Erik Reuter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with > > regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a > > nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be > > properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains > > anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. > > Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. > > I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed > to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't > know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you?
That's what I've feared: the chem/bio/nuke materials are smuggled into the US (easy enough to do) and disseminated to assorted terror cells. What then: I've heard mention of the possibility of smuggling in drones/UAV's to do airborne delivery of chemical/biological agents. There was also the whole "cropduster" concern a while back - stealing one of those might not be so difficult. And of course, the US mail system seems to be quite effective as an anthrax delivery vehicle: Imagine not a dozen letters but thousands, mailed from all over the US, simultaneously. But really, a primary point of terrorism is "terror". Chem/bio attacks in our subway systems would not kill many thousands of people, but that doesn't make them not a threat. Multiple smaller attacks like that could kill hundreds, spread terror, and cause billions in economic damage. -bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
