"The United States faces the nightmarish possibility that terrorist groups would seek to cause mass casualties by unleashing biological agents on U.S. soil."
"Rapid advances in genetic engineering in the past few decades have increased the likelihood that disease-carrying microbes could overwhelm the U.S. public health system and wreak horrific destruction," warns James Anderson of the Heritage Foundation. Biological agents are "the most lethal substances known to mankind," he emphasizes. "They can be targeted against people, animals, or crops using a variety of means of delivery." Anderson laments that "the intelligence community generally has downplayed the capability of terrorists to effect mass casualties using biological agents," but he is heartened by growing awareness of the danger. "Despite this awareness," he cautions, "the U.S. still is ill-prepared to manage the consequences of a major bioterrorist strike."
Their "destructive potential" is but one of many factors that make biological agents appealing to terrorists. "The lethality of biological agents makes it unnecessary for terrorists to maintain large stockpiles," Anderson adds. Ease of dispersion is another consideration, as is the "lag time between infection and the appearance of symptoms," which makes identification and apprehension of the perpetrators more difficult. "Lethal biological agents can be produced easily and cheaply," Anderson continues. They are also "easier to produce clandestinely than are either chemical or nuclear weapons."
Anderson recommends that Clinton and Congress "develop and articulate a comprehensive strategy to defend against bioterrorism that is based on an accurate assessment of threat, the prudent allocation of resources, and a determined respect for the rule of law. If properly implemented and sustained," he asserts, "such an approach would help deter terrorists and the sponsors of state terrorism." Anderson warns that "the perception that the United States is poorly prepared to cope with bioterrorism is likely to encourage groups to exploit this strategic vulnerability."
Anderson considers it unconscionable that the United States is "unprepared to handle a concerted attack involving biological agents. Even a single biological terrorist strike in a densely populated urban area could cause catastrophic damage and widespread panic," he contends. "The United States requires a defense-in-depth against the threat of biological strikes," Anderson insists, "whether it stems from terrorists operating on U.S. soil or from hostile states armed with long-range missiles."
The current Administration finds itself in an untenable position. It cannot alert the public to the severity of the present danger without, at least inadvertently, acknowledging its own responsibility for it. That's because Clinton and his cronies have not only neglected to take the steps necessary to deter the threat of biological attacks domestically; they have also enabled and thereby encouraged biological strikes from abroad by making otherwise unobtainable long-range missile technology available directly to China and indirectly to Chinese client states such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Gross incompetence is the more charitable, if less credible, of the two labels that can be attached to such a suicidal policy. We all know what the other label is.
