reply to post by Helig
Helig-
Good point- but I have a few considerations:
1) Like 9/11, the goal of terrorism is not always to kill off many poeple, but to create fear, panic and to destroy economies and infrastructure (and
they succeeded in a way to that extent)
2) Flu is a better vector for bio-warfare than many others, BECAUSE it doesn't kill its' hosts too quickly. Ebola would burn too fast- before
people had a chance to get out. Comes on fast, death is fast. Certainly it would cuase massive destruction, but not in the scale of millions of
hundreds of millions. Look at the recent outbreaks in Africa- even as Sub-saharan Africans gain more ability to get on a plane, etc., you only see
isolated burns of Ebola. As well, it's a jungle disease- used to triple canopies, and can't live in regular UV light for more than a minute or so-
so it's not an effective weapon- unless it's engineered to either go airborne or to last in sunlight.
3) An effective bio-agent is one, which, like an economic attack, reduces a nation's (or a world's) confidence, financial stability, free trade and
travel, etc.
For those reasone, influenza is pretty ideal. You get a fair amount of morbitity and mortality, but not enough to break down society (hopefully),
then you take advantage of a weakened military, economy, government and population. People are gun-shy, amenable to Governmental control, and in need
of help- over-possibly- years.
Anthrax would destabilise us faster, and Ebola would kill more greusomely, but smallpox, flu, other viruses, would be the way to slowly disemble a
country's stability.