# USA Response To Biological Terrorism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2001, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229 "2001-10-13T08:55:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/41 "2001-10-16T09:44:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/42 "2001-10-16T14:29:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![coosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@coosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coosa)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/43 "2001-10-17T05:45:46Z")
**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. 1. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2001, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/44 "2001-10-17T07:41:44Z")
[quote] Kalt: If citizens really hate their government’s actions, they will rise up and make changes. > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2001, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/45 "2001-10-18T06:22:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2001, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/46 "2001-10-22T05:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2001, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/47 "2001-10-23T04:20:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2001, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/48 "2001-10-23T04:57:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2001, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/49 "2001-10-23T05:14:10Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2001, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/50 "2001-10-23T05:21:53Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2001, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/51 "2001-10-23T06:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? \*\* I think the difficulty our understaffed and underequipped demobilized military faces in prosecuting two separate theaters of war may dictate this. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/52 "2001-10-26T21:10:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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\*\* I’d like to think that this extremely valid question merited answers from the parties mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/53 "2001-10-26T22:02:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2001, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/54 "2001-10-31T16:45:33Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/55 "2001-11-01T10:39:38Z")
Bump. Still waiting. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/56 "2001-11-01T13:31:17Z")
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\ **Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/57 "2001-11-01T16:22:42Z") **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 ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/58 "2001-11-01T21:07:46Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2001, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229/59 "2001-11-02T00:01:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-response-to-biological-terrorism/87229.md?page=2)