To: buccaneer81
Short of going nuclear, chemical or biological, I can't imagine what could be more cruel or shocking.Taking that route would mean they believe we won't follow our own stated policy in regard to WMD.
To: all
The smallpox vaccine does not have smallpox in it. If you took a trip to England or Europe and found yourself some cows with a disease called cowpox, you could give it to yourself. You would make antibodies which are cross-protective for smallpox. Cowpox is very mild and usually goes away without treatment. It's almost a shame we don't have it here in the US, now, though it is not good for the dairy industry.
The previous mortality rates for smallpox were only 30%. After all this, I sincerely doubt that this will be the agent for use if there is one, in a future terrorist attack. Having worked in the manufacture of recombinant vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, I sincerely doubt that the mid east has managed to alter the smallpox virus.
It is difficult for me to predict what I think would be the most effective and safe bio-weapon of choice. Anthrax would pretty much render the property useless for many long years. Ebola is too self-limiting to kill many and too dangerous to handle and deal with. Bubonic plague is almost safe for us to encounter now - the reasons for it being so deadly in the past had more to do with the ways people lived in that time, and the bacteria itself is very hard to keep alive outside of an incubator.
We have strains of Yersinia in hospitals for QC purposes and we lose them under the best of conditions at times.
I guess I have to think they would use some form of chemical poisoning. Inert bio-weapons will not die enroute to the placement of them and are much more predictable.
God Bless America.
61 posted on
09/23/2001 7:34:30 AM PDT by
MarMema
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson