Bio attack likely in next 5 years

the country should expect a terrorist attack in the next five years.

i am definitely not prepared in the event of a chemical or nuclear attack. mostly because i live in an apartment, but i do have family that i could get to that have the means to survive for some time.

what about you? are you really prepared for something like this?

I can see those Israeli gas masks selling like hotcakes already...

Somewhat ironic that this comes up today. During a late lunch today I was watching "Around The Services" (a DoD news show normally on AFN) on the Military Channel. One of the topics was the Northern Command and the first of 8 brigades that have been trained up for service inside the United States as needed. It was stated that the reasoning for these brigades was in the event of an CRBN (Chemical, Radiological, Biological, Nuclear) accident or attack.

When I was in the Army during Gulf War 1, my greatest fear was chemical attack. Having seen the training films and learned about the antidotes and its side effects, I formed my own antidote plan. 12Ga. self-administered antidote.

The masks and crap that will sell, will either be expired, damaged or just plain crap. Even if it is any good, does it fit? Do you actually know how to use it? Can you evacuate in time before the filter goes bad? Can you even operate w/o training with all that stuff on. Answer to all of the above . . . Not Likely.

And yes, it was mentioned in the recent past. Late September 2001.

Yet a N95 respiratory mask is all you need in a biological emergency. If used incorrectly you can suffocate in a gas mask as it happened during the Gulf war.

Yep, and that is why there are two for each passenger seat in all my vehicles and a bunch at home.

Frankie,

Is the line still out the door at Schwartz's ?

I don't know Desperado, I've never been at Schwartz's Hebrew Delicatessen but apparently they have the best smoked meat. I should try it out one of these days.

Frankie

Go between normal meal times if you want somewhere to sit. Good luck parking.

I seem to recall reading the same report five years ago.

Because of the perceived threat, there are now more labs doing bio-terror related research. Unfortunately, many of these labs have serious safety or security deficiencies, which increases the risk of an accidental or intentional release of bio-terror agents. Ironic, ain't it?

Jeff

"Likely" doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. Even if it does, it's far less probable than a bunch of guys doing a suicide bombing mission or a raid on a scale of what just happened in Mumbai a few days ago.

Biological weapons, at least the effective ones, are not so easy to use for a terrorist group. They also have the tendency to work both ways so there is a major risk of self-infection. I guess it's a lot easier and more bang for the back to just build a big bomb or spray random people full of lead with an AK-47.

It's on Saint-Laurent street. I'll take the subway, in the center car, and watch out for suspicious packages and airborne spray releases...

Frankie

Taking into account the short span of the complacent human memory, I think a reminder every five years is doing an injustice - it isn't frequent enough.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

That's funny. Wasn't much for ambiance, but was worth the trip. What I genuinely call a "mom & pop hole in the wall".

Last time in Montreal was educational to say the least. Forgot my winter boots. Getting off the plane in January I expected cold, was 40 deg F. I thought, "no big deal". Next morning leaving Lowe's Vogue to go buy boots it 4 deg. F and there was a 40 MPH wind. I thought I would be a frozen texan before I got to the underground shops. The "Roots" store got all of my $CAN. for hats and scarves in a blink of an eye. My wife laughed at my hat until she stepped outside, then she stole it off my head.

Good luck...

Just posted about this in the long term section....

Seems to me that the terrorists achieved what they wanted in Mumbai with a couple of guns, grenades and training. They'd probably get the same result running multiple simple attacks, or something like what happened on 9/11/01 rather as they would with WMDs.

Still, it may happen of course, but I would think smaller attacks and preparing for them first and foremost would be the best course of action for the average person.

That's just my opinion. I could always be wrong.

I'd guess that the idea would be that a fairly successful attack with a radiological, biological or chemical weapons would have have a disproportionally large psychological impact compared to a conventional attack with guns and explosives causing an equal number of deaths. The object of terrorism is to cause terror; inflicting casualties is merely a convenient means to that end.

A successful bio attack would cause a paradigm shift. Imagine TSA having to search every boarding passenger for possible biological devices.

Jeff

If I was an Islamic terrorist I'm not sure I would be seeking to use biological or nuclear weapons. A thumbnail consideration of the majority Muslim nations brings to my attention that all I can think of have high numbers of people concentrated in congested cities with large numbers housed in slums with poor sanitation and few medical resources.

Combine that with the religious demands of the Haj, the journey to Mecca at least once in a life, where Muslims from around the world travel from and then return to their communities and you have a formula for the very communities they ostensibly fight for to be the hardest hit by any contagious biological weapon.

On the nuclear side I would point out that the Muslim holy cites, Mecca, Medina and others, aren't exactly hidden. I don't advocate any such counter attacks and I don't know how the Uma, the Muslim people, would feel about it but I doubt facing in the direction of a smoking radioactive pit and praying would be as attractive as the situation they enjoy now. The unleashing of a deadly contagion that wiped out large numbers of their own population wouldn't make them popular either.

I don't know how terrorists think but IMO they aren't stupid, unaware or unable to think through such things. They may lust to bringing down the western world but not if the destruction primarily lands on their own people.

On the off chance they don't find the above logic convincing I would try to avoid probable targets and large concentrations of people. A goodly supply of appropriate masks, gloves and disinfectants wouldn't hurt either.

"...smaller attacks..."

Possibly a lot of them, all over the country, at approx. the same time...

The human condition is to try to overcome trauma. How affected today are most people by what happened on 9/11?

Smaller attacks, on a consistent basis, would cause more psycological damage over a prolonged period of time. I'm no psychologist though, it's merely speculation on my part and I could be wrong.

As mentioned by someone before, speaking in terms of proportional responses, the more damage you do the more damage you can expect to be done to you. Maybe that's what terrorists want, I don't know.

People can be very resilient. Witness the endurance of the British during the Blitz of WWII. We experience tens of thousands of deaths from traffic accidents year after year, yet a large percentage of people can't even be bothered to wear their seat belts. I suspect hundreds or even thousands of deaths a year from terrorism might be something we'd eventually just learn to live with. After all, many thousands of Americans already die from violent acts yearly. There would likely be a diminishing return with each successive conventional terror attack. That's why I believe that terrorists seek the sort of paradigm shift offered by a successful CRBN type of terror attack.

I also suspect that there is a psychological tipping point with violent extremists, who are already likely clinically insane, where they become so enamored with violence itself that they no longer really care about the cause that initially motivated them. Therefore, they cannot be deterred by the possibility of reciprocal damage to that cause. They'd rather just keep killing. I don't think Osama bin Laden would be put off in the least by us nuking Mecca. In fact, I think he would welcome it as an excuse to keep on killing infidels. Retaliation is not the solution to terrorism.

Indeed, there is little we in the West can do directly to stop Islamic extremist terrorism. It will only end when the people in the Islamic world are ready to stop it themselves. I suspect that won't happen for 25 years or so, when a new generation rises to power with a lifetime of experience living with the consequences of extremism and violence. In the meantime, all we can do is remain firm, vigilant, restrained and patient. It's the only effective way to deal with a hostile ideology. Given time, violent Islamic extremism, like PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER., will be snuffed out by its own people, not us.

Jeff

When you look at the terrorist groups today I see very little real threat of any Islamic extremist group or the like carrying out a nuclear attack. Getting a nuclear weapon and deploying it isn't as easy as it looks in the movies. You don't exactly go to Ukraine and buy a nuke for $10.000 from some drunk guarding an abandoned missile silo. How are you going to transport it anywhere? Even showing any potential interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon would instantly make you a high profile target for any of the countless services and agencies all over the world.

Building a nuke from scratch is, realistically speaking, impossible for any extremist group. Who has enough resources to do it? Maybe a villain from an old James Bond flick. Not to mention that even just deploying a nuke takes some very highly trained, educated specialists. They don't exactly grow on trees. A "dirty bomb" might sound scary but in effect it is far less destructive than even a small, tactical nuke though it might cause a lot of panic. But even a relatively simple device like that still takes a lot more brain and resources than the average extremist can muster.

From the terrorist point of view, why bother with such complex technology with so much risk involved when you can get almost guaranteed results with a simpler improvised or conventional attack? Blow up a major public building and many people will die. A single motivated, somewhat trained guy with an AK, a few hand grenades and some ammo (which all together costs a few hundred $ on the black market and is available anywhere in the world) can easily kill dozens of civilians in a busy street before being overwhelmed by the police. Take a few such individuals, organize them and you can do Mumbai as often as you like.

Maybe preparing for something big such as a nuclear attack is good for the media and panic mongers but I for one would rather try to be realistic about it. YMMV.

Gees, we're walking off the deep end here folks.

I mean, what's really changed? What you are talking about are thugs and hoodlums, forget their motivation for a moment and just consider that they are people preying on other people. This is a threat that's constantly been with us, and a part of the nature of our society. The media hype aside, we were no more secure 30 years ago than we are today, and there was a heckuva lot of NBC floating around then that anyone with half a brain and a bag of loot could've (and some did) get their hands on. None of what they have now to use is that new, pharm grade Anthrax and smallpox remain at the top of the list for bio, VX, Sarin, Ricin remain at the top for Chem. They were all just as effective and just as available 30 years ago, and we had just as many crazies back then, so the only thing I see that's different is the crazies today get more air time.

Chuck Norris made a movie a ways back called Invasion USA. I liked the way that one ended.

From what I read about the Mumbai attack, the armed police were unwilling to shoot back until way late in the game. So much for gun control...

Maybe we ought to just hire Blackwater stooges to be our private army and hunt down all these terrorists and pirates and gangsters. Oh wait, that'd pretty much have them fighting themselves.

I agree a nuclear detonation is the least likely type of terrorist attack, by far. But I would not be too surprised to see something along the lines of the Tokyo subway bio-attack some day. In terms of what the terrorists are actually capable of pulling off, a Mumbai type of attack is most likely.

But their ambition exceeds their current ability, so I think they will keep trying for bigger things, and they may get lucky again some day. While working at the WTC just after 9/11, I remember thinking that the terrorists got an A+ for persistence, since this was their second attack on the WTC, and wondering what they'd try next.


Jeff

Hey Jeff, I thought the Tokyo subway was a chem attack, either Sarin or Ricin IIRC.

To the best of my recollection, there's not been a widespread bio attack in recent history. I remember there being a couple Anthrax threats a while back, but seemed like really isolated incidents through the mail.

Chem attack seems the easiest to me to deploy. It is too easy to make homemade substances that can poison people in an enclosed environment.

Still, this isn't really any different than what it has been for a long time now, just more publicity.

You're right. It was chemical, not biological. My mistake. I agree things aren't that different from what we've seen before, which is why I think the terrorists would like to change things up. Compare WTC attack #1, which evoked little more than a collective national yawn, with WTC attack #2, which was a real paradigm shift. Whether they can do that again remains an open question.

Jeff

This individual lived a couple of blocks from me and was considered the prime suspect in the mailings.

Ivins

Pete

Yes, to which I reiterate that we are our own worst enemy when it comes to such matters, but that is because we keep hiring the same type of incompetents to try and run the show. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine keeps spewing out melodrama encouraging the morons to keep making the effort to foment change through force.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Lol, too funny (although I stop laughing when I remember the Federal govt. has used Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq and in Louisiana).

Regarding my personal preparedness, I've had to work hard to not get caught up in some of the alarming (alarmist?) messages in recent years. Lots of infotainment, manipulation, rumors and propaganda to filter. Good to step away, get a broader perspective as suggested.

I would imagine an intelligent terrorist seriously contemplating a biological or chemical attack would probably target the water or food supply system.

Poisoning the water supply for a major city could cause real mayhem. Though pretty much anything poisonous enough in large quantities would work (like dumping a few buckets of mercury), imagine using something really toxic that is odorless, colorless and possibly does not affect the victims instantly but only after some time. Meaning that a lot more people will get affected during the incubation period. This is one of the few biological/chemical scenarios that really scares me. More so if you realize how poorly guarded the water supply is in many places.

Option #2 might be less effective, but still pretty bad. Poisoning any kind of food, especially something that comes prepacked, might come fairly close on the Richter scale. Just think of the melamine panic in China not that long ago. Urban dwellers are highly vulnerable to that kind of threat in the Western world.

"...Poisoning the water supply for a major city..."

Years ago I read somewhere, don't recall where, that poisoning a large water supply was not all that feasible. Something to do with the large volume of water and the amount of "poison" that would be required. Maybe Doc Blast will know something about that...

From a newsletter I receive:

Editorial Notebook: Cops Need to Train? With Guns?
By Rich Grassi

According to The Times of India, the law enforcement units responsible for the safety and security of Mumbai (Bombay) had few arms and no firearms training. Cops in the city had 577 rifles, some from the days before independence and others a model of a rifle originating 61 years ago. It appears the attackers also used older rifles. (Note: "old" doesn't always mean "bad.")

In addition, the constabulary has no firing range and no ammunition for practice. The story alleges that law enforcement employees hadn't discharged firearms in training for the last ten years.

The Times reports that the police manual allows those in grade from constable to assistant inspector "get rifles with 30 rounds each" and grades of sub-inspector and up get "revolvers, also with 30 rounds each."

To contrast, the state police training commission in one state, Kansas, requires officers qualify on a course that mandates fifty rounds every year. That doesn't relieve Kansas police from training with firearms beyond qualification.

Why is there no training? The story relates that an unnamed "senior" official admits "the norms prescribed in the manual now exist only on paper because of the acute shortage of ammunition for practice and the non-availability of a firing range." This hits close to home for lots of us who have agency ranges closed because of "noise considerations." I guess it was noisy in Mumbai . . .

So, if you see photos of the police standing around while terrorists use tourists, military and police as targets, now you know why. The cops didn't know what to do.

A basic pistol class in this country usually goes for 3-6 days and can consume up to 1,500 rounds of ammunition. It's about the same for patrol rifle.

Repeat after me: "Training good, Not training, bad."

"Training good, Not training, bad"...

I'll buy that for a dollar!

A gun, like any other tool, is useless if you lack the confidence to use it effectively. I read a reporter walked up to some of the cops that were armed and hiding behind whatever they could find during the firefight (if you can call it that) and basically yelled at them to shoot back, to which they just looked at him and smiled sheepishly.

Absurd!

I got kinda lucky in those - I used to walk through the mailroom at work every day where one of the people got sick from the mailed Anthrax... Talk about dodging a bullet. Yes, I know the victum

Most of the news shots I saw showed the military/police armed with Enfield No.4 Mk 1's (or Mk2?). Not a bad rifle, IF the shooter is well trained, which apparently they were not, and knows the limitations of that weapon...

"the country should expect a terrorist attack in the next five years."

Oh, my... well, the election is over, so now the news media is scrounging around for news to fill the voids. More on the imminent (possibly some time within the next 100 years) Birdie Floo any time now.

yawn.....

Sue

I'd guess most Americans are far more likely to be harmed by a natural disaster, or an economic one, than by a terrorist attack, over the next five years. Or an auto accident, major illness, house fire, . . .

There are plenty of other things to worry about. Its just that I get paid to worry about things like biological or chemical attacks, just like the news media gets paid by sensationalizing them.

Jeff

Not much training is required to use the Enfield No.4, it is probably the simplest rifle to use out there. Pull the bolt back, push it foward, line up the vertical metal protrusion at the end of the rifle where the bullet comes out into the centre of the round hole at the back of the rifle just above the bolt at what you want to shoot then pull the trigger.

This is what can be acheived in trained hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x3lOZ4yX6Y&feature=related

The idea that a couple of AKs outclass dozens of Enfields is just laughable.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece

Stopping to think this one thru, gave me pause to reflect on payday's at Fort Gordon, Ga. (circa. 1988)
Outside each temporary "pay facility" (read gym) were stationed multiple soldiers who had been to basic combat training, but were still in training for their MOS. Each soldier was armed with an M16 and two magazines. One mag was empty and inside the weapon. The other had very few (maybe 5 or 10) rounds and was stored in a pants cargo pocket. Inside that cordon were MP's armed with sidearms and shotguns or rifles. Inside the building were more MP's similarly armed (plus a K9 team). The trainees were instructed not to even load unless the MP's were already engaging targets. Could it be these fellows were armed with empty weapons? Sounds absolutely impossible to believe, but stranger things have happened.

The Lee-Enfield No. 4 is a good bolt action rifle for sure but in urban warfare it just can't compare to something like the AK-47. The Lee-Enfield can be shot rapidly, but it takes real skill and training. An inexperienced shot will have a hard time getting used to the .303 if he has barely fired a rifle before. The AK-47 is just that much easier to use, less kick, far better magazine capacity, semi- and auto fire. Of two equally skilled marksmen the one with an AK-47 will likely beat the guy with a bolt action pretty much any time fighting in a built-up area IMO.

If you looked closely, when TS really HTF the Indian security forces pulled back and called in the heavy guns. I saw some fairly funny footage of a couple of guys struggling to set up an automatic grenade launcher. As far as firepower goes, it was a quantum leap over the Lee-Enfield though.

Hey, we have to put something on the air (I work in IT support for news at one of the major networks)

That was me, here. I did the math for I forgot which poision, and what it would take to get ONE resevoir of the NYC system (The Ashokan in my example) up to the LD10 level (the amount of that poision needed to kill 10% of the people). I believe the poision I chose was Ricin, as it was the big scare going on at the time - the answer came out to be slightly more than 17 loaded tractor trailers worth

That was the day I stopped worrying so much

I know that sometime in the 1960s, someone dropped a 5 gallon bucked of LDS in there.... Made the news, that's about it

Some time ago I talked to an Eastern European who used to be on an "unconventional warfare" team in the 80's. They were trained for covert operations in foreign countries, including sabotage and terrorist attacks in the event of an all-out total war. I have seen some of their training manuals and I recall reading a chapter specifically dedicated to poisoning water and food sources. IIRC botulin was the toxin of choice.

Another thing which caught my attention was that the primary targets for such attacks were smaller cities with a population of about 100.000 and not much more. The idea being that the water supply in smaller cities is likely not as well guarded and any attack will possibly have a greater effect because a smaller quantity of toxin is necessary.

There was also some information on where the toxin is best placed. Very large reservoirs were not to be targeted because of the quantity of toxins needed. Instead, the emphasis was on finding weak spots in the system of pumps and piping that supplies water to smaller, relatively contained areas, eg. residential neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, military installations etc.

I don't remember half of what I read in there but it looked like it could actually work. Somebody really did their homework. Scary stuff.

In the last twenty-five years, the world has already seen multiple biological, chemical and radiological terrorist attacks. The only thing we haven't seen is a fully nuclear attack. Look up the Rajneeshee bioterror attacks, the Tokyo subway sarin attacks and the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. This is not a case is the attack coming, its a case of will the next attack affect you? The answer is probably not very much, unless it kills you. Conventional, biological, chemical and radiological terrorist attacks have killed and will continue to kill people. However, like airplane crashes they either affect a very small portion of the population, or the system ceases to work. These are just features of the world. Despite the attacks that have already occurred, people still eat at salad bars, ride the subway and drink tea with Russian assassins. Um, okay, the last one might not be a great example.

Just the usual preps.

Our usual hurricane preps pretty much cover us for the most likely scenarios.

I'm more worried about drunk drivers than a terrorist attack.

What causes me sleepless nights is the thought of being injured at work or clobbered in a car accident and end up being disabled with a wife/child/mortgage to support.

Debt reduction / savings maximization are my focus now...