Discussion 7
Preparing for and Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Events
a. Introduction
The tendency has been for terrorists to move into new areas of violence when
the current ones are no longer achieving their goals. This focuses on the most heinous
attacks and, arguably, the ones that if successful would cause the most casualties and
damage. The intentional component adds a whole new dynamic to accidental events.
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) differ from ordinary accidental incidents in that
their impact is more far-reaching, the agents are significantly more dangerous than
common materials, they are deployed with the sole purpose of causing harm, and the
psychological terror that will result from their deployment. Terrorists will not fight
according to our rules and notion of fairness. Terrorism is not just about causing
casualties or damage against a specific target; it is about instilling fear in the general
population.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union left tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons, vast quantities of chemical weapons, biological materials, and thousands of
missiles scattered in what became 11 independent states. It should therefore not be
unexpected that terrorists will attempt to obtain these or any other weapon that will
cause the maximum amount of death and destruction. The ultimate weapon that
achieves that goal is a WMD. Weapons of mass destruction differ from other weapons
in that they involve the use of military grade chemical or biological warfare agents,
radiological or nuclear materials, incendiary agents, and explosives. There are several
acronyms that help to classify the types of weapons of mass destruction, including
BNICE (biological, nuclear, incendiary, chemical, and explosive), CBRNE (chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive), and NBC (nuclear, biological, and
chemical). For the purpose of this text, WMD, BNICE, CBRNE, CBR, and NBC
should all be considered synonymous.
An attack involving the use of a WMD will certainly result in a high-profile,
high-impact event. Although the use of a WMD has the potential to cause great harm,
its use as a terrorist tactic remains in its infancy as groups work toward obtaining the
necessary knowledge and materials needed for a successful attack. The selection of an
agent for use as a weapon is more complex than just considering its lethality. Other
factors, such as availability of precursors, availability of production knowledge and
equipment, stability in storage, persistence, delivery to the target area, and
dissemination techniques must also be considered and addressed in order to achieve
success.
“I would say that from the perspective of terrorism, the overwhelming bulk of
the evidence we have is that their efforts are focused on biological and chemical
weapons,” said US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Disarmament, John
Bolton. “Not to say there aren’t any dealings with radiological materials, but the
technology for biological and chemical is comparatively so much easier that that’s
where their efforts are concentrating. The thing to keep in mind is that while it is
extremely difficult, we have highly motivated and intelligent people who would like
to do it,” said Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Terrorists would have to overcome significant technical and
operational challenges to successfully manufacture and disseminate chemical or
biological agents of sufficient quality and quantity to kill or injure large numbers of
people.
The impact of weapons on casualties is indeed a critical consideration in
assessing the potential threat posed by various actors or scenarios. While it's true that
sophisticated military-grade weapons have the potential to inflict mass casualties on a
large scale, it's important to recognize that even less sophisticated or improvised
weapons can have devastating consequences, particularly in densely populated or
vulnerable areas.
When discussing the potential impact of weapons, it's essential to consider not
only the lethality of the weapon itself but also factors such as the intended target, the
surrounding environment, and the response capabilities of local authorities. In some
cases, an unsophisticated weapon wielded with malicious intent in a crowded urban
setting can result in significant casualties due to the sheer number of people present
and the challenges inherent in evacuating and providing medical assistance to those
affected.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of a weapon in causing casualties is not solely
determined by its technological sophistication but also by factors such as the expertise
and intent of the attacker, the availability of resources and support networks, and the
level of preparedness and resilience of the targeted community. In instances of
terrorist attacks or acts of violence, perpetrators may deliberately choose less
sophisticated weapons or tactics to evade detection or circumvent security measures,
making it difficult to predict or prevent such incidents through traditional means.
Moreover, the impact of weapons on casualties extends beyond the immediate
physical harm inflicted on individuals to encompass broader societal and
psychological effects. The fear and trauma resulting from a violent attack can have
far-reaching consequences, affecting the mental health and well-being of survivors
and communities long after the event has occurred. Therefore, it's essential to consider
the holistic impact of weapons on casualties, including both the immediate and long-
term consequences for individuals and society as a whole.
In light of these considerations, effective risk management and preparedness
planning must encompass a comprehensive understanding of the diverse range of
threats and hazards facing communities, including both traditional military threats and
emerging asymmetrical threats. By adopting a multi-dimensional approach to threat
assessment and mitigation, stakeholders can better anticipate and respond to potential
risks, thereby enhancing the resilience and security of the nation against a wide range
of threats, regardless of their technological sophistication.
There is no need for terrorists to take risks by trying to obtain the raw
materials and production equipment, and train or recruit technical experts necessary to
manufacture weapons. With terrorist groups such as the Islamic State (IS) being flush
with money, the terrorists can simply purchase WMDs on the open market.
b. Why Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
The use of a WMD follows the escalatory pattern of violence. For more
effective results, an adversary would need to be very creative in the design and use of
a WMD, and new tactics to ensure the successful delivery of the weapon might have
to be developed.
Small quantities of explosives, chemical, or biological agents can readily be
manufactured from commonly available commercial products, with just a basic
knowledge of high school or college chemistry or biology. Recipes for explosive,
chemical, and biological weapons are readily available on the Internet or in publicly
available books. Sophisticated processing equipment is not usually required for some
basic weapons. Materials that could be used as a WMD are readily available.
Commercial or industrial chemicals could be purchased, stolen, or diverted
from industrial facilities, warehouses, or educational laboratories for use as a
chemical or explosive weapon. Radiological materials are readily available in many
settings, including educational, construction, industrial, and health care. Biological
material used to make a weapon can be found in hospital laboratories, university
research facilities, garden centers, and even food stores.
A WMD is inexpensive to produce. One report quotes testimony before a
United Nations panel that “for a large scale operation against a civilian population,
manufacturing enough agent to cause causalities might cost about $600 per square
kilometer with nerve gas and $1 per square kilometer with biological weapons” [1].
Small quantities of chemical, biological, or radiological agents can have a tremendous
effect. Weapons of mass destruction are highly toxic and can spread over large areas
in dangerous concentrations very quickly, especially in an enclosed area. A WMD can
be purchased, with no other investment of resources or risk of being discovered or
apprehended by manufacturing WMDs. The use of a WMD would lead to a
significant amount of worldwide media exposure.
The use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) represents a chilling
escalation in the realm of conflict, with consequences that reverberate far beyond the
immediate physical impact. WMDs encompass a range of highly destructive weapons,
including nuclear, chemical, and biological agents, capable of inflicting mass
casualties, causing widespread environmental devastation, instigating mass hysteria,
and precipitating significant economic loss.
The potential consequences of a WMD attack are profound and multifaceted,
encompassing both immediate and long-term effects on individuals, communities, and
societies as a whole. In terms of casualties, the sheer destructive power of WMDs
means that even a single attack has the potential to result in catastrophic loss of life,
with casualties numbering in the thousands or even tens of thousands. Moreover, the
indiscriminate nature of WMDs means that they pose a threat to both military targets
and civilian populations, amplifying the humanitarian toll of such attacks.
Beyond the immediate human cost, the environmental damage wrought by a
WMD attack can be extensive and enduring. In the case of nuclear weapons, the
detonation of a single warhead can unleash a cascade of destructive effects, including
blast damage, thermal radiation, and radioactive fallout, with far-reaching
implications for ecosystems, infrastructure, and public health. Similarly, chemical and
biological weapons have the potential to contaminate soil, water, and air, rendering
affected areas uninhabitable and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.
The psychological impact of a WMD attack cannot be overstated, with the
potential to instigate mass hysteria, panic, and social unrest. The use of such weapons
engenders a sense of vulnerability and fear among the population, eroding trust in
institutions and undermining social cohesion. Moreover, the specter of WMD
proliferation and the threat of future attacks can perpetuate a climate of uncertainty
and anxiety, further exacerbating the psychological trauma inflicted by the initial
incident.
In addition to the human and environmental toll, the economic consequences
of a WMD attack can be staggering. The disruption of critical infrastructure, the loss
of life and productivity, and the long-term costs of cleanup and recovery efforts can
exact a heavy toll on national economies, leading to widespread unemployment,
business closures, and financial instability. Moreover, the ripple effects of a WMD
attack can extend beyond national borders, impacting global markets, trade routes,
and supply chains.
In light of these sobering realities, the prevention of WMD proliferation and
the mitigation of WMD threats are paramount priorities for the international
community. Efforts to strengthen non-proliferation regimes, enhance international
cooperation and intelligence-sharing, and bolster preparedness and response
capabilities are essential components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of
WMD use and safeguard global security and stability. By addressing the root causes
of WMD proliferation and investing in proactive risk mitigation measures, the
international community can work together to mitigate the threat posed by these
weapons and build a safer, more secure world for future generations.
Some weapons of mass destruction cannot be detected with existing methods
used for explosives and firearms. Current protocol for searching for these weapons
includes the use of metal detectors, scanners, and x-ray machines. A WMD can be
transported in glass or plastic containers configured to look like everyday items such
as hygiene or food products, and still others can be carried separately and mixed
together later on to make a weapon. Some agents can be used covertly, with little
indication of agent deployment for hours or even days. The first indication of a
chemical attack may be when people start to collapse. The first indication of a
biological attack may be when people become symptomatic hours or even days after
exposure to an infectious dose. There may not be an obvious indication of a low-level
radiological attack until many years later when those exposed start to develop diseases
associated with radiation exposure.
Favorable environmental conditions can rapidly spread dangerous
concentrations over great distances very quickly. Biological agents can be spread
unknowingly by human carriers as they travel across the country or even the world.
With today’s transportation systems, the globe can be circumnavigated in less than 48
hours. A biological agent can be easily transported across the world in a very short
time, exposing millions of people. There is an average of 103,000 airplane flights per
day and there are over 5000 airplanes in flight over the United States at any given
time. If a biological agent is dispersed at several airports across the world, it could
potentially spread globally within hours. A good defense to protect the masses against
the use of weapons of mass destruction is difficult.
The successful deployment of a high-quality weapon by an adversary
represents a grave threat with far-reaching consequences, particularly in terms of the
potential for mass casualties and the psychological impact on the target population.
Whether it's a conventional weapon of significant destructive power or a Weapon of
Mass Destruction (WMD) capable of causing widespread devastation, the
consequences of such an attack are profound and multifaceted.
In the case of a conventional weapon, the sheer destructive force unleashed by
a high-quality weapon can result in a staggering number of casualties, with
devastating effects on both human life and infrastructure. The precision and potency
of modern weaponry mean that even a single strike can inflict catastrophic damage,
causing loss of life, injuries, and extensive property destruction. Moreover, the
psychological impact of such an attack cannot be overstated, with survivors and
witnesses grappling with trauma, grief, and a profound sense of vulnerability.
However, the use of a WMD represents an even more ominous escalation,
with implications that extend far beyond the immediate physical impact. The
deployment of a WMD, whether it's a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon, instills
fear and confusion in the target population, with the potential to induce mass hysteria
and panic. The indiscriminate nature of WMDs means that they pose a threat to
civilians and military personnel alike, amplifying the sense of vulnerability and
insecurity among the population.
Moreover, the psychological trauma inflicted by the use of a WMD can have
enduring effects, reverberating through communities and societies long after the initial
attack. The fear of future attacks, the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the
damage, and the specter of long-term health consequences can erode trust in
institutions, undermine social cohesion, and breed mistrust and suspicion among
neighbors. In some cases, the psychological scars of a WMD attack may never fully
heal, leaving lasting emotional and psychological scars on survivors and their
families.
In addition to the immediate human toll, the use of a WMD can have profound
geopolitical ramifications, triggering international condemnation, diplomatic crises,
and military responses. The threat of WMD proliferation and the specter of state-
sponsored terrorism further exacerbate global insecurity and instability, fueling
tensions and exacerbating regional conflicts. Moreover, the potential for WMDs to
fall into the hands of non-state actors or rogue states poses a grave threat to global
security, necessitating concerted efforts to strengthen non-proliferation regimes and
enhance international cooperation.
In conclusion, the successful deployment of a high-quality weapon, whether
conventional or WMD, represents a grave threat to human life, infrastructure, and
global security. The psychological impact of such an attack, particularly in the case of
a WMD, can be profound and enduring, leaving lasting scars on individuals,
communities, and societies as a whole. Efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMDs,
strengthen preparedness and response capabilities, and promote international
cooperation are essential components of a comprehensive strategy to mitigate the
threat posed by these weapons and build a safer, more secure world for future
generations.
c. Limitations of the Use of Weapon of Mass Destruction Materials
Chemical weapons must be used in large quantities, especially when
disseminated outside buildings or in large areas. Delayed effects can detract from the
desired impact. In order to make their political statement, adversaries must realize the
results of their attack quickly. The possible uncertainty as to the cause of the attack,
and the delay in seeing any measurable effect, will certainly detract from the potency
of a political statement. The use of a WMD may be counterproductive to the
adversary’s cause. To a certain degree, there is a balance between the magnitude of
the adversary’s attack and the support or attention that it generates.
The utilization of weapons that are widely condemned by the general public
due to their perceived moral reprehensibility can have profound consequences not
only in terms of military strategy but also in terms of shaping public opinion and
influencing broader social dynamics. Whether it's the use of chemical weapons,
indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, or other tactics deemed unethical or
inhumane, such actions can engender widespread outrage and condemnation,
potentially isolating the adversary's organization from its potential support base and
undermining its legitimacy on the global stage.
One of the key reasons why weapons abhorred by the general public can be so
detrimental to an adversary's organization is their impact on perceptions of moral
authority and legitimacy. In today's interconnected world, where information spreads
rapidly through social media and other channels, the use of morally reprehensible
weapons can quickly tarnish the reputation of the perpetrator, eroding public trust and
support both domestically and internationally. This erosion of legitimacy can have far-
reaching consequences, weakening the adversary's ability to rally support for its cause
and undermining its credibility in the eyes of the international community.
Moreover, the use of weapons considered morally reprehensible can galvanize
opposition and mobilize public opinion against the adversary's organization, both
domestically and internationally. Images of civilian casualties, widespread suffering,
and environmental devastation resulting from the use of such weapons can evoke
widespread outrage and condemnation, fueling calls for accountability, justice, and
humanitarian intervention. This can create diplomatic, political, and strategic
challenges for the adversary, isolating it further and limiting its ability to maneuver
effectively on the global stage.
Furthermore, the use of morally reprehensible weapons can have profound
psychological and social impacts on the populations affected by such actions. The
deliberate targeting of civilians, the use of chemical agents banned by international
law, or the destruction of cultural heritage sites can inflict deep emotional scars and
collective trauma, fueling resentment, anger, and a desire for retribution. This can
create fertile ground for recruitment by extremist groups, radicalization, and the
perpetuation of cycles of violence, further destabilizing the region and undermining
efforts to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation.
In addition to the immediate humanitarian and strategic implications, the use
of weapons abhorred by the general public can also have long-term repercussions for
the adversary's organization in terms of its standing in the international community
and its ability to engage in diplomatic negotiations and peace processes. The
stigmatization and condemnation resulting from the use of such weapons can make it
difficult for the adversary to gain a seat at the table or to be taken seriously as a
legitimate actor in conflict resolution efforts, further isolating it and prolonging the
cycle of violence and instability.
In conclusion, the use of weapons considered morally reprehensible can have
profound and far-reaching consequences for an adversary's organization, affecting its
legitimacy, credibility, and ability to garner support both domestically and
internationally. By undermining public trust, galvanizing opposition, and fueling
resentment and anger, such actions can isolate the adversary and limit its ability to
achieve its strategic objectives, ultimately undermining its viability and prospects for
long-term success. As such, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of weapons
in armed conflict are not only a matter of humanitarian concern but also a strategic
imperative with significant implications for global security and stability.
The proper storage, packaging, and dissemination of a WMD are difficult to
achieve. Some agents cannot be stored for long periods of time, because they begin to
lose their effectiveness in a matter of hours or days. Getting the agent into the proper
package for storage and delivery to the target location, without degradation of the
agent or discovery by law enforcement, is difficult. Effective delivery of the agent
against a target can also be problematic.
When deploying agents, whether for military purposes, pest control, or other
applications, ensuring maximum effectiveness while minimizing unintended
consequences requires a comprehensive approach that considers a myriad of factors.
These factors span a wide range of considerations, from the characteristics of the
agent itself to environmental conditions, target population demographics, and
logistical considerations.
One crucial factor to consider is the potency and dispersal properties of the
agent being deployed. The concentration of the agent must be carefully calibrated to
achieve the desired effect without causing undue harm to non-target organisms or the
environment. Factors such as wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, and
terrain can all influence the dispersion and behavior of the agent, necessitating careful
monitoring and adjustment to ensure optimal results.
Furthermore, the target population's susceptibility and vulnerability to the
agent must be taken into account. Factors such as age, health status, pre-existing
medical conditions, and access to medical care can all influence individuals' response
to exposure to chemical, biological, or other agents. Special consideration must be
given to vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and individuals with
compromised immune systems, to minimize the risk of harm and ensure equitable
protection.
In addition to the characteristics of the agent and the target population,
logistical considerations play a critical role in the deployment process. This includes
factors such as the availability of resources, the proximity of support facilities,
transportation logistics, and communication infrastructure. Effective coordination and
communication among stakeholders, including government agencies, emergency
responders, healthcare providers, and community organizations, are essential to
ensure a timely and coordinated response to any unforeseen challenges or
emergencies that may arise during the deployment process.
Moreover, ethical considerations must be carefully weighed when deploying
agents with the potential to cause harm to human health or the environment. This
includes ensuring transparency, accountability, and informed consent, as well as
adherence to international laws, treaties, and guidelines governing the use of such
agents. Safeguards must be in place to prevent misuse or abuse of the agents, as well
as mechanisms for monitoring and oversight to detect and address any adverse effects
or unintended consequences.
Overall, ensuring the proper concentration and deployment of agents to affect
the maximum number of people requires a holistic and multidisciplinary approach
that considers a wide range of factors, from the characteristics of the agent and the
target population to logistical, ethical, and environmental considerations. By taking a
comprehensive approach to deployment planning and execution, stakeholders can
maximize effectiveness while minimizing risks and ensuring the protection of human
health and the environment.
d. Results of a Weapon of Mass Destruction Attack
Overwhelmed Emergency Responders. A WMD attack will require immediate
intervention to save lives. Intervention and mitigation by emergency responders may
not be successful as they may lack proper detection equipment, training, and personal
protective equipment to operate in environments contaminated with super toxic
biological, chemical, or radiological materials. A successful attack that caused
hundreds or even thousands of casualties would quickly deplete the resources and
ability of a typically staffed community to respond effectively.
Mass Casualties. A WMD attack will result in mass casualties and lead to
psychological effects on both the injured and uninjured populations. Health-care
facilities may be quickly overwhelmed with victims and those who think they have
been exposed to biological, radiological, or chemical agents. Hospital emergency
room personnel unfamiliar with decontamination procedures and management of
contaminated victims may become victims themselves from contacting residual agent
on the clothing and skin of exposed victims. Need for Mass Decontamination. A
WMD attack involving a chemical, biological, or radiological agent will require that
all exposed victims be thoroughly decontaminated to limit the spread of the agent and
to protect those who were not exposed in the initial attack. A successful attack may
require the decontamination of thousands of people.
Chaos and Mass Hysteria. People remote from the attack, and not directly
impacted by the agent, may still want to be decontaminated and receive a medical
evaluation because of the fear instilled in them from their perceived exposure and the
danger it presents. Others will change their daily routine as a result of the attack.
Panic will likely ensue once the media reports the attack. Lack of Scene Security and
Safety. It will be very difficult for first responders to maintain scene safety and
security at a WMD incident. Emergency responders will likely be unable to
immediately secure the area where an agent was deployed in order to limit the spread
of contamination.
The instinct to rush to the scene and provide assistance in times of crisis is a
testament to the compassion and empathy of well-intentioned individuals. However,
in the case of incidents involving the release of hazardous agents or contaminants,
such actions can inadvertently exacerbate the situation, leading to additional victims
and the spread of contamination. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted
approach that combines education, preparedness planning, and coordinated response
efforts to ensure the safety of both responders and the affected population.
One of the primary challenges associated with well-intentioned individuals
rushing to the scene is the potential for exposure to hazardous materials or
contaminants. Without proper training and protective equipment, individuals who
enter contaminated areas may unknowingly put themselves at risk of exposure to toxic
substances, leading to adverse health effects or even fatalities. Moreover, the presence
of additional individuals in the area can complicate response efforts and hinder the
ability of emergency responders to effectively mitigate the situation.
To address this challenge, it is essential to prioritize public education and
awareness campaigns that emphasize the importance of safety and the potential risks
associated with rushing into hazardous environments. By educating the public about
the dangers of exposure to hazardous materials and contaminants, as well as the
importance of following official guidance and instructions from emergency
responders, individuals can make more informed decisions about how best to assist
without putting themselves or others at risk.
In addition to education and awareness efforts, preparedness planning plays a
crucial role in mitigating the risks associated with individuals rushing to the scene of a
hazardous incident. This includes developing and implementing robust emergency
response plans that outline clear roles and responsibilities for responders and
volunteers, as well as providing training and resources to support their efforts. By
ensuring that responders are adequately prepared and equipped to handle hazardous
incidents, organizations and communities can minimize the potential for additional
victims and the spread of contamination.
Furthermore, effective coordination and communication among all
stakeholders involved in the response effort are essential to managing the influx of
well-intentioned individuals and preventing further escalation of the situation. This
includes establishing clear lines of communication between emergency responders,
public health officials, volunteer organizations, and the general public, as well as
providing timely updates and guidance to ensure that everyone is informed and
empowered to take appropriate actions.
In summary, while the impulse to rush to the scene and provide assistance in
times of crisis is admirable, it is essential to recognize the potential risks and
challenges associated with such actions, particularly in incidents involving hazardous
materials or contaminants. By prioritizing public education, preparedness planning,
and coordinated response efforts, communities can mitigate the risks of additional
victims and contamination spread while ensuring the safety and well-being of all
involved.
e. Effectiveness of a Chemical, Biological, or Radiological Attack
The quality of the agent depends on the knowledge of the person creating the
agent, as well as the technical resources and equipment that were available to make
the agent in the case of a biological agent. The viability of the agent is crucial. As a
general rule, as the particle size increases, the viability of cells in the aerosol
increases. However, if the particle cell becomes too large, it will not be inhaled and
will not cause an infection. Weaponization involves modifying the agent to make it
more deadly. The delivery system includes storing and transporting the agent, as well
as disseminating it against the target.
Explosives, often associated with their destructive capabilities in causing
physical damage and injury, indeed possess characteristics that can impact chemical
and biological agents in unexpected ways. While explosives are commonly linked to
scenarios involving chemical and biological dissemination devices, it's important to
recognize that the heat and shock waves generated by an explosion can have varying
effects on these agents, depending on factors such as proximity, quantity, and
environmental conditions.
In the case of chemical agents, the intense heat produced by an explosion can
cause rapid evaporation or combustion, effectively neutralizing or incinerating the
agent before it has a chance to disperse and cause harm. Similarly, the shock wave
generated by the explosion can disrupt the molecular structure of chemical agents,
rendering them less potent or inert. However, it's important to note that the
effectiveness of an explosion in neutralizing chemical agents depends on factors such
as the type and concentration of the agent, as well as the distance from the epicenter
of the explosion.
For biological agents, the impact of an explosion can be more complex. While
the heat and shock wave generated by the explosion can indeed kill or incapacitate
biological agents, certain resilient pathogens may survive or be dispersed in
aerosolized form, posing a continued threat to human health. Additionally, the
dispersal of biological agents in aerosolized form can create new challenges for
responders and public health officials, as the affected area may require
decontamination and containment measures to prevent further spread of the agent.
Furthermore, the interaction between explosives and chemical or biological
agents can produce secondary effects that may compound the overall impact of an
incident. For example, the detonation of explosives in an area contaminated with
chemical agents can create hazardous byproducts or secondary contamination,
complicating response efforts and posing additional risks to responders and the public.
Similarly, the release of biological agents in the aftermath of an explosion can create
new vectors for transmission and spread, further exacerbating the public health threat.
In light of these complexities, it is essential for emergency responders and
public health officials to consider the potential interactions between explosives and
chemical or biological agents when planning and conducting response operations.
This includes conducting risk assessments, implementing appropriate protective
measures, and coordinating with relevant stakeholders to ensure an effective and
coordinated response to incidents involving explosive devices and hazardous
materials. By taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to emergency
preparedness and response, communities can mitigate the risks posed by explosives
and chemical or biological agents, safeguarding public health and safety in the face of
complex and evolving threats.
Spray equipment nozzles must be designed appropriately so the droplet or
particle is of the proper size to remain suspended in the air. Meteorological conditions
at the time of attack will determine the success of the attack. Meteorological
conditions can adversely impact the effective dispersal of even a high-quality agent.
Parameters such as temperature, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, humidity, air
stability, and sunlight (e.g., ultraviolet radiation) must be considered before
disseminating an agent. Finally, conditions at the target area will also determine the
effectiveness of the attack, such as the implementation defensive security
countermeasures. If the targeted population has donned personal protective
equipment, the agent would be ineffective.
Indeed, when assessing the potential impact of chemical or biological agents,
the terrain plays a crucial role and must be carefully considered. The diverse
characteristics of terrain, including vegetation, physical contours, and topography, can
significantly influence the behavior and dispersion of agents, ultimately affecting the
level of exposure and risk to personnel and the surrounding environment.
Vegetation, for instance, can serve as a barrier or absorbent for chemical or
biological agents, depending on factors such as the type of vegetation, density, and
moisture content. Dense foliage may provide some degree of protection by absorbing
or filtering out airborne agents, reducing the concentration and spread of contaminants
in the immediate vicinity. However, certain types of vegetation may also serve as
reservoirs or carriers for biological agents, facilitating their dispersal and transmission
to humans or animals.
Similarly, the physical contours and topography of the terrain can impact the
movement and behavior of chemical or biological agents. Low-lying areas, such as
valleys, depressions, or drainage basins, may serve as collection points for agents,
allowing them to accumulate and persist in high concentrations. Conversely, elevated
areas or slopes may facilitate the dispersal and dilution of agents, reducing the overall
impact on personnel and the surrounding environment.
Moreover, factors such as soil composition, permeability, and moisture levels
can further influence the behavior of chemical or biological agents in the terrain.
Porous or sandy soils may absorb and retain agents, preventing their migration or
leaching into groundwater sources. Conversely, compacted or clay-rich soils may
impede the movement of agents, allowing them to pool or concentrate in specific
areas, posing a greater risk to personnel and wildlife.
In addition to natural terrain features, human-made structures and
infrastructure can also impact the dispersion and behavior of chemical or biological
agents. Buildings, roads, and other urban infrastructure may create barriers or
channels for the movement of agents, influencing their distribution and concentration
in the environment. Similarly, industrial facilities or agricultural areas may present
unique challenges and vulnerabilities in terms of agent containment and control,
requiring tailored response strategies and mitigation measures.
Overall, the terrain plays a critical role in shaping the behavior and impact of
chemical or biological agents in the environment. Effective risk assessment and
response planning must take into account the diverse characteristics of terrain,
including vegetation, physical contours, and human-made structures, to accurately
evaluate the level of exposure and risk to personnel and the surrounding community.
By considering the interplay between terrain features and agent behavior, responders
and decision-makers can develop targeted strategies to mitigate the effects of
chemical or biological incidents and protect public health and safety.
f. Obtaining a Weapon of Mass Destruction
One of the easiest ways for an adversary to ultimately obtain a WMD is to
purchase ordinary commercially available consumer products or industrial grade
products and manufacture the weapon themselves. Online marketplaces can be used to
acquire the necessary equipment, technology, chemicals, and even pathogens,
oftentimes bypassing controls and remaining anonymous. Some of these e-markets,
such as eBay and Alibaba, sell direct to the customer, oftentimes selling materials and
equipment at relatively low prices and shipping all over the world, often without
asking any questions.
The potential for seemingly harmless consumer products to be repurposed as
deadly weapons highlights the ingenuity and resourcefulness of individuals who seek
to cause harm or perpetrate acts of violence. From everyday household items to
commonly available materials, the accessibility and versatility of consumer products
make them attractive tools for those with malicious intent. Understanding this threat
requires a comprehensive examination of the various ways in which consumer
products can be weaponized, as well as strategies for detecting and mitigating
potential threats.
One of the most concerning aspects of consumer product weaponization is the
ease with which ordinary items can be transformed into lethal instruments. Items as
innocuous as kitchen utensils, household chemicals, or automotive components can be
repurposed or combined in creative ways to create improvised explosive devices
(IEDs), chemical weapons, or other deadly contraptions. The ubiquity of these
consumer products makes it challenging to detect and prevent their illicit use, as
individuals can easily acquire them without arousing suspicion.
Furthermore, the internet has facilitated the dissemination of knowledge and
instructions for weaponizing consumer products, providing would-be attackers with
access to a wealth of information and resources. Online forums, social media
platforms, and dark web marketplaces serve as virtual marketplaces for sharing ideas,
techniques, and blueprints for constructing improvised weapons and devices. This
democratization of knowledge has lowered the barriers to entry for aspiring attackers,
enabling them to acquire the skills and materials needed to carry out their nefarious
plans.
In addition to traditional weapons such as firearms and explosives, consumer
products can also be leveraged in unconventional ways to cause harm or disrupt
public safety. For example, vehicles have been used as ramming devices in terrorist
attacks, while drones have been repurposed to carry out surveillance or deliver
payloads of harmful substances. The adaptability and versatility of consumer products
present a formidable challenge for law enforcement and security agencies tasked with
detecting and mitigating emerging threats.
Addressing the threat of consumer product weaponization requires a multi-
faceted approach that combines proactive intelligence gathering, targeted law
enforcement efforts, and public awareness campaigns. Law enforcement agencies
must remain vigilant in monitoring online forums and social media platforms for signs
of suspicious activity or discussions related to weaponization. Additionally,
authorities should work closely with manufacturers, retailers, and industry
associations to implement safeguards and security measures to prevent the misuse of
consumer products.
Public awareness campaigns can also play a critical role in educating
individuals about the potential risks associated with consumer product weaponization
and empowering them to recognize and report suspicious behavior. By promoting
vigilance and encouraging community engagement, authorities can enlist the support
of the public in identifying and thwarting potential threats before they materialize.
In conclusion, the weaponization of seemingly harmless consumer products
poses a significant and evolving threat to public safety and security. Addressing this
threat requires a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach that involves law
enforcement agencies, government authorities, industry stakeholders, and the public.
By remaining vigilant, proactive, and engaged, we can work together to mitigate the
risks posed by consumer product weaponization and safeguard our communities from
harm.
Ahmad Khan Rahami is charged with perpetrating three bombings between
September 18 and September 20, 2016. The first bomb exploded in Seaside Park,
New Jersey, targeting a charity 5K race; the second bomb exploded in the Manhattan
neighborhood of Chelsea and injured 31 people, and the third explosion occurred in
Elizabeth, New Jersey, where a law enforcement robot accidentally detonated one of
the five explosives left in a backpack by the city’s train station. Federal officials say
Rahami bought bomb ingredients on eBay. According to court documents, between
June 20, 2016, and August 10, 2016, eBay user “ahmad rahimi” purchased several
items the FBI investigator described as being used in improvised explosives including
a citric acid USP/Food Grade 5 lb. pack. Citric acid is a precursor chemical
commonly used in improvised explosives. Citric acid can be used to make the
explosive HMTD, which was found inside a second pressure cooker bomb in Chelsea
that failed to detonate. He also purchased “10 PCS Prototyping PCB Printed Circuit
Board Prototype Breadboard,” fireworks firing system electric ignitors, 200
“hardened lead milling balls,” and two packages of .50 caliber “sling shot
ammunition.” All of these items were shipped to a business where he worked.
Investigators said that Rahami packed the pressure cookers with BBs, ball bearings,
Christmas lights, and the explosive Tannerite.
The utilization of two mobile phones, procured from the very business where
the perpetrator was employed, as remote triggers for detonating the explosives
exemplifies the adaptability and opportunism of individuals seeking to carry out acts
of violence. This method of weaponization highlights the convergence of everyday
technology and malicious intent, as well as the challenges posed by insider threats and
the exploitation of trusted resources for nefarious purposes.
The choice to repurpose mobile phones as remote detonators underscores the
ubiquity and functionality of these devices in modern society. With their widespread
availability, advanced capabilities, and connectivity features, mobile phones offer an
ideal platform for remote control and communication, making them attractive tools
for individuals seeking to carry out coordinated attacks or acts of terrorism. By
leveraging off-the-shelf technology in this manner, attackers can exploit
vulnerabilities in existing infrastructure and bypass traditional security measures,
posing unique challenges for law enforcement and security agencies tasked with
detecting and mitigating emerging threats.
Moreover, the use of mobile phones obtained from the perpetrator's workplace
adds another layer of complexity to the investigation, raising questions about insider
threats, access controls, and organizational security practices. The fact that the
perpetrator was able to acquire the devices from his place of employment underscores
the need for robust security protocols and employee screening procedures to prevent
unauthorized access to sensitive resources and materials. Additionally, it highlights
the importance of fostering a culture of vigilance and accountability within
organizations, where employees are encouraged to report suspicious behavior and
adhere to established security policies and procedures.
In response to incidents such as these, law enforcement agencies and security
professionals must adopt a multi-faceted approach that addresses both the
technological and human factors involved in weaponization. This includes
implementing measures to detect and disrupt the illicit acquisition and use of mobile
phones and other technology for nefarious purposes, as well as enhancing employee
awareness and training to recognize and report potential insider threats. By fostering
collaboration between public and private sector stakeholders, sharing threat
intelligence, and deploying advanced monitoring and detection technologies,
authorities can mitigate the risks posed by insider threats and enhance the overall
security posture of organizations and communities.
Furthermore, public awareness campaigns and outreach efforts can play a
crucial role in educating individuals about the potential risks associated with mobile
phone misuse and encouraging responsible use of technology. By promoting digital
literacy, cybersecurity best practices, and ethical behavior online, authorities can
empower individuals to recognize and mitigate the risks posed by malicious actors
seeking to exploit technology for criminal or terrorist purposes.
In conclusion, the use of mobile phones as remote detonators in acts of
violence underscores the evolving nature of security threats in the digital age.
Addressing these threats requires a comprehensive and proactive approach that
encompasses technological solutions, organizational safeguards, and public awareness
initiatives. By working together to identify and address vulnerabilities in our digital
infrastructure and promote a culture of security and vigilance, we can enhance our
resilience to emerging threats and safeguard our communities from harm.
The bomb that detonated in Chelsea was large. The blast radius was 650 feet,
and the explosion shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away and three stories
high. It launched a heavy steel dumpster more than 120 feet through the air. Rahami
was motivated by Osama bin Laden and extremist Islamic ideology. In his journal,
Rahami wrote of “killing the kuffar,” or unbelievers, and praised terrorists including
al-Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen on September
30, 2011.
g. Questions about Weapons of Mass Destruction
Weapons of mass destruction include the most deadly weapons ever developed
by humankind. These weapons were designed for the single purpose of killing and
have been engineered and manufactured to accomplish that objective very effectively
and efficiently.
Biological agents are the most effective at creating the most casualties. A
nuclear weapon would certainly be catastrophic, but it is widely believed to be beyond
the capability of most terrorist groups. Chemical weapons are the easiest and cheapest
to produce, but massive quantities would be required to impact many people. Also,
chemical agents generally produce instantaneous effects, as opposed to biological and
nuclear/radiological weapons. Explosive devices have been used widely across the
globe to cause localized casualties. Explosives are effective against an individual
target or small groups. A radiological dispersion device would likely cause few
immediate casualties but would cause long-term illnesses and extensive
psychological, economic, and environmental damage.
While incendiary devices certainly have the potential to cause injuries, their
primary purpose often lies in inflicting property or economic damage. These devices
are specifically designed to ignite fires and create widespread destruction, targeting
buildings, vehicles, infrastructure, and other valuable assets. By harnessing the
destructive power of fire, perpetrators can achieve their objectives of disruption,
chaos, and financial loss with relative ease.
One of the key advantages of incendiary devices from the perspective of those
seeking to cause harm is their simplicity and accessibility. Unlike more sophisticated
explosives or chemical agents, incendiary devices can be constructed from common
materials readily available in hardware stores or online, making them attractive tools
for individuals or groups with limited resources or technical expertise. This
accessibility lowers the barriers to entry for would-be attackers, enabling them to
carry out acts of arson and vandalism with minimal planning or preparation.
Furthermore, the destructive potential of incendiary devices extends far
beyond the immediate physical damage they inflict. In addition to the destruction of
property, fires caused by incendiary devices can disrupt critical infrastructure,
interrupting essential services such as transportation, communications, and utilities.
The economic consequences of such disruptions can be significant, resulting in lost
revenue, increased insurance premiums, and decreased property values for affected
businesses and communities.
Moreover, the psychological impact of arson and vandalism cannot be
overstated. The deliberate destruction of property through incendiary devices can
instill fear, uncertainty, and a sense of vulnerability in the affected population, eroding
trust in public safety and security. Communities may experience heightened anxiety
and stress as they grapple with the aftermath of the attack, further exacerbating the
social and economic impact of the incident.
In addition to the immediate effects of the fire itself, incendiary devices can
also pose significant risks to first responders and emergency personnel tasked with
extinguishing the flames and mitigating the damage. Firefighters may face hazardous
conditions, including intense heat, smoke inhalation, and structural collapse, as they
work to contain the blaze and rescue any trapped individuals. Moreover, the presence
of incendiary devices may indicate the presence of additional threats or secondary
devices, further complicating response efforts and increasing the potential for injury
or loss of life.
In light of these considerations, the use of incendiary devices poses a serious
and multifaceted threat to public safety, security, and economic stability. Addressing
this threat requires a comprehensive approach that encompasses prevention, detection,
response, and mitigation strategies. By enhancing public awareness, strengthening law
enforcement capabilities, and fostering collaboration between government agencies,
private sector stakeholders, and the community, authorities can mitigate the risks
posed by incendiary devices and enhance the resilience of society against acts of
arson and vandalism.
Unfortunately, it is very easy to obtain the relevant information, acquire the
necessary materials, find personnel with sufficient expertise, and prepare the agent for
a WMD. Most formulations for chemical agents have been declassified by the military
and are readily accessible in textbooks and on the Internet. Recipes for the
manufacture of biological, radiological, incendiary, and explosive devices are also
readily available on the Internet and other open sources.
A WMD does not have to be of military grade to be effective. An adversary
does not need to use the ultrapure and ultraefficient weapons developed with the
seemingly boundless resources of a state sponsor. Even weapons that are produced
from readily available commercial or industrial origins can be very effective.
Possess the Requisite Technical Skills. The manufacture of weapons of mass
destruction and their dissemination systems requires a certain degree of technical
expertise. Some agents are readily available and require little sophistication to obtain
or use, but others are challenging to manufacture, store, and deliver. The adversary
must have access to these special skills in order to make an effective weapon.
Have Adequate Financial Resources. The costs associated with assembling a
WMD can be substantial, depending on the type of weapon selected and the
complexity of the dissemination system. The manufacture of nerve agents, for
example, requires sophisticated laboratory equipment. Costs include not only the raw
materials for the weapon itself, but the salaries for people who will develop the
process and assemble the weapon, facilities, and equipment to manufacture the
weapon, storage, and transportation of the device, and a dissemination system.
Assume Personal Risk of Exposure to the Agent. There may be some adverse
health risk to the person or persons who are manufacturing, storing, transporting, and
assembling the weapon. For some terrorists, this may not be an issue, but others may
not be inclined to sacrifice their lives for their cause at this time.
Conduct Testing Procedures. Tests may have to be run to ensure the weapon
was assembled correctly and is effective, its storage container is properly designed,
and the dissemination system works. Running a test, even in a remote unpopulated
area, increases the probability of being reported to or discovered by law enforcement
authorities.
Avoid Detection. In order for the mission to succeed, the attack must
accomplish the adversary’s goal of causing casualties, fear, or economic damage.
Adversaries must go to great extremes to ensure they are not compromised before the
attack is executed. There is a risk of detection during the manufacture of the agent,
which might require large storage containers, or the manufacturing process itself may
release pungent, irritating, toxic, or corrosive vapors and thus people in the area could
alert authorities to investigate.
Recognize Environmental and Meteorological Conditions at the Time of
Dissemination. The most difficult step in the use of a WMD, especially for a chemical
or biological agent, is the dissemination step. There are many factors that may
influence the effectiveness of the dissemination system, including environmental and
meteorological conditions at the time the agent is dispersed.
Indeed, the weather conditions play a critical role in the effectiveness of
dissemination plans for hazardous agents, regardless of their quality. Failure to
account for weather factors can significantly impact the dispersion, concentration, and
persistence of agents in the environment, rendering even the most high-quality agents
ineffective in achieving their intended objectives. Understanding the complex
interplay between weather conditions and agent behavior is essential for developing
robust dissemination strategies that maximize effectiveness while minimizing risks to
public health and safety.
One of the key ways in which weather conditions influence dissemination
plans is through their impact on atmospheric stability and turbulence. Atmospheric
stability refers to the tendency of air to resist vertical motion, with stable conditions
inhibiting the vertical mixing of air masses and promoting the trapping and
accumulation of pollutants near the ground. In stable conditions, hazardous agents
released into the atmosphere may remain localized and concentrated in the lower
layers of the atmosphere, reducing their dispersal and dilution over time.
Conversely, turbulent or unstable weather conditions can facilitate the vertical
mixing and dispersion of air masses, leading to more rapid and widespread
dissemination of hazardous agents. Factors such as wind speed, direction, and shear
can influence the trajectory and spread of agents, carrying them over long distances
and affecting areas far beyond the initial release point. Additionally, precipitation
events such as rain or snow can wash agents out of the atmosphere or dilute their
concentration, further impacting their effectiveness and reach.
Moreover, microscale weather phenomena such as temperature inversions,
atmospheric inversions, and local wind patterns can create localized pockets of
stagnant air or turbulent mixing, affecting the behavior of hazardous agents in
complex and unpredictable ways. For example, temperature inversions occur when a
layer of warm air traps cooler air near the ground, inhibiting vertical mixing and
promoting the accumulation of pollutants. In such conditions, hazardous agents
released into the atmosphere may linger for extended periods, increasing the risk of
exposure and contamination for nearby populations.
In addition to atmospheric conditions, weather factors such as humidity,
temperature, and solar radiation can also influence the persistence and viability of
hazardous agents in the environment. High humidity levels may promote the
degradation or deactivation of biological agents, while extreme temperatures can
affect the stability and volatility of chemical agents. Similarly, exposure to ultraviolet
(UV) radiation from sunlight can degrade certain types of agents, reducing their
potency and longevity in the environment.
In light of these considerations, it is essential for dissemination plans to
incorporate detailed meteorological data and forecasts to accurately predict and
account for the potential impact of weather conditions on agent behavior. This may
involve conducting thorough meteorological assessments, utilizing advanced
modeling and simulation tools, and coordinating with meteorological experts to
develop tailored dissemination strategies that account for the dynamic and complex
nature of weather systems.
Furthermore, ongoing monitoring and real-time tracking of weather conditions
are critical for adapting dissemination plans in response to changing environmental
factors. By maintaining situational awareness and flexibility, responders can optimize
the timing, location, and method of agent release to maximize effectiveness while
minimizing risks to public health and safety.
In conclusion, the failure to consider weather conditions in dissemination
plans can have significant implications for the effectiveness of hazardous agents,
regardless of their quality. By understanding the complex interplay between weather
factors and agent behavior, authorities can develop robust dissemination strategies
that mitigate risks and enhance the resilience of communities against potential threats.
Through proactive planning, coordination, and monitoring, we can better prepare for
and respond to hazardous incidents in an increasingly dynamic and unpredictable
environment.
h. Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Pound for pound, biological weapons are the most dangerous. They are easily
spread, and small quantities can infect very large numbers of people. For example, in
a classified exercise run by the US government in the fall of 2003 by operations
researchers Lawrence Wein, David Craft, and Edward Kaplan, it was found that the
release of just 2 pounds of weapons grade anthrax dispersed into the air from a tall
building in an American city could result in more than 120,000 deaths.
A major shift in the threat of biological weapons has occurred. For many
years, the danger of their use arose solely in their use by nations in international
conflicts. Therefore, the list of potential users was limited to those industrialized
nations that had the wherewithal to develop and deploy these types of weapons. That
has changed now with the list of potential users expanding to include non-state actors
such as terrorist groups, religious cults, and even individuals. A successful major
biological attack would have catastrophic effects in terms of lives lost and create a
medical, political, and social crisis unseen in history. The most significant
distinguishing effect separating a biological attack from other attacks is the
extraordinarily larger number of casualties.
Biological agents can cause disease in people, plants, insects, and animals.
Biological weapons are defined as any micro-organism, virus, infectious substance, or
toxin capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human,
animal, plant, or other living organism. Biological Agents are classified into four risk
groups according to their level of risk of infection and can relate to bacteria, fungi,
virus, parasites, etc.
Biological warfare is the use of these pathogens or toxins as weapons. A
biological attack is the intentional release of a disease-causing agent (a pathogen) or a
poisonous substance produced by a living organism (toxin) against humans, animals,
or plants. An attack against humans could be used to cause illness, death, fear, societal
disruption, and economic damage. The use of a biological weapon would certainly
inflict a significant psychological impact on a population, and their danger is
amplified because it is silent, colorless, and odorless and does not present any
warning that the agent had been dispersed and people are being exposed. Adding to
the death toll would be the fact that civilians are not immunized against most
biological agents and do not have the necessary protective equipment such as
respirators. An attack on agriculture and animals would primarily cause economic
damage, loss of confidence in the food supply, and possibly loss of life.
Biological agents are generally divided into toxins as well as infectious agents
such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other living microorganisms that can kill or
incapacitate people and animals. They include naturally occurring as well as
genetically engineered organisms. Toxins are poisonous substances produced by a
living organism, such as insects, snakes, sea creatures, or plants. Some toxins can also
be man-made, synthesized through chemical processes. Pathogens as weapons could
be used against targets such as food supplies or concentrations of people to create
panic and cause casualties. Since they can reproduce, they have the unique potential
to make the environment more dangerous over time. Some biological agents are also
deadly to animals, although they are not usually the primary target. This characteristic
may provide an early warning to emergency responders as animals and insects tend to
be affected before humans. Toxins are considered to be less suitable for dispersion on
a large scale and are more likely to be used to target a single person or small groups of
people.
He explains how biothreats are the opposite of nuclear and chemical threats. In
the case of chemical, nuclear, and other threats, hundreds to tens of thousands are
affected in the early stages of the attack, with deaths and injuries decreasing over
time. Conversely, bioattacks may not be visible initially, but the fatalities and injuries
could exponentially increase over time to as many as tens of millions after 1 year.
Such attacks could potentially be more devastating as they undermine society and
create potential scenarios of public panic and marshal law. For less than $1000, Chue
said that someone with limited technical skill could begin growing bacterial spores
with equipment easily available on the internet—for example, fogging devices for
dispersal of agents. Bio-agents come from nature and, because they are living,
distribute themselves naturally. Even small pathogen quantities can be amplified in a
vulnerable population.
Biological agents are the most lethal of the weapons of mass destruction. By
weight, biological agents are generally more toxic than chemical agents. For example,
the toxin ricin is two to three times more toxic than the nerve agent VX, and the toxin
botulinum is 5000–10,000 times more toxic than VX. There are approximately 30
different pathogenic microbes that directly or indirectly affect humans and are
considered biological weapons. Biological diseases are a very attractive weapon; in
the US Civil War, 65% of the Union soldiers’ deaths were caused by infections. In
World War I, 38% of American deaths were from infectious diseases.
For example, the bacteria anthrax is 100,000 times more deadly than the most
toxic chemical warfare agent. A US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
study concluded that 220 pounds of anthrax, thoroughly distributed in aerosol form
over a large city, could kill as many as 3 million people. One of the more significant
effects of a biological attack will be the psychological issues among survivors,
emergency responders, and the public. Fear will be great as people watch their friends
and relatives fall ill and possibly die in large numbers from disease. Health-care
delivery systems will be disrupted due to people seeking medical evaluation, medical
personnel becoming casualties themselves, or medical personnel fleeing the area if
they are not confident they have adequate ways to protect themselves and their
families.
Biological agents are nonvolatile; they must be disseminated as a solid or
liquid aerosol. Biological agents cannot be seen, tasted, or smelled. For an aerosol
release, the area affected would depend on the quantity of agent released, whether the
release is indoors or outdoors, and weather conditions. Agents released outdoors
would disperse roughly in the direction of the prevailing wind. Agents released
indoors could initially have a higher concentration. Environmental conditions such as
temperature and humidity can adversely affect and degrade bacteria and viruses.
Sunlight, in particular ultraviolet light, will kill many of them.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh founded the Rajneesh Foundation International. In
1981, the cult purchased a dilapidated ranch in Oregon, part of which became the site
of Rajneeshpuram, a community of several thousand orange robed disciples and the
world headquarters for the Indian guru. Construction of the commune was
controversial from its inception, with cultural values and land use issues being the
major areas of contention. The cult leaders planned to take over control of the Wasco
County, Oregon Commission, at the November election because of potential voter
threat to their land due to zoning regulations. Their plan was to sicken so many people
on election day that the group could get its own candidates elected. The cult
purchased salmonella bacteria and other biological agents from a commercial supply
house. The salmonella was mixed with water and placed into spray bottles. Followers
sprayed the poison on salad bars and in coffee creamers at 10 restaurants in The
Dalles, Oregon, resulting in 751 people who had eaten or worked at area restaurants
being sickened with salmonella bacteria, 45 of whom were hospitalized.
Court testimony suggests that members of this cult considered various other,
and more deadly, pathogens including Salmonella typhi (which causes typhoid) and
the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Two commune members were indicted and
convicted for conspiring to tamper with consumer products.
A key question that must be answered very quickly if a biological attack
occurs is whether the agent deployed is contagious or noncontagious. Contagious
means an infectious disease is transmissible and can be spread between humans or
animals through direct or indirect contact or exposure. Smallpox is an example of a
contagious human disease, and foot and mouth disease is an example of a contagious
animal disease. Noncontagious means the disease causes adverse effects in the
exposed individual, but that does not make those individuals contagious.
Noncontagious diseases can only be spread through direct contact with the agent. An
example of a noncontagious agent would be anthrax. An example of direct contact
would be when an infected person sneezes, resulting in an aerosol being discharged
into the area, which another person can inhale and hence catch the disease. An indirect
exposure would be when a person handles contaminated clothing, resulting in the
organism being suspended in the air and then inhaled. Some bacteria and viruses can
cause an epidemic, which is a widespread outbreak of disease, being spread from
person to person.
Infectivity of an agent reflects its capability to enter, survive, and multiply in a
host. Virulence is the relative severity of the disease caused by a microorganism. The
incubation period is the time elapsing between exposure to an infective agent and the
first appearance of the signs of disease associated with the infection. Lethality reflects
the ability of an agent to cause death in an infected population. Potency is the strength
to produce an effect of a given intensity.
Some transmissible (contagious) diseases can spread through respiratory
droplets from coughing and sneezing or when a person comes in contact with a
surface harboring a virus or bacteria and then touches their mouth or nose. The viral
hemorrhagic fevers and cholera are spread by direct contact with body fluids or feces.
People infected with contagious diseases may widely disseminate the disease by
travel. Trying to distinguish those who have not been infected could complicate
medical centers’ ability to treat those who have been exposed and infected, especially
when diagnoses are unclear.
Bacteria. Bacteria can cause serious illness or death. Bacteria are more toxic
than chemicals by weight. Bacteria are single-cell living microorganisms that require
nutrients to survive and reproduce by dividing. Bacteria reproduce asexually and
quickly. Most bacteria can grow on nonliving surfaces. When infectious bacteria enter
the body, they can make one sick by multiplying and overcoming the body’s immune
system. Bacteria make toxins that can damage specific cells that they have invaded.
Some bacterial infections are contagious (such as strep throat and tuberculosis) and
others (such as infections of the heart valves—endocarditis) are not. Bacteria can be
controlled with antibiotics, which prevent cell growth. Bacteria are nonvolatile and do
not penetrate unbroken skin, but can be inhaled or ingested or can cause skin illnesses.
Examples of bacterial agents are anthrax and plague. Rickettsia are bacteria that are
unable to multiply unless they are within a living cell. Rickettsia cannot live in
artificial nutrient environments and is grown either in tissue or embryo cultures;
typically, chicken embryos are used. Rickettsia are smaller than most bacteria, but
larger than a virus. Most are spread from one person to another by a vector such as a
mosquito or tick. Rickettsia species are the pathogen responsible for typhus and
Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.
