A Larger Terrorism Threat
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Michael Krepon made some excellent points regarding an overblown fear of nuclear blasts ["5 Myths About All Those Nukes Out There," Outlook, March 1]. But his focus on "nuclear" in commenting on former vice president Dick Cheney's warning last month of the "high probability" of terrorists attempting a nuclear or biological attack missed the most probable half of that threat assessment. The biological threat, either from terrorists or nature's pandemics, deserves far more media coverage and public attention.
Biological weapons are infinitely cheaper and easier to make than nuclear weapons, and they are infinitely easier to deliver anonymously to their target. We can barely protect people from contaminated peanut butter, and most Americans have no idea of the human and economic catastrophe that a weaponized strain of smallpox could create. Intentionally inserted into a nationally distributed batch of ice cream, it would kill more Americans than a limited nuclear exchange.
Mass death in America from a bioterrorism attack, natural pandemics or a bioweapons lab accident seems inevitable. Our best line of defense is in a durable national health-care system and infrastructure. Greater federal investments in recruiting and training nurses would do more for our national security than worrying about nuclear attacks.
CHUCK WOOLERY
Rockville
