The threat of bioterrorism in the post-cold war environment: comparing the preparedness of the US and EU.

  • Home / General / The threat of…

The threat of bioterrorism in the post-cold war environment: comparing the preparedness of the US and EU.

The threat of bioterrorism in the post-cold war environment

 

More details;

Newsworthy is different than catastrophic, however. The likelihood of a large-scale bio-attack using sophisticated agent and dispersion methods is. In my opinion, quite low for a variety of reasons. I’m happy to zip through those reasons if you’re interested – suffice it to say that high-yield explosives. Further, bullets will remain cheap, lethal, and user-friendly in the next 10 years.

Weaponizing biological agents is getting easier and cheaper too, but the amount of effort versus the potential result is too wide to make it an attractive option for most terrorist organizations. The likelihood remains small, but possible.

However, having to guess the possible scenario, I would argue the most likely target would be a high-density city in India by a Pakistan-native terrorist organization. Using similar tactics as Aum Shinrikyo in the 1990s.

This attack could potentially be effective on a small scale

(note: Aum Shinrikyo failed to use the correct strain of agent, limiting their success).

The climate of India would make a large-scale attack difficult to carry out.

This question has been looming in my feed for a while, and I have contemplated answering it many times.

This simple answer to your question “Are there pros to bioterrorism?” is a big fat NO. There are no pros to taking innocent human lives for the purpose of advancing one’s political agenda. Not to mention the possibility of it wiping out all human life on earth.

Now considering that A Federal Ban on Creating Lethal Viruses Was Recently Lift. If we rephrase the question to “Are there pros to making (potential) bioweapons?” then we can have a good discussion on the topic.

Now ethically, choosing to do this does not make sense. If things go wrong, and this engineered lethal virus finds its way into the wrong hands, or is accidentally released into the public then we have a problem. So why risk it?