I'm having a hard time following you here...(?) I thought it was clear that I was refering to the difficulty of weaponizing smallpox. Also, the material I read, which may have been dated (about 10 years old, if memory serves), mentioned the ability to contain smallpox in the context of the technology/methodology already available that was used to eradicate it.
Anthrax is nothing compared to small pox.
Small pox is highly infectious and does not need to be weaponized to be effective against us. Weaponized meaning making it in to a fine powder that can disseminate into the air and float without being seen.
The things you mention, about ringing it and the like, are right. That's what is done.
But even with such a full response there would be a very high death rate. It's all relative and "containiment" you are talking about as the best case scenario of responding would still be musch worse than an anthrax attack.
When they say it could be contained they are talking about compared to not responding in such a manner.