Hi Lindy,

The problem is even more complex.

Let me paint a little more background than you will get through media channels.

You see in 1972 a BWC (Biological weapon convention) was signed by the US and the Soviet Union.

Nixon hated the stuff and knew it was a messy nightmare if the research went full steam ahead on biological weapons, so he was all for some sort of limitations.

However, most people are unaware that in 1979 in Sverdlosk, the USSR had a biological accident - releasing anthrax and demonstrating they were in violation of the BWC.

So, what do you think the US and NATO response to this accident is going to be?

Sign a 'better' treaty?

Try to get x-ray eyes like Superman and speed past every potential research spot throughout the USSR?

No. Of course not.

The response is going to be stepping up our research in biological agents, nerve agents and every other god-awful thing the USSR was researching and possibly ones they were not.

That is precisely what we did. Of course this comes with inherent dangers and while statistically the record is great at these facilities - when dealing with this stuff, any single incident is a catastrophe of some proportion.

As has now been revealed by semi-credible sources - the USSR ha(s)d suitcase nukes hidden around our major cities and Washington D.C. which operatives were to use in the case of a war.

Is it hard to imagine that blistering agents,nerve agents and (or) anthrax was cached in and around D.C. and other major US cities?

It doesn't tax my imagination to envision such a scenario. The Soviet BW arsenal is immense and even with the BW reduction treaty signed in 1990, in which they are were projected to still possess in 2002 over 5,000 agent tons!
(Thats a LOT of nasty stuff.)

So these incidents are not surprising - what is surprising is that we have gone on as long as we have with this stuff and have NOT had major thefts or anthrax deaths until now.

Do we destroy our stockpiles of agents and cease research?

While this would seem rational at first glance - it is really only inviting the sort of a-bomb versus hydrogen bomb imbalance to be created.

Oppenheimer wanted to stop research on the H-bomb. Edward Teller knew it was necessary to prevent a Soviet-West imbalance.

Teller was right. The Russians had a H-bomb test within months of our own successful detonation.

If we cease BW research now - research which includes developing chemical counter-agents - we risk and perhaps INVITE biological attack from terrorists or foreign nations down the road.

Unfortunately the future is never clear. We may be chummy with Russia - and have to watch China now. But six months or years from now who knows what alliances will exist or where BW will pop up?

It is a terrible business. Possibly the most nasty research the US has ever engaged in 'knowingly'.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1