I found something on Strategy Page which argued that SH hasn't sent lots of anthrax to the U.S. yet: http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20020620.asp
"A few dozen pounds of Daschle-grade anthrax, properly delivered, could kill millions of Americans. Distribution is a problem, though, as anthrax isn't contagious. Iraq definitely has enough bullets to shoot every American in the head, but those can't be effectively delivered to our heads. The delivery issue also applies to Iraqi nukes being smuggled into the U.S.First, smuggled WMD aren't useable as instruments of state policy, for security reasons. Deterrent use by a state requires that the WMD be covertly stored in or near the targets for extended periods, which maximizes the risk of discovery. Terrorists would use them almost immediately after delivery.
Second, discovery of smuggled nukes/anthrax in a nuclear-armed power's homeland invites immediate nuclear attack against an identified state perpetrator. Saddam risks that if he smuggles those into the US in anticipation of imminent invasion, only to have prospective US invasion forces sit in place without attacking for a few months, as in Desert Shield. This tactic, if employed again, would also maximize the risk of his assassination, both because those of his scarce competent, trustworthy underlings hiding out in or near the U.S. with WMD would not be protecting Saddam's precious self, and because it would focus their less loyal brethren's minds on the prospect of inexorable doom if they keep Saddam alive versus the joys of American gratitude if they don't. We'd be very generous.
A more credible Iraqi threat would be to give nukes, smallpox and weaponized anthrax to Al Qaeda in the event of US invasion - the "Samson Option". Delivery to Al Qaeda would still be a problem, especially for nukes (we might outbid them once the invasion starts, etc.), but feasibility is less important when the objective is deterrence as opposed to actually doing it. It is likely that much American hesitancy in attacking Iraq is due to implied threat of the Samson Option. Saddam's optimum survival strategy against prospective American invasion seems to be deterrence through fear of Al Qaeda use of Iraqi WMD."
On the other hand, there was this story indicating that the U.S. govt. is wetting its pants about the Iraqi anthrax threat: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/14/214727.shtml
"FEMA, the federal agency charged with disaster preparedness, is engaged in a crash effort to prepare for multiple mass destruction attacks on U.S. cities - including the creation of sprawling temporary cities to handle millions of displaced persons, NewsMax has learned.FEMA is readying for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against U.S. cities, including the possibility of multiple attacks with mass destruction weapons.
The agency has already notified vendors, contractors and consultants that it needs to be prepared to handle the logistics of aiding millions of displaced Americans who will flee from urban areas that may be attacked.
The agency plans to create emergency, makeshift cities that could house hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who may have to flee their urban homes if their cities are attacked.
Ominously, FEMA has been given a deadline of having the cities ready to go by January 2003 – in about six months.
A source familiar with the deadline believes the effort is related to making the U.S. prepared for counterattacks if the U.S. invades Iraq sometime next year.
FEMA is currently seeking bids from major real estate management firms, and plans to name three firms in the near future to handle the logistics and planning for these temporary cities.
FEMA officials have told these firms they already have tents and trailers ordered. The tents and trailers would provide shelter for displaced populations.
The real estate firms are expected to provide engineers and architects to lay the plans for emergency infrastructure needs, such as sewage and electricity."
The author of the latter, Congressman Edwards, is a known flake and headline hound, though. So I dunno. Looks like we should be mighty nervous.
First, smuggled WMD aren't useable as instruments of state policy, for security reasons. Deterrent use by a state requires that the WMD be covertly stored in or near the targets for extended periods, which maximizes the risk of discovery.
It might be fairly hard too discover a few pounds of powder.
Terrorists would use them almost immediately after delivery.
At one point in the past I would have agreed. Not anymore. They are clearly sophisticated enough to be patient.
Second, discovery of smuggled nukes/anthrax in a nuclear-armed power's homeland invites immediate nuclear attack against an identified state perpetrator.
Perhaps, but that case has not been made in any believable and public way.
And I agree completely: We should be mighty nervous.