Weapons of Mass Destruction -- Boogeyman or Threat?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-14 06:13pm

With the obvious exception of fully fledged small fission weapons, does anyone think that "dirty bombs," chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists are truly weapons of mass destruction. What makes biological and chemical weapons frightening is the delivery system that makes them very effective.

The Tokyo Subway Attack and the Anthrax Envelopes were not, IMHO, vastly more destructive and terrifying than a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing himself up in a cafe in Tel Aviv.

Perhaps some, highly virulent and contageous biological agents could be considered WoMD regardless, but I think in terms of objective threat, a lot of this WoMB business is bullshit.

Thoughts?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-14 06:18pm

The citizens of the United States should have more fear from Big Macs and women drivers than WMDs.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-14 06:36pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:The citizens of the United States should have more fear from Big Macs and women drivers than WMDs.

Kinda like the fear of flying on an airline. You are much more likely to get killed walking down the road than by flying on an airplane and having it hijacked.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-04-14 08:10pm

Like being struck by lightning, your chances of personaly getting hurt by terrorism is slight.

However, if you ARE struck by lighning, or are a victim of terrorism, the outcome is horrible at best, usualy fatal.

20 grams of Anthrax shut down the US Postal service on the entire east coast of America.
What could you do with a couple of pounds?

A few letters here,a few letters there, and you shut ALL of the government buildings.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-14 08:57pm

Small limted attacks, followed by threats of more, Will do more damage economicly than 1 large scale attack.. Its the fear more than the agent..

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 09:19pm

It depends on the bio-attack. If they let loose something like small pox and or an airborne ebola or Marburg (Sp?) then it's make September 11th pale in comparison. True, such attacks are less likely but it's a nasty possiblility.

A gas or dirty bomb attack would be more problematic. You'd need large quanities of either to make to cause incredible havoc. But if they should get it then it would be a grave threat indeed.

And we know groups like Al-Queda are after both. Remember the CNN gassing video?

That makes the danger of state sponsored, religiously motivated terrorism very dangerous. The problem with fanatic government like the Taliban or the old guard in Iran or Syria is that they might well give such weapons to their terrorist allies.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-14 09:29pm

Neither a bogeyman nor a serious threat. While I don't feel that we are seriously in danger at the moment of any sort of WMD attack, that doesn't mean we should dismiss all concerns raised over a possible attack as bogeymen.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-04-14 10:02pm

Dirty Bomb is more of a psychological thing that just inspires fear. Oh sure, the blast would hurt many people, and there'd be radioactive (OMG! RADIOACTIVE! AHH!) dust flying around, but you'd need a few hours of exposure for that to do anything. Your main concern would probably be birth defects or something like that.

Chemical weapons are hard to disperse correctly, but biological agents spread on their own, and that creates a dangerous scenario. A big problem would be an airborne agent...

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-14 10:05pm

I believe there was a time on NOVA not too long ago where they theorized the effects of a dirty bomb detonated in London.

But, if terrorists don't have any WMDs or chemical weapons, just claiming they do can create a good amount of panic.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-04-15 12:29am

Im most afraid of the economic impact of any future terrorist act, wether its a WMD or a truck bomb.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-15 08:08am

Emperor Chrostas the Crue wrote:Like being struck by lightning, your chances of personaly getting hurt by terrorism is slight.

However, if you ARE struck by lighning, or are a victim of terrorism, the outcome is horrible at best, usualy fatal.

20 grams of Anthrax shut down the US Postal service on the entire east coast of America.
What could you do with a couple of pounds?

A few letters here,a few letters there, and you shut ALL of the government buildings.

Indeed. the very effectiveness of these, terror, things is the fear, not the effect of it as a weapon.