessary in light of the high probability that an attempt of this sort will be made in the future.

I am also obliged to point out that nowhere have I asserted that we should respond in kind to such an attack. Please read my OP carefully and you will see that this is the case.

[Zenster]

The reason why I have started this thread is because of this bit of information contained in a CNN article (http://news.excite.com/news/r/011013/00/attack-anthrax-nevada):

---------- excerpt----------

The letter was sent to the Reno office of Microsoft Licensing, a unit of the Redmond, Washington-based software firm, apparently from Malaysia, a spokesman for Guinn said.

"It was return mail from Malaysia containing a check, a bill and the porn. The check and bill were all right but the porn material tested positive for anthrax in the first test," said spokesman Greg Bortolin..."

----------------------------
(bolding mine)


It is common knowledge that bin Laden has operatives in south-east Asia and that there have been Muslim demontrations against the US in that region. Although there is the remote possibility of some lunatic attempting to ride the coattails of 9/11 in this hideous fashion, I remain deeply concerned that there is some outside effort being made to launch a biological attack against our country. The crudeness of this operation should in no way serve to dissuade one from thinking that it was not the work of bin Laden's network. The technological requirements of such an assault are very demanding and money alone cannot entirely facilitate the needed methodology to correctly implement such a covert attack. Fortunately, we have the ability to assay the spores' genetic markers and determine what region of the world they are from. I am extremely eager to see the results of such testing.

I think it bears mention that the odds of so many people suddenly being exposed to what is probably the rarest form of this toxin are billions to one. It is also a known fact that documents in the possession of bin Laden's operatives detailed the steps required to launch exactly this sort of a biological attack. The operation has all of the hallmarks of the same cowardly motivations displayed in New York and I am extremely suspicious of this event. If, by chance, this was the work of some domestic maniac, then the perpetrator should await trial on charges of a capital offense with the death penalty pending a conviction.

I would still like to discuss the complex and dire implications of how to go about retaliating against such an attack. I think it is something that needs to be considered in detail and may well prove to be necessary in light of the high probability that an attempt of this sort will be made in the future.

I am also obliged to point out that nowhere have I asserted that we should respond in kind to such an attack. Please read my OP carefully and you will see that this is the case.

[Zenster]

The reason why I have started this thread is because of this bit of information contained in a CNN article (http://news.excite.com/news/r/011013/00/attack-anthrax-nevada):

---------- excerpt----------

The letter was sent to the Reno office of Microsoft Licensing, a unit of the Redmond, Washington-based software firm, apparently from Malaysia, a spokesman for Guinn said.

"It was return mail from Malaysia containing a check, a bill and the porn. The check and bill were all right but the porn material tested positive for anthrax in the first test," said spokesman Greg Bortolin..."

----------------------------
(bolding mine)


It is common knowledge that bin Laden has operatives in south-east Asia and that there have been Muslim demontrations against the US in that region. Although there is the remote possibility of some lunatic attempting to ride the coattails of 9/11 in this hideous fashion, I remain deeply concerned that there is some outside effort being made to launch a biological attack against our country. The crudeness of this operation should in no way serve to dissuade one from thinking that it was not the work of bin Laden's network. The technological requirements of such an assault are very demanding and money alone cannot entirely facilitate the needed methodology to correctly implement such a covert attack. Fortunately, we have the ability to assay the spores' genetic markers and determine what region of the world they are from. I am extremely eager to see the results of such testing.

I think it bears mention that the odds of so many people suddenly being exposed to what is probably the rarest form of this toxin are billions to one. It is also a known fact that documents in the possession of bin Laden's operatives detailed the steps required to launch exactly this sort of a biological attack. The operation has all of the hallmarks of the same cowardly motivations displayed in New York and I am extremely suspicious of this event. If, by chance, this was the work of some domestic maniac, then the perpetrator should await trial on charges of a capital offense with the death penalty pending a conviction.

I would still like to discuss the complex and dire implications of how to go about retaliating against such an attack. I think it is something that needs to be considered in detail and may well prove to be necessary in light of the high probability that an attempt of this sort will be made in the future.

I am also obliged to point out that nowhere have I asserted that we should respond in kind to such an attack. Please read my OP carefully and you will see that this is the case.

[Zenster]

Sorry for the triple post, the servers were just bogged down so much that it was impossible to tell that there was any completion of submission.

Mods, please delete the repeat posts.

[Zenster]

Sorry for the quadruple post but I kept getting "this page has expired" notices when I attempted to post the above reply.

Mods, please delete three of them if you would be so kind.

[Zenster]

Gah! This is ridiculous!

[coosa]

I think it bears mention that the odds of so many people suddenly being exposed to what is probably the rarest form of this toxin are billions to one.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, Zenster, but I think you might be operating from inaccurate information. It is not the type of anthrax that is rare, it is the manner of infection. The same spores cause all three types of disease - cutaneous, inhalation, and gastrointestinal - the difference is in the way the spores enter the body. Most cases of anthrax are cutaneous because they are acquired through a break in the skin during the handling of a deceased infected animal or animal product. Inhalation is rare because it requires that a sufficient quantity of spores be airborne within the range and volume of air you can inhale. This circumstance just doesn't occur very often naturally.

Anthrax spores do not form until the bacteria are exposed to air. Diseased animals commonly 'bleed out' upon death, thus exposing the bacteria to air and allowing the formation of spores. These spores are very hardy and may survive on/in the ground for hundreds of years, until they have the opportunity to infect another animal. Think of the spore as an 'egg' that hatches when placed in the 'incubator' of a living host. Anthrax bacteria that does not form a spore is not infectious, so is not contagious in person-to-person contact.

Unless the CDC is lying to us, the strain of anthrax found in these cases is the same old garden-variety anthrax found everywhere - that is, it is not some bio-engineered drug-resistant nightmare developed and cultivated in a weapons laboratory. It is sensitive to penicillin, which is certainly not a characteristic of any 'designed' disease!

Anthrax is pretty easy to cultivate with minimal knowledge and equipment - you don't need a state-of-the-art multi-million dollar laboratory. The fact that many of the suspicious packages contained an unidentified 'white powder' with no trace of anthrax spores indicates, to me, that either the perpetrators are pretty incompetent or that only a very small amount was available and was used to create fear, which was then exacerbated by mailing out quantities of talcum powder, flour, or some other innocuous substance.

I'm not saying that bin Laden's followers are not responsible, but that there are other possibilities that we should investigate - otherwise, if it is someone else they will get off scot-free and be able to do it again.

The Microsoft letter is extremely weird - from here: (http://news.excite.com/news/r/011013/00/attack-anthrax-nevada)

"It was return mail from Malaysia containing a check, a bill and the porn. The check and bill were all right but the porn material tested positive for anthrax in the first test," said spokesman Greg Bortolin . . .

declined to discuss details of the case but said the possible anthrax was found in a "stain," not a powdery form,

There are a hell of a lot of unanswered questions here - who was it mailed to, and why? When was it sent, and how long did it take to go there and back? What are the postmarks - did it actually go all the way to Malaysia and back? And by what route? What do they mean by pornography? What kind of pornography? What is the source - a personal photo, something printed off an internet site, something cut from a magazine? Why was it returned - was it undeliverable, or did someone pay postage to have it returned in the original envelope? Why a 'stain' - and was it just on the piece of pornography or was the entire envelope stained? The whole thing is very, very peculiar.

Anyway, as a bio-attack, it's pretty pathetic - I think the main purpose of this is to create panic and fear among US citizens. Now anyone who feels like it can disrupt businesses and government installations or get their school shut down by dribbling flour through a hole in their pocket, so it's pretty successful in that respect.

I don't see any reason for making changes in our current response, as it does not change our goal, which is to destroy bin Laden and his terrorist network. Surely we are doing that to the best of our ability now? I really don't see what else we can do, besides what we are already doing.

I think this just has to be chalked up to 'the fortunes of war'. US citizens are just not used to it because we have never been attacked on our own turf before. We're extremely vulnerable to this sort of attack, but I don't see that we can do much to change that, either. We'll just have to bear up under it as best we can - surely we have as much fortitude as the Londoners during WWII?

What do you have in mind, Zenster?

[Mr. Duality]

exposure to anthrax at NBC.

[coosa]

Originally posted by Mr. Duality
exposure to anthrax at NBC.

Are you talking about this (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011013/us/anthrax_florida.html)? This article says 5 more people in FL, from the American Media offices. Or are you talking about a different report?

[msmith537]

Originally posted by Zenster

Those who would lever militant action over the edge of such a dastardly precipice are deserving of only the harshest condemnation and retaliation. What shall be done against them? The response doctrine of the United States dictates that any such attack merits a reply in kind. Using any of the deadly trio of NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) weapons is both justified and called for against those who would be so cruel as to launch such an attack. How should we go about retaliating against those who would be so cowardly?


US doctrine also dictates a measured response. That is to say, we don't respond to some half-assed Anthrax attack that killed one person and forced several others to take antibiotics for 60 days by unleashing Ebola variants in our enemies cities.

[Zenster]

Thank you for your clarification, coosa. The mathematics of this situation stand undiminished. The inhalatory mode of anthrax infection remains one of the most improbable and least likely methods of exposure. All of this still points towards an intentional method of infection and represents a terrorist attack of some sort, be it foreign or domestic.

Regardless of origin, the sponsor of this felony must face relentless prosecution in addition to the most severe penalties imaginable. I hope the courts view this as a premeditated and unmitigated act. They should ascribe penalties comensurate with a planned and determined criminal effort. I remain concerned that this may have been a terrorist effort if only because, regardless of origin, the intended results were the same. Wholesale public panic and additional economic harm were predictable outcomes of this act and the perpetrator[s] must face charges equivalent to such a crime against the state.

Again, msmith, in no way am I recommending a biological counterattack against those responsible. I only maintain that if this action is an external effort, it should command the harshest retaliation imaginable. Please reread the OP before you attempt to accuse me of advocating biological warfare. In addition, if this was a form of domestic terrorism it is time for the gloves to come off with swift and brutal reprisal awaiting those responsible.

Any comparison of this poorly planned attempt with a .22 Derringer is completely invalid. This is more the case of a misfiring machine gun. If a terrorist bomb detonates incorrectly, there should be no allowance for any mitigation of the crime's intent. Someone intended great and greivous harm to be done. To broadcast toxic bacteria in such a fashion is attempted mass murder and nothing else.

[ruadh]

Today's Observer (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,573893,00.html) reports that the US government is viewing these episodes as linked, and is pointing the finger at Iraq.

The "evidence" quoted in that link goes as follows: this is a technologically advanced form of anthrax; Afghanistan doesn't have that technology; Iran doesn't have the motive; so "that leaves Iraq" (yes, that's a direct quote).

Specious as that is, I'm afraid this is going to turn out to be just the excuse the US government is gagging for to start bombing Iraq.

[tom servo]

i want some details on the npr story, if it's accurate

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally posted by Zenster
Any comparison of this poorly planned attempt with a .22 Derringer is completely invalid. This is more the case of a misfiring machine gun. If a terrorist bomb detonates incorrectly, there should be no allowance for any mitigation of the crime's intent. Someone intended great and greivous harm to be done. To broadcast toxic bacteria in such a fashion is attempted mass murder and nothing else.

Did you actually read my post, dammit?!? :mad:

Are you obtuse, or just trolling? :mad:

The meaning of my post, in case you were put into a barrel at birth & raised there until today, is that this is ineffective. The attacks were ineffective.

Therefore---WE SHOULD NOT PANIC, DAMMIT!!!! :mad:




Be calm, like me. ;) :D

[The Ryan]

When I first read the OP, I thought it was speaking hypothetically. As I read further, I realized that Zenster actually believes that there has been a biological attack on the US.

The events in Florida are not what I would consider a "biological attack". Yes, bioligical agents caused harm in what looks to be a deliberate manner, but calling this a "biological attack" is like calling release of radium gas a "nuclear attack". This is, at the most, murder. Nothing more. The fact that weapons of mass destruction were used does not make it an act of mass destruction, any more than bludgeoning someone to death with a nuclear bomb is a n act of mass destruction. There is no evidence that this is the result of an attempt at greater destruction, so the analogy to a improperly detonated bomb is not appropiate. We should not base our response on baseless speculation on what might have been. What has happened is someone has died. This should be handled like every other murder investigation.

Personally, I find find the spread of anthrax through money to be more likely than through the mail.

[Chronos]

So, let me get this straight: The only confirmed case of anthrax being found in the mail, thus far, was a "stain" of some sort on a piece of pornography. Could any of our medical types on the board tell whether it's possible for anthrax bacteria or spores to be found naturally in the semen of an infected host? If that's the case, then we're talking about a grand total of zero cases of deliberate attack, and a number of cases of malicious, but non-lethal, pranks. The other confirmed case of a person contracting anthrax doesn't prove anything, either, since there are other ways to contract it, aside from human maliciousness.

[coosa]

ruadh, with all due respect, I believe you are misinterpreting what the article said. It did not say this is a 'technologically advanced strain' of anthrax; what it said is 'the ability to produce sufficient quantities of anthrax spores as a medium suitable for effective use as an aerosol requires advanced technological ability.' There's a big difference there!

We have no evidence that the spores used were 'technologically advanced', nor that they were altered in any way to make them suitable for aerosol application. Please note that the infection in NYC is cutaneous, not inhalation. The fact that the spores were inhaled in the FL case appears to be pure coincidence; it was not due to the method of delivery or any special adaptation of the spores, but rather to the manner in which the contaminated material was handled by the victims. And it does not require any special modification to make inhalation possible; inhalation anthrax occurs in accidental exposures all over the world.

Zenster,to my knowledge we as yet have no 'smoking gun' - it would be a serious mistake to assume that this is sponsored by bin Laden's group, and find out instead that it is Timothy McVeigh's friends!

As far as response - if it is Al Quaida or one of its affiliates, then we are already doing what is necessary to locate the guilty parties and eliminate their threat. If it is not, our response will depend on who the guilty party turns out to be. At the very least, they are guilty of premeditated murder, and should be dealt with accordingly.

The Ryan, you do have a point - it is not necessarily the US that has come under attack, but rather various news media. As an 'attack' meant to cause death and destruction, it is woefully inadequate; as a means of causing panic and fear it has so far been incredibly successful. The news is becoming increasingly hysterical, and misinformation, conclusion-jumping, and the publishing of unverified information is rampant, reminiscent of the week immediately following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, when Guilani chastised the media.

I wish everyone would take a moment to ask themselves how we would have reacted if this had happened before 9/11. Certainly there would have been a lot of concern, but I doubt if bin Laden would have even been considered as the most likely source. And, unless thousands of people died (which isn't likely), I don't think it would have led to dropping bombs on Afghanistan.

Oh, and Dani . . . er, Bosda - your outstanding calm and coolness in the face of adversity is an inspiration to paranoid schizophrenics everywhere. :D

[coosa]

ruadh, with all due respect, I believe you are misinterpreting what the article said. It did not say this is a 'technologically advanced strain' of anthrax; what it said is 'the ability to produce sufficient quantities of anthrax spores as a medium suitable for effective use as an aerosol requires advanced technological ability.' There's a big difference there!

We have no evidence that the spores used were 'technologically advanced', nor that they were altered in any way to make them suitable for aerosol application. Please note that the infection in NYC is cutaneous, not inhalation. The fact that the spores were inhaled in the FL case appears to be pure coincidence; it was not due to the method of delivery or any special adaptation of the spores, but rather to the manner in which the contaminated material was handled by the victims. And it does not require any special modification to make inhalation possible; inhalation anthrax occurs in accidental exposures all over the world.

Zenster,to my knowledge we as yet have no 'smoking gun' - it would be a serious mistake to assume that this is sponsored by bin Laden's group, and find out instead that it is Timothy McVeigh's friends!

As far as response - if it is Al Quaida or one of its affiliates, then we are already doing what is necessary to locate the guilty parties and eliminate their threat. If it is not, our response will depend on who the guilty party turns out to be. At the very least, they are guilty of premeditated murder, and should be dealt with accordingly.

The Ryan, you do have a point - it is not necessarily the US that has come under attack, but rather various news media. As an 'attack' meant to cause death and destruction, it is woefully inadequate; as a means of causing panic and fear it has so far been incredibly successful. The news is becoming increasingly hysterical, and misinformation, conclusion-jumping, and the publishing of unverified information is rampant, reminiscent of the week immediately following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, when Guilani chastised the media.

I wish everyone would take a moment to ask themselves how we would have reacted if this had happened before 9/11. Certainly there would have been a lot of concern, but I doubt if bin Laden would have even been considered as the most likely source. And, unless thousands of people died (which isn't likely), I don't think it would have led to dropping bombs on Afghanistan.

Oh, and Dani . . . er, Bosda - your outstanding calm and coolness in the face of adversity is an inspiration to paranoid schizophrenics everywhere. :D

Caught you on preview, Chronos - apparently one of the letters received by NBC - the one mailed from NJ - has also tested positive for anthrax spores. There is also a second NBC employee showing symptoms of cutaneous anthrax.

AP article (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011013/us/attacks_anthrax_41.html)

[coosa]

Apologies, everyone - I'm having difficulties with the board also. There is an added response to Chronos at the end of my second message - I'm not sure what happened here. Boy, is everything screwed up!

[ruadh]

coosa, I didn't use the word "strain" at all. My usage of the word "form" might have been clumsy, but I can't for the life of me see how that affects my argument, which (since you apparently missed it the first time) is that the US is accusing Iraq without a shred of substantial evidence.

[Sam Stone]

The anthrax found so far has been in a powder. Remember, a number of people have been found to have anthrax spores in their nasal passages. This stuff IS the deadly aerosol-type version of Anthrax, it just isn't being agitated enough. Put the same material in a blower and blow it into a crowd, and you'd have plenty of inhalation anthrax cases.

Apparently, to make an anthrax powder requires large centrifuges and high technology equipment costing millions of dollars, according to the Guardian. If that's the case, then this stuff came out of a governments weapons lab somewhere. No question about it. The only thing we wouldn't know is which government it was, but it's a short list.

[Kalt]

If we find out who did it, nuke em.

John Gibson said it pretty well: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35651,00.html

Of course, we have to warn them that we are going to nuke them before they actually use their biological warfare, or else it would seem reactionary rather than punitive.

By the way, "they" = governments who are indifferent (or supportive) of biological terrorists within their borders.

[Abe]

I read John Gibson's linked column. I do not follow his logic, especially when he qualifies what is "enough" and "too much".

Posted by Kalt

If we find out who did it, nuke em.

...

"they" = governments who are indifferent (or supportive) of biological terrorists within their borders.

This bellicose suggestion leads to several other problems. Should civilians be made to pay for the actions of their governments? What if those governments do not represent the will of the people, or, indeed, the people themselves?

Leaving aside the various problems in establishing the legitimacy of using them, the US will not solve this problem with nuclear weapons, unless you suggest flattening an entire nation where CNB terrorists are suspected to exist.

Think of the backlash. The US is trying to correct problems like Bin Laden, not emulate them.

[Sofa King]

Tom Daschle's office (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62204-2001Oct15.html) appears to have been targeted.

This represents a startling (to me) development. Up to now, I was working on the assumption that we have been finding cases of anthrax because we've been looking closely for them. Is a pattern emerging?

It has been my understanding that US policy toward an NBC attack requires a response against an offending nation in kind. However, this position may have softened somewhat in recent years:

"We've made it very clear to Iraq and to the rest of the world that if any terrorist or nation should ever even contemplate using weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, any other type -- against our forces, we will deliver a response that's overwhelming and devastating." -- Sec. Def. William Cohen, July, 1998 (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0798/ijpe/pj38cohe.htm).

US policy of deterrence still seems to require a massive retaliatory response, assuming they can find someone to hit.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Abe
This bellicose suggestion leads to several other problems. Should civilians be made to pay for the actions of their governments?
Well, yeah. When did people start thinking of this as a problem? During WWII, did people ask "Gee, should we really be bombing the Nazis? Is it really fair to make civilians pay for the actions of their government?"

What if those governments do not represent the will of the people, or, indeed, the people themselves?
Then we arefaced with choosing between the lives of free people and enslaved people. Personally, I think that the former has more value.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the lives of nonAmericans are unimportant. But if we are faced with the choice between our survival and theirs, I don't see why there's much of a dilemma there. Several dozen people being exposed is not a threat to our survival. Even the WTC attack, horrific as it was, was not a threat to our survival. But if substantial percentages of our population start getting killed (substantial being at least .1%), then I think that intentional targeting of civilians would be justified.

[Kalt]

Abe, by your line of reasoning, nuclear weapons would never be justified. I know there are people who feel that way, but I am not one of them. America has to come first, with the lives of non-american citizens being a distant second.

As for whether or not civilians should be made to pay for the actions of their government, any answer other than "yes" makes a bad government invincible and untouchable.

If citizens really hate their government's actions, they will rise up and make changes. If they don't, then they are "harboring" an evil government and are just as guilty as the people in power. If they are unable to rise up for whatever reason... then they won't be a very big loss to humanity once they are nuked. Sorry for being blunt, that's just the way I see this issue.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Yeah, let's not go off the deep end here, folks. I just had this identical conversation with Bonzo, who finished up a Saturday morning session on his teen MB totally panic-stricken (or at least as panic-stricken as a kewl high school freshman will allow himself to be, in front of his mother....

DDG:

I'm just curious - the events subsequent to this post (Daschle's office, the ABC employee's child, etc) seem to suggest that your reassuring conversation with Bonzo may have been reassuring - but not entirely accurate.

What, if anything, have you said to him about the follow-on anthrax events? Obviously, it's still a very remote danger; equally obviously, it's not coincidental, or the work of a lone nutcase.

- Rick

[Zenster]

I think there is mounting evidence that this onslaught of anthrax exposures is a concerted effort and not just some sporadic (get it? spore-adic), wucka, wucka...) crack pot plot.

If people would just read carefully, I have nowhere specified a country or group that should be retaliated against. In fact, I have specifically mentioned waiting for the genetic marker test results that might indicate where in the world this strain of bacteria was derived from. I just hope like Hades it is not the Ames strain. This was developed in the US for research purposes and was widely disseminated domestically and internationally for academic and military use in investigations about germ warfare and other biological applications.

That said, if it's from Iran, Iraq, Lybia or Syria they can kiss their @ss goodbye. If such a thing were true I feel that the US would have no alternative but to immediately overthrow the government concerned and go from there. However, if this strain is from within the United States proper, I feel that this should serve as a final notice that internal terrorism must be put down with great and grievous force.

Is there anyone who is still willing to assume that this is merely an isolated crime and not one of larger scope? I cannot possibly see how it is anything but another attack upon our nation. The additional impact that this will have upon our economy is significant and fits so perfectly into the schemes of those who have already sought to do so that I am extremely suspicious. As I have said, I am awaiting the test results and I sure as Hell hope that they are definitive. Whoever sponsored this attack needs to be eradicated as surely as the Taleban and bin Laden.

[Sam Stone]

The people who think that this is some kind of 'copy cat' crime by a lone nutjob somewhere are just misinformed. There is no way that an individual can create anthrax in this form. It definitely came from a government lab.

That said, I think that unless we get lucky it's going to hard to conclusively figure out where this came from. Anthrax is pretty common, and the U.S. was giving out Anthrax all over the place in the 80's to 'friendly' countries, including Iraq. Many countries have their own anthrax programs.

[Zenster]

Finally, some links (http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,573893,00.html) to information (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,574193,00.html) about this event (thanks to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=93254) thread). Sadly, they are pretty speculative, but I still think that they are worth reading for the facts they contain.

[Abe]

The Ryan and Kalt,

although I respect the opinions you presented in the posts, I am not sure I agree with the reasoning. I especially reject this statement:

If citizens really hate their government's actions, they will rise up and make changes.

That is an example of the famous either-or fallacy, as well as erroneous in general terms. More possibilities exist--such as: the government represses brutally any criticisms, and therefore preempts rebellion; or the people are unable to fight any longer after three decades of war and/or hardship; and so forth.

You guys seem to be thinking that there are two options on my next point as well: hurt foreign civilians and save America, or avoid hurting foreign civilians and doom America. The situation is by no means that black and white.

Posted by the Ryan
When did people start thinking of this [hurting civilians] as a problem? During WWII, did people ask "Gee, should we really be bombing the Nazis? Is it really fair to make civilians pay for the actions of their government?"

I would be incredibly astounded if there were no such voices during WWII, seeing as how enemy nationality does not make one evil. Of course, WWII was an enormous propaganda effort as well, and propaganda is always the most dangerous weapon in war. And remember that Japanese and German civilians in WWII generally supported their governments (as opposed to just "failing to revolt against them"). But, in any case, the objects of war are specifically non-civilian! The nation that goes to war with the specific intent of keeping enemy civilian casualties as low as possible (as the US is trying to do right now) will always have a relative moral (and therefore popular) advantage over the nation that has little or no regard for civilians. Particularly useful in the propaganda division of any war.

[Spiny Norman]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Well, yeah. When did people start thinking of this as a problem? During WWII, did people ask "Gee, should we really be bombing the Nazis? Is it really fair to make civilians pay for the actions of their government?"

Apparently, a lot of people did. The Geneva conventions were updated in 1948 - that's lightning speed for this sort of work - to make area/saturation bombing of cities a war crime. Which, btw, it still is. The necessity (and morality) of the bombing campaigns were indeed questioned. Or, perhaps more correctly, the necessity was questioned because the morality of incinerating civilians in firestorms was so problematic.

Returning to the OP: I can't fit this recent attack, as scary as it is, in with the WTC bombings. The timing is wrong - why fire this gun now, when everybody is alert and networks are unravelled left and right, and not before ?

And where the perpetrators of the WTC crime were extremely competent, this attack really smacks of rank amateurism - if not in procuring the spores, then in the way they're distributed. I really can't see those two attacks as coming from the same organization.

If this indeed is the much-vaunted "second wave", well, flip a big bird to Al Queda. You've lost, idiots.

S. Norman

[Sam Stone]

Don't be so quick to judge how 'stupid' this is. We don't have all the facts yet. This could be a feint, or a way of tying up CDC and FBI assets while the real bio attack takes place quietly somewhere else. Maybe we'll find out in a week that Smallpox is breaking out all over the country. Who knows?

But even if this is *one of their attacks, it seems pretty damned effective if the motive is to keep us feeling unsafe, slow down our mail system, spend a zillion dollars on investigation, etc.

This is another 'classic' asymmetric threat. They spend $20 on stamps, and we have to spent hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on detection and cleanup. Also, hitting the news media was smart - it ensured disproportionate coverage of the danger, and if they get 'lucky' and someone like Tom Brokaw or Jay Leno actually develops anthrax, the effect on the psyche of the nation will be a lot greater than if they blew up a hundred people in a building somewhere.

The main problem these guys have is that they STILL don't understand us at all. They are operating from the assumption that if they can just scare us enough we'll capitulate. They are arrogant, seeing themselves as tough, focused, righteous people, and us as decadent and weak. They equate freedom with weakness. What they can't seem to understand is that Americans have the strength of their moral conviction that they are on the right side of this conflict, and whenever Americans have felt that way they have proven themselves to be amazingly courageous and resourceful.

They aren't the first people to make that mistake, and they probably won't be the last. It seems like every few decades the U.S. has to demonstrate its willingness to stand up and fight against tyrants.

[coosa]

ruadh, my apologies on two counts: 1) I was, indeed, confused by your use of 'technologically advanced form'. I'm still confused! But there's a heck of a lot of confusion everywhere due to incorrect or inaccurate terms/information/descriptions being used in most of the news articles. I'm not a working professional, but do have an educational background that includes a lot of microbiology and other life sciences, so I make distinctions where those with different backgrounds do not.

2) It's not that I missed your point - it's that I failed to address it. :o During some editing and rewriting I apparently deleted my response and didn't notice it before hitting 'submit'. Yeah, it's becoming more and more obvious that some people are trying to prematurely point the finger at Iraq and talk war talk. It's certainly possible that the anthrax spores came from Iraq, but they could have come from a LOT of places. And we may never know where it came from - it could be a common laboratory strain. And what if turns out to be a strain from, say, South America? More unanswered questions.

Weaponized/Aerosoled: The fact that the two people in FL contracted inhalation anthrax does not mean that the spores were 'specially prepared' in any way in a multi-million dollar weapons laboratory. 'Aerosoled' simply means 'particles floating in air' - you could 'aerosol' anthrax spores by throwing a handful up in the air. Or putting some in one of those hand-held plant-duster gadgets and spraying it. Please note: cases of inhalation anthrax have occurred for centuries, long before modern biological weapons were developed.

'Weaponizing' anthrax spores as an aerosol-type weapon basically involves producing huge amounts ground up into a fine enough powder that, when sprayed into the air, the particles will float on the air currents for a very long time before falling to the ground. So far, there is no indication that anything like this has occurred - the infections all seem to be connected to powder from envelopes. Anyone who stuck their nose in the envelope and took a good sniff to see what it smelled like could have inhaled enough spores to cause the disease. The source of the attacks could be anybody. :(

A possibility I've not seen mentioned - what if the infected people in FL were snorting cocaine or something, and the spores were in the drugs? It doesn't seem likely, since one of the victims is what? 70 years old? but it's possible.

Something else I find interesting - the anthrax-positive powder with the NBC envelope has been said to be brown, while that sent to Daschle was described as white. Different sources for the anthrax? Different group of people? And supposedly the NBC letter pretty much said that the letter was contaminated - something about the recipient had better start taking medication, which sounds more like the 'this letter contains anthrax' threats of 1998.

I have some doubts about tracing this back to Iraq, or any country that produces anthrax as a weapon, at least by determining the 'genetic fingerprint'. It would be incredibly foolish for any country to give the terrorists anthrax samples that could be positively identified as coming their weapons laboratories. OTOH, considering how bin Laden's mind seems to work, this would be a good way to frame another country - like Iraq - and both widen the war and create more controversy among the Muslim countries. Who knows? I've heard some pretty stupid statements from American 'sources', 'officials', and 'intelligence officers' - maybe someone in Iraq WAS stupid enough to hand Atta a smoking gun.

If this is Al Quaida's doing, it's possible they had originally intended to use cropdusters to spray anthrax spores over Washington, D.C. or some other large city. Then they either could not get hold of a large enough amount, or found that the anthrax they had access to was not 'weapons grade' and so probably wouldn't do much harm, so they settled for creating fear and panic by the powdered-envelope method, and, as Sam Stone pointed out, wasting valuable time and resources.

::throws hands in air:: The whole thing is terribly confusing, and I doubt we are being given enough information right now to make an informed judgement. There are a lot of things that are NOT being said that I have questions about, but I don't expect any official answers anytime soon.

[Kalt]

Kalt: If citizens really hate their government's actions, they will rise up and make changes.

[quote]Abe: That is an example of the famous either-or fallacy, as well as erroneous in general terms. More possibilities exist--such as: the government represses brutally any criticisms, and therefore preempts rebellion; or the people are unable to fight any longer after three decades of war and/or hardship; and so forth.

There are many fallacies more famous than the "either-or" :)

Historically, bad governments have been replaced. I cannot name one horrible government in the history of the world that has been able to quell rebellion indefinitely. Of course, by horrible I mean in reference to its own citizens, not other countries. Sure, all governments will try to stop a coup... nobody wants to lose power - but it will happen if the peoples' lives are so bad they have nothing to lose by rising up.


Abe: You guys seem to be thinking that there are two options on my next point as well: hurt foreign civilians and save America, or avoid hurting foreign civilians and doom America. The situation is by no means that black and white.

Some things are black and white - and this is one of them, presuming we are "at war." Our goal should never be to hurt foreign citizens, but a war cannot be waged without doing so, and we can't "save America" without waging this war. If we don't get rid of the Taliban, capture bin laden, and get rid of Saddam, and prevent any similar creatures from rising up to replace them, america will not be safe.

[Zenster]

Man, Kalt. There are times when you sound so reasonable. I wish your positions were more well thought out more often. I am not trying to be insulting, rather that our own views contact at points every so often but the departures in between those points of contact are just too radical for me to be able to give you my support.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by coosa
ruadh, my apologies on two counts: 1) I was, indeed, confused by your use of 'technologically advanced form'. I'm still confused!

Well, here's a quote from that article:

In liquid form, anthrax is useless - droplets would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air to be breathed by victims. Making powder needs repeated washings in huge centrifuges, followed by intensive drying, which requires sealed environments. The technology would cost millions.

I was referring to the powder form.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Bricker
Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Yeah, let's not go off the deep end here, folks. I just had this identical conversation with Bonzo, who finished up a Saturday morning session on his teen MB totally panic-stricken (or at least as panic-stricken as a kewl high school freshman will allow himself to be, in front of his mother....

DDG:

I'm just curious - the events subsequent to this post (Daschle's office, the ABC employee's child, etc) seem to suggest that your reassuring conversation with Bonzo may have been reassuring - but not entirely accurate.

What, if anything, have you said to him about the follow-on anthrax events? Obviously, it's still a very remote danger; equally obviously, it's not coincidental, or the work of a lone nutcase.

- Rick

Two people who worked in the DC post office are dead, and two others hospitalized in serious condition, with the most deadly form of anthrax, the inhalation variety.

Postal workers were told to stay at work, not wear protective clothing and not take antibiotics long after officials suspected there might be anthrax in their work environment.

From the MSNBC story (http://www.msnbc.com/news/638169.asp):

We followed the advice of the CDC and other public health officials who advised us that, until there was an evidence chain that indicated that there was anthrax present in the facility, that it was not necessary to test our workers.


And...
Mitchell Cohen of the CDC said that investigators did not understand how victims had inhaled anthrax because the only letter known to have passed through postal facilities in Washington was the one opened by an aide to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, which had been taped shut. "This phenomena ... is an evolution," he said. "How it’s actually occurring isn’t clear, and that’s part" of the investigation.

I'm not in favor of panic. But in light of these developments, I think it would be honest for those posters who pooh-poohed the idea of this being anywhere near serious to take a second look at their comments.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor: I'm curious what, in your view, the threshhold of infected and dead people is before this becomes an effective attack.

Duck Duck Goose: as it's now clear that the anthrax attacks that you suggested might not be true were, in large measure, true... I guess I'm wondering what you have to say.

And so forth.

- Rick


- Rick

[Zenster]

Thanks, Bricker. I'm sort of curious myself. I found the timing and nature of these attacks far too conspicuous to write off as mere coincidence.

[Zenster]

In fact, I'd like to see this thread assume its original purpose.

Assuming we can identify the originator of this bioterrorism, what should our response be?

As I mentioned in another thread, I am a hair's breadth away from advocating nuclear retaliation against any nation that sponsored this vile assault. That said, I still find it difficult to condone such a gruesome form of retribution. Not that the perpetrators are undeserving of such treatment, but that it is a threshhold I am not yet willing to traverse.

Because of a past pattern of conduct, I have extreme difficulty believing that Iraq does not have a hand in this. If this proves to be the case, what should be done?

I advocate a complete takeover of the nation by an international military alliance. However difficult it will be to restabilize the power vacuum this would create, it would neither be prudent nor in the interests of global security to allow the current government to remain in power. In the interests of local peacekeeping, Israel would once again be requested to warm the bench, but all NATO partners would be called upon for this mopping up. Does anyone envision another possible avenue of response?

[Sam Stone]

Here's what I don't understand - when the government said that this variety of Anthrax was not 'weaponized', they meant two things - first, that the strain was natural, and not genetically engineered to be resistant to antibiotics. And second, that it was not 'ground' into spores small enough to make it into the mucous membranes of the lungs. Apparently, regular anthrax has a real hard time getting through those linings even if inhaled, because the spores are too big. So they will stick in the throat, or be coughed out without lodging where they can do damage.

Okay fine. So then maybe the first inhalation case was a fluke. But now I count at least five such cases, including the two dead postal workers. Does this mean that this is in fact highly processed Anthrax? If so, that pretty much puts the responsibility for this onto a state weapons lab, somewhere.

Now here's the interesting part. If Iraq is involved, the administration has a seriously vested interest in keeping that quiet for the time being, for two reasons. First, if Saddam knows that we know he's responsible, he'll know that he's going to be attacked and can start taking precautions (like destroying the anthrax he still has so we can't do a genetic match and prove it), and building up his defenses to make it tougher for us to take military action.

And second, if Iraq's responsibility becomes public knowledge, there will be immense pressure within the U.S. to do something about it, and immense pressure outside of the U.S. to not escalate the military campaign outside of Afghanistan. It could cause the coalition to collapse, which would put a serious crimp in the current military campaign.

So, the $64,000 question is - is the government engaging in a little wartime deception here? In other words, is there a temporary coverup of the nature of this Anthrax going on?

[Zenster]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
So, the $64,000 question is - is the government engaging in a little wartime deception here? In other words, is there a temporary coverup of the nature of this Anthrax going on? [/B]I think the difficulty our understaffed and underequipped demobilized military faces in prosecuting two separate theaters of war may dictate this.

[Zenster]

Originally posted by Bricker
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor: I'm curious what, in your view, the threshhold of infected and dead people is before this becomes an effective attack.

Duck Duck Goose: as it's now clear that the anthrax attacks that you suggested might not be true were, in large measure, true... I guess I'm wondering what you have to say.

And so forth.

- Rick[/B]I'd like to think that this extremely valid question merited answers from the parties mentioned.

[Cervaise]

For what it's worth, here's an update (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011026/us/attacks_letters_2.html) on what the authorities are thinking -- in public, anyway -- about where the attack is coming from.

[Bricker]

We now have a woman dead in New York from anthrax. She was not a postal worker or a media employee. For the moment, public health officials are "baffled" (http://www.msnbc.com/news/638169.asp?pne=msn) at the source of her infection.

Again I'd like to ask Duck Duck Goose and Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor to reply to my questions above.

Without meaning to sound accusatory, both of you made some strong statements and predictions in this thread. If you no longer believe them, it'd be nice if you publicly acknowledged that maybe you made a little error.

- Rick

[Bricker]

Bump. Still waiting.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Once again the smooth manners & panache of you and Zenster have paid off. :rolleyes:

Leaving aside you suave insolence to your betters--i.e. myself; I shall answer you both.

Question: When does a biological warfare attack become effective?

Answer: When it does a whole hell of a lot more than this did.

Biological weapons are weapons of mass destruction--if used properly. The term "weapon of mass destruction" loosly means "kills lots of people".

Bioweapons are intended to be sprayed into crowded areas to kill hundreds or thousands of people. As an Atomic Bomb would kill vast numbers, if it was used. That's why people first made them.

These weapons are being used for individual murder, or at best, assassination. As another poster pointed out, this is like building an Atom Bomb solely for the purpose of beating a man over the head with it until his skull is crushed.

This is not an effective use.

Here is the Rule Of Thumb For Effectiveness--

If a Weapon Of Mass Destruction takes more lives than the ammount of ordinary dynamite that could be purchased for the cost (in dollars $) of making the Weapon Of Mass Destruction takes, then the Weapon is effective.

That is if A=the $ cost of making the Weapon

And B= the $ cost of buying the dynamite


And C= # of lives lost to the Weapon

And D= # of lives lost to dynamite described in B

Therefore

if C>D
And A<B then
then Weapon would be effective.

And don't come snotting off to me about my "Cold Hearted Formula" either! YOU ASKED FOR A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHEN THE STUFF BECOMES EFFECTIVE! WELL, HERE IT IS!!! :mad:

The Anthrax is not effective.

The majority of this substance has not harmed anybody. Most of the letters have been stopped cold. Most people exposed have recieved their antibiotics, and are fine.

While I'm here (and I haven't logged on to this thread for a while, hence the delay in posting), I've got a beef.

Two posters in this thread have clearly given way to panic & an overt display of personal cowardness in the face of this crisis.

I will not name them.

But they should be ashamed.

We have all felt fear since 9/11, but pull yourselves together, dammit! Panic helps nothing.

[Bricker]

Bosda - perhaps you mean "personal cowardice - I'm not sure Webster's has heard of 'cowardness.'"

I will disagree with your formula - although I'll also give you a grudging thumbs-up for providing one.

Efficiency in a weapon is not a matter solely of cost graphed against kill ratio. Snipers are clearly less effective than carpet-bombing, yet military forces employ both large bombers are sharpshooters. Why? Because sometimes the key is delivering the weapon in a more specific manner.

If, for example, you only have a few ounces of anthrax, you can't "effectively" use it on a crowd. It might also be prohbitive to get into a position to do so. But a few envelopes and stamps will get you on to the front pages of newspapers and the lead stories of network news everywhere.

I think, in other words, your formula needs more variables. How many people's workdays are disrupted because the decontamination crew is called in? How many manhours of work are lost because a building is closed? How many people's lives are disrupted as a result of the fear, or of the reality, that they need 'preventative' antibiotics?

Aren't these factors in the enemy's calculations, as much or more important than the number of deaths caused?

- Rick

[Patty O'Furniture]

Question: When does a biological warfare attack become effective?

Answer: When it does a whole hell of a lot more than this did.

Suggesting that because the weapon was not used properly, the bio-terrorist/weapon of mass distruction labels should not be applied?

Just because the weapon's full potential wasn't realized does not mean we should all sigh with relief and proclaim that the attack was ineffective. How many people have to be instilled with the paranoid fear of anthrax infection, and how many millions of dollars have to be spent combing through haystacks looking for spores before we can say that an attack was effective?

[Zenster]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Once again the smooth manners & panache of you and Zenster have paid off. :rolleyes:

Leaving aside you suave insolence to your betters--i.e. myself; I shall answer you both."Your betters"

There's a choice bit of "you suave insolence" if ever I saw any.

Get a fricking clue!

Regardless of the kill ratio you so glowingly speak of, how about the "asymmetric threat ratio"? No, there has not been a big "mass kill" that you might speak of. No, there has not been the "crop duster over Yankee Stadium" you seem to regard as a specific parameter for measurement.

How about the fact that these so-called minor attacks on our populace will now cost us billions of dollars that could have fought crime, fed starving children, furthered education, promoted employment and made the world a better place? How many will have died early because of less spending in that sector because of the reduced funds available? What shall now be cut back, breast cancer research? AIDS reasearch? Why don't you feel free to select where the now diminished funds shall not go!

Do you not think that just maybe, this is a terror attack no matter the cost in human life? Do you not think that just maybe we had better ways of spending billions of dollars instead of pissing them away on whatever group saw fit to level a so-called minor threat against the US with this lethal and calculated assault upon our freedom? Do you not think that our nation's security is precious enough to merit a full scale retaliation against those who would perpetrate such a heinous crime?

GET A CLUE!