The Need To Know Newsletter: January 6, 2001, Page One

Dear Friends and Family,

With the 1998 U.S. Embassy terrorists on trial, the USS Cole undergoing extensive repairs after a deadly attack, Saddam Hussein's probable stroke New Year's Eve, Middle East tensions escalating, Timothy McVeigh's decision of no more appeals for his life -- all in this week's news -- and most importantly, the CIA's New Year's report on the future of the world, it is appropriate to release Part 3 of our look at NBC attacks and terrorism.

CIA REPORT ON TERRORISM

Compiled with help from think tanks in America and the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, this new CIA report states, "Between now and 2015 terrorist tactics will become increasingly sophisticated and designed to achieve mass casualties. We expect the trend toward greater lethality in terrorist attacks to continue."¹

It specifically addresses the growing threat of biological and chemical weapons and "suitcase" nuclear devices against the United States.

"Much of the terrorism noted earlier (in the report) will be directed at the United States and its overseas interests. Most anti-US terrorism will be based on perceived ethnic, religious or cultural grievances. Terrorist groups will continue to find ways to attack US military and diplomatic facilities abroad. Such attacks are likely to expand increasingly to include US companies and American citizens. (emphasis ours) Middle East and Southwest Asian-based terrorists are the most likely to threaten the United States.

"Chemical and biological threats to the United States will become more widespread; such capabilities are easier to develop, hide, and deploy than nuclear weapons. Some terrorists or insurgents will attempt to use such weapons against US interests --against the United States itself, its forces or facilities overseas, or its allies. Moreover, the United States would be affected by the use of such weapons anywhere in the world because Washington would be called on to help contain the damage and to provide scientific expertise and economic assistance to deal with the effects. Such weapons could be delivered through a variety of means, including missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, or covertly via land, air, and sea."²

WHEN, NOT IF

To a terrorist not heavily bankrolled, the prospect of using either chemical or biological weapons might be too tempting. Nukes require heavy investment dollars, sophisticated launching equipment and aren't terribly inconspicuous unless speaking of the suitcase variety. Nukes can't be hidden in your hip pocket or body cavities or sent through the mail.

Georgia Senator Sam Nunn stated in March 2000 that the United States has a "remarkable lack of domestic preparedness" to deal with such situations. The senator has warned many times, "An attack of this kind is not a question of 'if' but 'when'." CIA Director John Deutch warned that the threat of chemical and/or biological attack in the U.S. is "the most urgent, long-term pressing intelligence challenge we face. The materials and expertise necessary to build chemical and biological weapons are more readily available today than ever before."³

MAKE MINE "BIO", SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY

If someone were hell-bent on causing the most destruction for the least bucks, they'd choose biologicals. Kathleen C. Bailey, a former assistant director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, has visited several biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms. She is "absolutely convinced" that a major biological arsenal could be built with $10,000 worth of equipment in a 15 x 15 foot (5 x 5 m) room.⁴ That opens it up to far too many groups and individuals.

From the chart on the right we can see that the world is putting much more effort into chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

This general cost breakdown is for weapons producing 50% casualties per square kilometer.

Conventional - $2,000
Nuclear / Radiologicals - $800
Chemicals - $600.00
Biologicals - $1.00⁵

(NOTE: These are 1969 prices so the dollar amounts would need to be adjusted up accordingly.)

Due to the cost factor one would think that biowarfare would be the favored agent, but there are other factors to consider. We will see in Part 5, specifically what countries have which types of weapons.

PROS and CONS FROM A TERRORIST'S POINT OF VIEW

BIOLOGICALS ADVANTAGES

CHEMICALS ADVANTAGES

Dirt cheap
Perpetrators can escape long before there are casualties
Easy to produce in a lab
Easy to procure from the environment, universities, biological supply houses and clinical specimens
Can easily select specific targets
Can be used on people, animals, crops, water
Person-to-person transmission of plague or smallpox could mean an epidemic
They can multiply, and so self-perpetuate
They can naturally mutate, frustrating protective measures
Even the tiniest quantities are lethal, much more potent than comparable amounts of CW

Easy to obtain
Reasonably priced
Easy to purchase on the black market and from willing manufacturing countries
Instant casualties, injuries and death
Easy to disperse
"Tried and true", first used in 1915 by the Germans at Ypres, France
Does not have the stigma of BW
Extremely toxic
Have very rapid effect

BIOLOGICALS DISADVANTAGES

CHEMICALS DISADVANTAGES

Can be hazardous to the user
Dependent on optimal weather conditions for effective dispersal
May be rendered useless due to solar irradiation and other climatic conditions
Skin with no cuts or wounds is an excellent barrier to most bio agents
BW attacks generally allow time for an effective emergency response to save many lives

Not contagious
Become less lethal as they are dispersed and diluted
Much shorter "life expectancy" than BW
Effectiveness dependent on weather, prevailing wind, temperature
The use of chemical weapons can generally be detected by seeing colored residue, dead foliage and dead insect and animal life