战略与国际研究中心-Asymmetric-and-Terrorist-Attacks-With-Biological-Weapons_95页_555kb

Summary of "Defending America: Asymmetric and Terrorist Attacks with Biological Weapons" by Anthony H. Cordesman

Core Content

This report by Anthony H. Cordesman, published in September 2001, analyzes the potential threat of asymmetric and terrorist attacks using biological weapons. It emphasizes the need for the United States to prepare for a wide range of CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) threats, including both state-sponsored and non-state actors, and highlights the challenges of detecting, defending against, and responding to such attacks.

Main Points

• Range of Threats: The report outlines various attack scenarios involving biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear agents, showing how these can be used in covert, low-tech, or high-tech methods.
• Terrorist vs. State Actors: It distinguishes between domestic and foreign-origin threats, noting that domestic terrorists may be more likely to use biological agents than chemical ones, due to the low-tech nature of biological materials.
• Technological Accessibility: The report discusses the increasing accessibility of CBRN weapons due to advancements in technology, making it easier for non-state actors to produce and disperse such agents.
• Historical Context: It references past incidents such as the Yugoslav smallpox incident, Iraq and Russia's biological programs, and US cases involving anthrax, botulism, and plague to illustrate the real-world implications of these threats.
• Lethality and Effectiveness: The report provides comparative analyses of the lethality of different CBRN agents, including anthrax, botulism, plague, smallpox, and chemical agents, and emphasizes the unpredictability of biological attacks.
• Response Challenges: It highlights the difficulties in detecting and responding to biological attacks, especially those that are asymmetrical and difficult to trace, and points out the lack of preparedness and inadequate funding for a comprehensive response.

Key Attack Scenarios

• Radiological Powder in Air Conditioning Systems: A covert introduction of radiological material into high-rise buildings, leading to long-term contamination and mass panic.
• Smuggled Nuclear Device in a Commercial Truck: A low-tech nuclear bomb built using open-source information, with strategic placement to maximize fallout and complicate response efforts.
• Chemical/Biological Agents in Public Spaces: Workers dressed as cleaners introduce toxic industrial chemicals or biological agents during peak traffic, avoiding detection.
• Anthrax in Shopping Bags or Briefcases: Immunized terrorists use modified anthrax to avoid detection, leading to epidemic outbreaks and medical system collapse.
• Ebola or Similar Virus in Urban Areas: A modified virus is introduced to exploit US vaccine development and limited detection capabilities, leading to epidemic proportions.
• Remote-Controlled Helicopter or RPV for Delivery: Using legally imported equipment, terrorists spray chemical or biological agents in low radar areas, potentially causing mass casualties.
• Modified Anthrax in Gravel-Laden Truck: A truck carrying gravel is used to disperse anthrax spores, infecting commuters and causing epidemic spread.
• Contamination of Water Supply: Attackers introduce CBRN agents into water intakes, leading to mass panic and collapsing medical systems.
• Multi-Agent Attacks: A "cocktail" of chemical and biological agents can overwhelm response teams and evacuation efforts.
• Genetically Enhanced Pest or Disease: A state-backed group uses genetically modified biological agents to attack US agriculture, causing economic damage and delayed response.
• Nation-Wide Preemptive Response: The US may be forced to mount large-scale preemptive efforts against limited biological attacks due to comprehensive intelligence on defense capabilities.

Response and Preparedness Issues

• Lack of Consensus: There is no clear consensus among policy-makers and intelligence officials on what specific agents to prepare for, and how to allocate resources effectively.
• Funding and Prioritization: The report criticizes half-measures and false solutions, suggesting that funding for CBRN defense is inadequate and not properly aligned with the real threat.
• Need for Updated Assessments: It stresses the importance of continuous and updated technical assessments to improve response strategies.
• Ineffectiveness of First Response: Many attacks can defy early detection and first response efforts, leading to delayed intervention and increased casualties.
• Gap in Homeland Defense: The report identifies a gap in US defense strategies between overt warfare and limited asymmetric attacks, which can be exploited by terrorists.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the US must prepare for a wide range of CBRN attacks, including those that are low-tech, covert, and difficult to trace. It calls for comprehensive, updated, and well-funded response programs that take into account the unpredictable nature of biological attacks and the increasing lethality of such weapons. The need for a robust, integrated defense strategy is emphasized, as the current approach is insufficient to address the complex and evolving threat landscape.