Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control

The AQ Khan Revelations and Subsequent Changes to Pakistani Export Controls

Brazil's Nuclear Ambitions, Past and Present

The Bush Proposals: A Global Strategy for Combating the Spread of Nuclear Weapons Technology or a Sanctioned Nuclear Cartel?

Bush-Putin Summit, November 2001
на русском (In Russian)

China Enters the Nuclear Suppliers Group: Positive Steps in the Global Campaign against Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

Companies Reported to Have Sold or Attempted to Sell Libya Gas Centrifuge Components

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
на русском (In Russian)

DOE's Domestic Nuclear Security Initiatives

Egypt and Saudi Arabia's Policies toward Iran's Nuclear Program

The Emerging Arab Response to Iran's Unabated Nuclear Program

Going Beyond the Stir: The Strategic Realities of China's No-First-Use Policy

IAEA Board Deplores Iran's Failure to Come into Full Compliance: Is Patience with Iran Running Out?

IAEA Board Welcomes EU-Iran Agreement: Is Iran Providing Assurances or Merely Providing Amusement?

Illicit Nuclear Trafficking in the NIS
на русском (In Russian)

Implications of Proposed India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Cooperation

Indo-Pakistani Military Standoff: Why It Isn't Over Yet

The International Uranium Enrichment Center at Angarsk: A Step Towards Assured Fuel Supply?

Iran and the IAEA: A Troubling Past with a Hopeful Future?

Is Syria a Candidate for Nuclear Proliferation?

The New IAEA Resolution: A Milestone in the Iran-IAEA Saga

North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program and the Six-party Talks

Nuclear Conflict in the 21st Century: Reviewing the Chinese Nuclear Threat

Nuclear Posture Review
на русском (In Russian)

Nuclear Proliferation and South Asia: Recent Trends

Nuclear Submarine Dismantlement
на русском (In Russian)

Nuclear Trafficking Hoaxes: A Short History of Scams Involving Red Mercury and Osmium-187

Practical Steps for Improving U.S. Nonproliferation Leadership

Presidential Nuclear Initiatives: An Alternative Paradigm for Arms Control
на русском (In Russian)

Plutonium Disposition
на русском (In Russian)

Radiological Materials in Russia
на русском (In Russian)

Reykjavik Summit: The Legacy and a Lesson for the Future

Risks of Plutonium Programs

The Role of Security Assurances: Is Any Progress Possible?

Russian Spent Nuclear Fuel
на русском (In Russian)

Russia's Nuclear Doctrine
на русском (In Russian)

The Second NPT PrepCom for the 2005 Review Conference: Prospects for Progress

Seven Years After the Nuclear Tests: Appraising South Asia's Nuclear Realities

Sixty Years After the Nuclear Devastation, Japan's Role in the NPT

Submarine Dismantlement Assistance

Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW)
на русском (In Russian) 

Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Germany: Time for Withdrawal?

Taiwan and Nonproliferation

The Treaty of Moscow
на русском (In Russian) 

UN Disarmament Committee Forecasts Troubled Nonproliferation Future

UN General Assembly Tackles Nonproliferation and Disarmament After Disappointing Summit

U.S.-Russian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation
на русском (In Russian)

Will Saudi Arabia Acquire Nuclear Weapons?



Biological Weapons
The Anti-plague System in the Newly Independent States, 1992 and Onwards: Assessing Proliferation Risks and Potential for Enhanced Public Health in Central Asia and the Caucasus
Assessing the Threat of Mass-Casualty Bioterrorism
на русском (In Russian)
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
на русском (In Russian)
Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Compliance Protocol
на русском (In Russian)
Developments in the Biosciences: Do Recent Scientific and Technological Advances Lower the Threshold for the Proliferation of Biological Weapons?
на русском (In Russian)
The Fifth Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC)
на русском (In Russian)
International Assistance for Anti-plague Facilities in the Former Soviet Union to Prevent Proliferation of Biological Weapons
на русском (In Russian)
Is the Avian Influenza Virus a Suitable Agent for a Biological Weapon?
Lessons from Select Public Health Events Having Relevance to Bioterrorism Preparedness
на русском (In Russian)
The Next Generation of Sensor Technology for the BioWatch Program
Security and Public Health: How and Why do Public Health Emergencies Affect the Security of a Country?


Chemical Weapons
Dusty Agents and the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Arsenal
на русском (In Russian)
First Review Conference of the CWC: Coming of Age
Global CW Assistance
Industrial Chemicals as Weapons: Chlorine
The Seventh Conference of State Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
на русском (In Russian)
Vinalon, the DPRK, and Chemical Weapons Precursors
на русском (In Russian)
What to Expect at the Eighth Conference of State Parties to the CWC


Missiles, Missile Defenses, and Delivery Vehicles
A Look at National Missile Defense and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System
Addressing the Spread of Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs)
Examining China's Debate on Military Space Programs: Was the ASAT Test Really a Surprise?
Future Space Security
на русском (In Russian)
Japan's Space Law Revision: the Next Step Toward Re-Militarization?
Radiological and Nuclear Detection Devices
Russia's Approach to the U.S. Missile Defense Program
на русском (In Russian)
Space Security and Bush Administration Policy: Results of the First Term
Taiwan's Response to China's Missile Buildup
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and Northeast Asian Security
на русском (In Russian)
Unmanned Air Vehicles as Terror Weapons: Real or Imagined?


General Nonproliferation Topics
The Chechen Resistance and Radiological Terrorism
China's White Paper on Nonproliferation: Export Controls Hit the Big Time
Department of Homeland Security: Goals and Challenges
на русском (In Russian)
DP World and U.S. Port Security
The European Union and the Arms Ban on China
G8 10 Plus 10 Over 10
на русском (In Russian)
The Global Partnership 2004
Global Submarine Proliferation: Emerging Trends and Problems
Instability in Georgia: A New Proliferation Threat?
Iraq's WMD Scientists in the Crossfire
Islamist Terrorist Threat in the Tri-Border Region
на русском (In Russian)
Kazakhstan's Proposal to Initiate Commercial Imports of Radioactive Waste
на русском (In Russian)
The Mitutoyo Case: Will Japan Learn from its Mistakes or Repeat Them?
Nonproliferation Assistance to the Former Soviet Union
на русском (In Russian)
North Korea's 11th Supreme People's Assembly Elections
Nuclear Watch—Pakistan: The Sorry Affairs of the Islamic Republic
Radiological Materials in Russia
на русском (In Russian)
To Comply or Not to Comply: Outline of the UN Inspections Mechanism in Iraq
на русском (In Russian)
Unlocking the Impasse: Who Holds the Key to the Conference on Disarmament
Was Libyan WMD Disarmament a Significant Success for Nonproliferation?
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Central Asia
на русском (In Russian)
Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
на русском (In Russian)
Will Emerging Challenges Change Japanese Security Policy?

Issue Brief
redline

Assessing the Threat of Mass-Casualty Bioterrorism
Jason Pate
Senior Research Associate and WMD Terrorism Database Manager
Gary Ackerman
Senior Research Associate
Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
October 2001 (updated March 2003)

Issue Introduction   Issue Brief   Relevant Resources

Issue Brief

The September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax letters, combined with evidence of Al-Qaida's interest in toxic agents, have focused renewed attention on the possibility of terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, commonly called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). WMD terrorism is not a new phenomenon: in March 1995, the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin nerve agent in the Tokyo subway, killing 12 and injuring over 1,000. This incident, perpetrated by an apocalyptic group seeking to inflict mass casualties, demonstrated that at least some terrorist groups are capable of acquiring and using chemical weapons. Mass-casualty terrorism is also not new to the United States. In April 1995, a truck bomb destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 and injuring more than 700. Perpetrated by a lone actor influenced by right-wing ideology, this unprecedented attack brought the threat of mass-casualty terrorism-albeit with conventional explosives-to the American heartland.

Source: US Department of Defense
WMD Training

In the aftermath of these events, some analysts declared that a new era of terrorism had emerged, one involving a sea-change in terrorist tactics and goals. With religion arguably replacing politics as the primary ideological motivation for terrorist groups, it was possible to envision terrorist groups, relatively unconstrained by societal norms, seeking to perpetrate more extreme acts of violence than more "traditional" terrorist organizations. For example, Usama bin Ladin, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, the 1999 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and the 1998 near-simultaneous bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, openly declared an interest in acquiring WMD for attacks against American targets; more recently, alleged members of his organization have been apprehended with dangerous poisons. At the same time, the spread of dual-use technologies and WMD-relevant materials to state-sponsors of terrorism and the lack of controls on weapons materials and know-how in the former Soviet Union have raised serious concerns about the increasing threat of terrorists acquiring and using WMD. This is especially relevant in the context of increasing tensions and possible conflict between the United States and countries that have developed WMD and have supported terrorist groups in the past, such as Iraq and North Korea.

The Anthrax Attacks and Bioterrorism

The anthrax letters of 2001 were an entirely new phenomenon. They moved the threat of bioterrorism, which had previously been mostly theoretical, closer to reality. Despite hundreds of anthrax hoaxes in the few years prior to October 2001, the anthrax letters represented the first time that actual, virulent anthrax spores were sent through the mail. The attacks were scattered, isolated incidents targeted at prominent media and political figures, but also resulted in a number of people, notably postal workers and congressional staff, suffering from collateral exposure. One of the most significant aspects is that, thus far, the perpetrator remains at-large.

There have been conflicting reports from various government agencies regarding the quality of the anthrax used in the attacks. It may have been highly sophisticated: milled to a fine powder and treated with chemical additives to keep the spores from clumping and becoming weighed down by humidity, so that they aerosolize more readily.

The Perpetrators

The fact that the anthrax may have been milled to a fine powder and mixed with chemicals-techniques involving specialized military knowledge unlikely to be available to laboratory microbiologists-suggests that the perpetrator(s) may have been involved at one point in time with the biological weapons program of a state-perhaps even a scientist who worked on the former U.S. biological weapons program. Although the chemical additives are readily available, the critical skill is knowing which additives to use, and how and when to use them.

These findings are consistent with a number of hypotheses: the perpetrators were aided by a foreign state, were assisted by scientists who once worked in a state-level bioweapons program, or purchased the anthrax on the international black market. The FBI has released only a vague profile of the perpetrator(s), as most probably male, with a scientific background and an intimate knowledge of Trenton, New Jersey.

The fact that the same strain of anthrax appears to have been used in the letter attacks directed against individuals in Florida, New York, and Washington, D.C. also suggests that this is a coordinated effort by a single individual (i.e., a biological Unabomber), a small domestic group, or a large network such as Al-Qaida. Still, the identity of the perpetrator or perpetrators remains unclear. Some evidence, such as the quality of the anthrax, points to an international source, but other evidence points in the direction of domestic terrorists.

Mass-Casualty Terrorism

According to terrorism scholar Bruce Hoffman, until September 11, 2001, fewer than 1,000 Americans had been killed in terrorist attacks in the United States or abroad since 1968. The quantum leap in casualties-with more than 3,000 dead-is particularly alarming in terms of terrorist motivations. Terrorist trends have suggested an increase in casualties per incident, and the September 11 attacks appear to conform to this pattern. However, the anthrax incidents have been small in scale, with the apparent intent of frightening rather than killing large numbers of people.

It is possible that the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks had only a limited amount of powdered anthrax spores-enough to deliver in small amounts through the mail, but not enough to disseminate through the air as an aerosol cloud that could infect large numbers of people. They may also not have been motivated to inflict mass casualties, even if they could. Critics have also pointed out the significant technical hurdles to the use of chemical or biological weapons to cause massive numbers of casualties. Despite Aum Shinrikyo's vast financial resources and scientific expertise, it was unable to perpetrate mass-casualty attacks with either chemical or biological weapons. In any case, large numbers of casualties can be caused by terrorists without resorting to WMD. The September 11 terrorists did not require advanced weaponry to cause mass casualties and mass destruction. They used a low-technology operation and returned to decades-old terrorist tactics-hijacking planes-to achieve their goals.

One thing that the 2001 anthrax attacks made abundantly clear is that public health is a key component of U.S. national security. The anthrax attacks revealed serious gaps in the public health system, particularly at the state and local levels. Fortunately, alert physicians diagnosed the early cases correctly. One would hope that the attacks served as a lesson to public health officials by putting them on guard for the possibility of a covert bioterrorist attack, thus lessening the impact of any future attack. Yet many other doctors and health departments in other cities and towns around the country are not prepared to recognize or contain a bioterrorist attack. These gaps must be remedied immediately if the country is to be prepared for more serious threats. Indeed, improving the public health infrastructure will help address the threat posed by bioterrorism as well as the arguably much greater threat from emerging infectious diseases.

The silver lining of the current dark cloud is that there is a window of opportunity to improve our preparedness for a larger-scale biological attack. It is important, however, to address these vulnerabilities in a systematic and determined way, rather than continuing to ride the sine wave of alarmism and complacency that has plagued earlier efforts to improve domestic preparedness.

U.S. policymakers must also be prepared for an entirely different type of attack. If terrorists have access to a significant manufacturing capability, the United States must be prepared for the possibility of an escalation from targeted attacks to mass-casualty attacks with powdered anthrax or some other agent. The most ominous, but not the most likely, threat would involve the deliberate release of a contagious agent, such as pneumonic plague or smallpox. The health system would then have to detect and contain the outbreak before it spread widely.

Concerns about mass-casualty bioterrorism have again been raised in connection with Usama bin Ladin's Al-Qaida group. Uncorroborated testimony in a high-profile Egyptian trial in 1999 indicated that Al-Qaida had acquired dangerous biological agents such as the anthrax bacterium, the Ebola virus, salmonella, and botulinum toxin, while other reports mentioned plague and ricin. Al-Qaida's purported research efforts were focused on weaponizing anthrax, and U.S. forces discovered a partially built biological weapons lab near Kandahar that was designed to produce anthrax even though no actual agents were found. There is still no conclusive evidence that Al-Qaida succeeded in weaponizing any of these agents. However, in January 2003, traces of the toxin ricin was found in an apartment in London used by a group of men potentially linked to Al-Qaida.

At the same time, there are fears that potential conflict with Iraq could result in Saddam Hussein becoming desperate enough to hand over some of his suspected remaining biological weapons arsenal to terrorists in the hopes that they will use the weapons against the United States.

Preparations and Consequence Management for Bioterrorism

Preventing mass-casualty terrorism with WMD agents and, if prevention fails, managing the consequences of an attack, is an enormously demanding task. Since 1995, the United States has allocated enormous resources to combating WMD terrorism. Numerous government programs have been created in an effort to prevent and deter terrorism or to mitigate the effects of a major attack. These efforts have focused on enhancing the ability of local first-responders to decontaminate and treat survivors, augmented by additional capabilities at the state and federal levels. But analysts have criticized the significant overlap and redundancy among various federal counterterrorism programs, as well as the lack of a clear strategy for integrating these diverse elements into a coherent whole. The events of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks have also contributed to these efforts. President Bush, together with Congress, created a new government agency, the Department of Homeland Security, in an effort to ensure greater coordination in response and intelligence collaboration.

Planning domestic preparedness requires coordinating not only some 40 federal agencies, but also a large number of state and local agencies, as well as important elements of the private sector. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is a useful first step, but the department's head, Tom Ridge, will have to overcome budgetary bottlenecks and chronic turf battles among rival federal bureaucracies.

In order to be prepared for a range of contingencies, the first line of defense is to train doctors to recognize the effects of a variety of biological threat agents, and to establish clear channels of communication among primary care physicians and local health departments, as well as among local, state, and federal public health officials. These various levels must be integrated by e-mail and other communications networks into a seamless web. Diagnostic laboratories around the country also need to have the appropriate tests to identify exotic disease agents such as anthrax in patient specimens. Finally, national distribution mechanisms for drugs and vaccines must be developed so that an outbreak of disease can be contained rapidly. The private sector, such as the U.S. chemical industry, transportation, energy, telecommunications infrastructure, and food companies, will also need to spend more to ensure the safety and security of their products and services.

The optimal approach to WMD terrorism is prevention, rather than consequence mitigation. U.S. counterterrorism efforts designed to address this threat have generally been developed in the absence of a realistic assessment of terrorist motivations and technical capabilities for using WMD. To the extent possible, intelligence collection and analysis capabilities must be strengthened to assess the ability of terrorists to acquire, produce, and deliver biological and chemical agents. Improved capabilities are needed to distinguish between natural and deliberate outbreaks of disease. These new challenges will require the intelligence community to improve its depth of expertise in microbiology, chemistry, and epidemiology.

Conclusion

The threat of bioterrorism has not receded since the anthrax attacks of 2001, especially since the perpetrator or perpetrators of those attacks remains unidentified. Recent reports concerning Al-Qaida's efforts to develop biological weapons and the possibility of conflict in Iraq have only increased fears. Despite some empirically based studies and the rich literature on terrorism and WMD issues, the threat of escalation to WMD terrorism remains poorly understood. Continued threat assessments, evaluations and re-evaluations of current policies, and heightened vigilance on the part of intelligence agencies will be essential to prepare for the future. See the following "Relevant Resources" section for web-based resources that offer some insights into these issues.

Issue Introduction    Issue Brief    Relevant Resources

Back to Top

CNSThis material is produced independently for NTI by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers, employees, agents. Copyright © 2007 by MIIS.

Get the factsGet informedGet involved