GlobalSecurity.org In the News

What if the worst terrorist attack was yet to come?

By FRANCIS TEMMAN

What if next time the terrorist attackers swapped their knives and box cutters for much more devastating weapons, such as chemical and biological agents?

A week after the kamikaze plane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, New York officials are already beginning to imagine the worst -- a chemical or biological attack that could kill thousands, if not millions.

"New York is the capital of the world, and as such it's always viewed as the city that faces the greatest threat. The impact of a germ or chemical weapons attack would be devastating," said John Hauer, former director of the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM). "Many experts believe that it is no longer a matter of 'if' but 'when' such an attack will occur," said James Hughes, director of Health and Human Services Department National Center for Infectious Diseases, in a recent public testimony before Congress.

Shaken to its core by the September 11 assaults, which may have killed nearly 6,000 people, some US experts fear a future attack against their country could be of a quite different nature. "The likelihood is high enough that we have to be prepared," warned Philip Russell, professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University. "Terrorists tend to shift their strategies and their tactics. As we develop defenses, they seek new ways. So it's quite probable that sometime in the future somebody will try a biological attack of one sort or another." "We do have to be prepared for the worst scenario -- for a smallpox release that would trigger a global pandemic," he said. "We are not prepared today," he warned. "Our smallpox vaccine (stock) has not been restored."

The sarin gas attack on the Tokyo underground in 1995 might not have taken many victims, but it jolted US authorities. A hoax canister marked "nerve gas" discovered in a cellar in the New York borough of Queens in 1997 further rattled nerves.

In fact, the emergency plan subsequently put in place by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is considered by Steve Macko, risk analyst at the Emergency Response and Research Institute in Chicago (ERRI) to be most advanced in the country.

Very few details of the plan -- designed to improve the readiness of emergency rescue teams, ensure a swift response to attack and protect civilians -- have been made public. The plan however is known to include equipping 12 vehicles with equipment to prevent the spread of a chemical or germ attack, as ell as several hundred handheld detectors, some as small as a matchbox, containing antibodies capable of indicating the presence of infectious bacteria within 10 minutes. The city authorities have negotiated access to regional hospitals in case of emergency, as well as a deal with pharmaceutical companies to provide huge quantities of vaccines and antidotes. And some 4,000 New York police officers, firemen and health workers have been given quasi-military training on how to cope with an assault of this nature.

The most likely scenario would be a combined attack, according to Tim Brown of GlobalSecurity.org. "For a terrorist the type of weapons doesn't really matter. What matters is causing the greatest number of casualties," Brown said. "A scenario could be, for instance, a suicide bombing in the subway, combined at the same time with the release of anthrax or a deadly virus, which are invisible," Brown said. "The problem is that emergency and rescue personnel are not trained to recognize what's going on. They would flock to the scene."

Despite evident concern about the risks and moves to prevent germ warfare, some experts remain sceptical. "We are not prepared at the national level," warned Michael Osterholm, director of the center for infectious research and policy at the University of Minnesota. "We need more resources -- disease surveillance and rapid response in case of a catastrophic epidemic outbreak." A study of 200 hospitals published in the American Journal of Public Health in May showed only one hospital in five had emergency plans to cope with a biological or chemical attack. Less than a third had sufficient antidotes to respond to a nerve gas attack. And only one in 10 had mobile respiratory equipment available for doctors treating the injured.

"The first line of defense would be to prevent terrorists getting into the country," Brown said. Otherwise, he warned, "the psychological effect of such an attack would be a widespread panic, far beyond the area where it took place".