Biohazard Monster: Developing an Actionable Information Strategy on Biosecurity

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

Several years ago as a young man, whom read Biohazard: the Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World--Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It, author Ken Alibek, and Stephen Handelman, my perspective on foreign relations broadened for better or for worse.

According to the Amazon.com review
Biohazard shows how disease can become a deliberate tool of war. Alibek, once a top scientist in the Soviet Union's biological weapons program, describes putting anthrax on a warhead and targeting a city on the other side of the world. "A hundred kilograms of anthrax spores would, in optimal atmospheric conditions, kill up to three million people in any of the densely populated metropolitan areas of the United States," he writes. "A single SS-18 [missile] could wipe out the population of a city as large as New York."

Another source states, "Alibek was one of the key leaders and scientists in the Soviet Union's biological weapons. Until he defected in 1992, little was know in this country about the extent of the Soviet program--a program that was supposed to be dismantled by treaty agreement in the early 1970's. Alibek made us aware of how advanced the Soviet program was. And he warns us that Russia still works on advancing their program despite claims to the contrary."

Well curbing the development and acquisition of NBC weapons on the international market is important in countering it's availability, and it's accessibility. However realistically speaking, what have those efforts proved to reduce? Very little. Russia is just a prime a example however they are not alone.

What events does that translate into for the tactical use of NBC weapons in Modern Warfare? Tooth for a tooth, nail for a nail, an eye for an eye, etc. Maybe so.
However what approaches can the International Community take to halt NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm?

"Vita haina macho"
A Swahili proverb: War has no eyes.

 

[My2Cents]

Are you referring to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare? From the first part of your post I will assume you are only referring to the biological component.

What events does that translate into for the tactical use of NBC weapons in Modern Warfare? Tooth for a tooth, nail for a nail, an eye for an eye, etc. Maybe so.

Biological weapons are strategic weapons only, they cannot be used tactically because of the long period from exposure to the onset of symptoms, typically 2 days to 2 weeks, though some are much longer (even years). Biological weapons also tend to spread uncontrollably, especially when your troops come into contact with theirs and are directly exposed. So you also need to immunize your own troops, which may alert your opponent.

Immunization possesses its own problems. ‘Live’ vaccines produce the best results, but some of those immunized will develop the disease. ‘Dead’ vaccines do not have that problem, but a larger number of those vaccinated will not develop and effective immunity. Both types will have problems with people who be allergic to some component, and there may also be other unforeseen side effects due to interaction with other druges, etc. It is typically much worst with an untested vaccine.

However what approaches can the International Community take to halt NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm?

Before answer this, could you better define how you mean “NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm ”NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm”. Technically, the ancient practice of dumping bodies and waste down a well to render it unusable is a biological attack. And, in any case, the International Community can do little if denied access to the area in dispute to check the claims, like in northern Iraq and Syria.

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

Counter NBC OP's

Are you referring to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare? From the first part of your post I will assume you are only referring to the biological component.

Before answer this, could you better define how you mean “NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm ”NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm”. Technically, the ancient practice of dumping bodies and waste down a well to render it unusable is a biological attack. And, in any case, the International Community can do little if denied access to the area in dispute to check the claims, like in northern Iraq and Syria.

I'm referring to counter-biological warfare.

Small Wars is on military operations in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations in low-intensity conflicts before World War II. In the 1930’s, such conflicts were referred to as small wars now referred to as Small Scale Contingencies (SSC) and also known as military operations other than war (MOOTW).

I'm referring to ”NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm”, as to training for an asymmetric conflict--facing an opponent willing to use NBC weapons, terrorism, exploitation of women and children, and urban warfare. Many SSCs, from Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) to peace operations, will occur in cities, which will requires special training and skills for military personnel.

Just from examining the field behavior Of NBC agents will tell you that a high level of sophistication is required for their manufacture and use. However in reference to small wars, what possible of counter measures can that informed population take that has limited access to NBC training?

Hopefully, i answered your question. Please correct me should i

 

[My2Cents]

I’m going to narrow this down to an answerable question if it kills both of us. :daz

I'm referring to counter-biological warfare.

OK – so far

I'm referring to ”NBC use in small wars-operations against civilian populations incapable of defending themselves in that realm”, as to training for an asymmetric conflict--facing an opponent willing to use NBC weapons, terrorism, exploitation of women and children, and urban warfare. Many SSCs, from Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) to peace operations, will occur in cities, which will requires special training and skills for military personnel.

So, are we looking at a situation where the user of the biological weapon is a state actor (Saddam vs. the Kurds) or guerrilla (Taliban vs. the Coalition), or general chaos (Somalia)?

The country:

• How much organization and control does the local ruler(s) have?
• Existing public health system and other medical infra-structure?
• Disposable funds?
• Communications?
• General education level?
• Standard of living?
• Level of corruption?
• External access?

Who is in country when the bio-weapon is unleashed that can assist:

• NGOs?
• Peacekeepers?
• Peacemakers?
• Occupation forces?

The bio-weapon:

• Where is it released (city/town/rural)
• How infectious and how does it spread?
• Latency period?
• Infectious period during latency?
• Length of infections?
• Lethality?
• Treatment and effectiveness?
• Any early warning (i.e. from intelligence)?
• Does it have an animal vector, and does the effected population include non-humans? Or does it only effect a non-human population, like crops or food animals?

However in reference to small wars, what possible of counter measures can that informed population take that has limited access to NBC training?

Answer the above if you want any answer other than ‘have a 1st world economy and infrastructure’. This is a VERY broad and complicated subject.

Just from examining the field behavior Of NBC agents will tell you that a high level of sophistication is required for their manufacture and use.

That depends on your definition of biological warfare, the agents you want to use, and how you disperse them.

Stuffing dead bodies into the local well to contaminate the water with cholera pre-dates written history, and collecting and releasing plague rats into a city goes back to pre-roman times by some accounts.

Other low tech solutions include using carriers (i.e. ‘Typhoid Mary’) to spread the disease, or deliberately infective individuals (for example, by assigning only infected troops, or even deliberately infecting your own troops, to rape the population you are attacking to spread venereal diseases).

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

I’m going to narrow this down to an answerable question if it kills both of us. :daz

Thanks a lot, your perspective is really appreciated on this subject matter. The information is well organized and well put.

One point you made about, State Actor, Guerrilla, and general Chaos, is so true in relation to the economics of warfare and fire power. Other outside Agents could be introduced however that sums up the matter.

My question for you: Do you think that any "Civil Defense" would ever be able to counter a large scale biological attack? And if so, what characteristics would make such "Civil Defense"? :coffee