Zhukov
VIP Member
To anyone knowledgeable of human history it is clear that at some time around the midpoint of the previous century humanity reached a pivotal moment in its evolution.
Though war had been a ubiquitous and nearly constant fact of life for thousands of years of civilization, human technology had finally, by the middle of the 20th century, reached a level capable of exterminating all human life. From the development of guns capable of firing massive amounts of rounds, to mass gas chambers, to the use of biological agents on civilian centers, to the atomic annihilation of cities, it quickly became obvious that humanity was racing towards a precipice.
Chemicals, biological agents, and nuclear weapons; weapons of mass destruction.
Fortunately, and perhaps because of these technological advances, the last great war ended and saner minds prevailed for nearly 50 years. Despite fear and differing ideologies and aspirations, nothing was worth mutually assured destruction.
But, as some have lamented, those were simpler times. Once upon a time the enemy feared death.
Though each side developed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world many times over, the only thing that prevented the destruction of humanity was the fear of death.
Today, though we neednt worry about thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with multiple nuclear warheads, the threat of weapons of mass destruction is much more real in my mind.
Though of prime attention during the Cold War, nuclear weapons are neither the most dangerous nor the most insidious of weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear weapon is a crude tool, capable of indiscriminately destroying everything in its vicinity. A chemical weapon is also a crude tool, bursting in the air and depending upon the vagaries of the wind or environment for its effectiveness.
Both of these types of weapons are to be sure certainly dangerous and, if applied in appropriate quantity, threatening to the continued existence of humanity, but what is a far more dangerous and an insidious weapon?
A single biological agent.
During the Cold War it is reasonable to suspect that the United States continued its wartime development of biological agents (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm) to create a super-bug. Evidence exists to suggest the Soviet Union proceeded apace with its own biological weapons program.
Considering we felt the need to produce enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over, it is further reasonable to conclude in a short matter of time, with the vast amount of money, minds, and resources available to the United States, we were capable of producing an airborne communicable virus with an appropriately lengthy latency period and a nearly 100% mortality rate once contracted.
That means, that in all likelihood, buried somewhere in the desert, there is a virus that if released would spread around the world as easily and as quickly as the flu and kill nearly everyone who contracted it within a matter of weeks.
Naturally, we would never even consider using such an awful weapon, because it will kill everyone, indiscriminately, and despite what our detractors may think of us, we are not insane. And neither were the Soviets, who quite possibly developed a biological agent along similar lines.
Unfortunately our contemporary death worshipping enemies, though perhaps not technically, are insane by any meaningful definition of the word. I find it unlikely to believe that if such a weapon were in the hands of our enemy they would feel much compunction against using it. What do you think?
Imagine a small group of religious extremists living an isolated existence in a cave in a desolate and remote area. They come across a biological agent, by one means, or another, and devise a plan:
Five or six martyrs will travel to a populated area, infect themselves, and board an airplane. These martyrs will be carrying no contraband, have no prior record, and be associated with no one. They will however be coughing.
One may fly to Istanbul, asking passers-by directions, and coughing, and then board a train into Europe to visit the malls and other populated areas. Another may fly to Southeast Asia, and make their way to Australia. Given the interconnectedness of our modern world its not difficult to imagine the ultimate result. The enemy himself may need never come to our country at all, but will instead send thousands of unwitting emissaries.
Does anyone believe our enemy would regret the demise of the vast majority of humanity, even a billion Muslims, if it left the world free for them? I dont doubt they would call those Muslims they sacrificed martyrs. Meanwhile, isolated as they were, they would not fear infection.
Possessing what knowledge I have of micro- and cellular biology, and genetics I am of the opinion that the ability required for creating such an agent is not great, but is instead well within the means of any state with the will, the money, the time, and the resources. I flatter myself, thinking given enough time and resources I could come up with something myself. Whats more, considering that the information concerning biological agents concocted by the Soviets or us may well be available for sale, the difficulty in producing such an agent could be far less than even what I would imagine.
Considering this very real threat, I believe there are two options.
The left and the far right alike would likely champion the first: isolation
But what sort of isolation would be effective against such a threat? First it would be necessary to construct an impenetrable barrier at the US/Mexico border, and the US/Canada border, and patrol those borders with tens of thousands of guards. It would be further necessary to patrol our coastal areas, on sea and land, with several tens of thousands of more guards. No one would be allowed entry into our country for fear of infection, and in those cases where special considerations are made, an extensive period of quarantine and study would be required. No one would be allowed to leave, unless they understood they would not be allowed to return, and rather than monitoring all foreign mail in sealed safe rooms, mail from out of country would not be permitted.
Extreme measures, but were that the course to be followed, necessary ones.
Of course, what would be the ultimate result of such an isolationist policy? With the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from the rest of the world, the globe would be left to the remaining factions: the muddling pacifistic European socialists, the Chinese and other communists, and the Islamic extremists. In short order, South Korea would disappear, Taiwan would be engulfed, Israel would be destroyed, Russia would rethink whose side it was on, and Europe would be overrun.
Antagonism in Kashmir would increase, likely leading to a nuclear exchange, and China and the remaining Islamic world would split the prize of India.
Afghan would revert to Islamic rule. Pervez would be shot and Pakistan would fall to the Islamists. Iraq would be torn apart internally only to have the Iranian Shiites arrive to install their form of Islamic rule. All moderate Islamic states would revert to a more extreme version or be destroyed by terrorists from within. All extreme Islamic states would quite possibly merge into a single caliphate.
The end result would be an Islamic superpower.
In short, our attempts at security against Islamic extremists would have utterly backfired.
The other option, the only rational one, is to fight, to determine what nations may posses the capability to develop biological weapons, and to utterly destroy those institutions. Iraq was found to have been continuing its biological weapons programs. Destroying that regime was the right and sensible thing to do. To deny that is wildly illogical.
The administration never claimed it was an imminent threat, and justifiably understood that it was the responsible thing to do to attack Iraq anyways. It was later confirmed that Iraq was an imminent threat, and more dangerous than most analysts, including Dr. Kay, had suspected. To continue to bemoan our involvement beyond that point far transcends the borders of irrationality.
It is far better to steady our resolve for the years of tribulations to come. There will be more deaths and more bad days in the war against terrorism. Let us not forever seek to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The threat of a biological agent being developed by a rogue state and then passed along to be released by our demonstrably suicidal enemies is too great to intentionally ignore by naively wishing it will evaporate like a bad dream at the coming of dawn.
The only morning we will have is the one we fight to insure.
Some reading:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/impevents.htm
Though war had been a ubiquitous and nearly constant fact of life for thousands of years of civilization, human technology had finally, by the middle of the 20th century, reached a level capable of exterminating all human life. From the development of guns capable of firing massive amounts of rounds, to mass gas chambers, to the use of biological agents on civilian centers, to the atomic annihilation of cities, it quickly became obvious that humanity was racing towards a precipice.
Chemicals, biological agents, and nuclear weapons; weapons of mass destruction.
Fortunately, and perhaps because of these technological advances, the last great war ended and saner minds prevailed for nearly 50 years. Despite fear and differing ideologies and aspirations, nothing was worth mutually assured destruction.
But, as some have lamented, those were simpler times. Once upon a time the enemy feared death.
Though each side developed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world many times over, the only thing that prevented the destruction of humanity was the fear of death.
Today, though we neednt worry about thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with multiple nuclear warheads, the threat of weapons of mass destruction is much more real in my mind.
Though of prime attention during the Cold War, nuclear weapons are neither the most dangerous nor the most insidious of weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear weapon is a crude tool, capable of indiscriminately destroying everything in its vicinity. A chemical weapon is also a crude tool, bursting in the air and depending upon the vagaries of the wind or environment for its effectiveness.
Both of these types of weapons are to be sure certainly dangerous and, if applied in appropriate quantity, threatening to the continued existence of humanity, but what is a far more dangerous and an insidious weapon?
A single biological agent.
During the Cold War it is reasonable to suspect that the United States continued its wartime development of biological agents (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm) to create a super-bug. Evidence exists to suggest the Soviet Union proceeded apace with its own biological weapons program.
Considering we felt the need to produce enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over, it is further reasonable to conclude in a short matter of time, with the vast amount of money, minds, and resources available to the United States, we were capable of producing an airborne communicable virus with an appropriately lengthy latency period and a nearly 100% mortality rate once contracted.
That means, that in all likelihood, buried somewhere in the desert, there is a virus that if released would spread around the world as easily and as quickly as the flu and kill nearly everyone who contracted it within a matter of weeks.
Naturally, we would never even consider using such an awful weapon, because it will kill everyone, indiscriminately, and despite what our detractors may think of us, we are not insane. And neither were the Soviets, who quite possibly developed a biological agent along similar lines.
Unfortunately our contemporary death worshipping enemies, though perhaps not technically, are insane by any meaningful definition of the word. I find it unlikely to believe that if such a weapon were in the hands of our enemy they would feel much compunction against using it. What do you think?
Imagine a small group of religious extremists living an isolated existence in a cave in a desolate and remote area. They come across a biological agent, by one means, or another, and devise a plan:
Five or six martyrs will travel to a populated area, infect themselves, and board an airplane. These martyrs will be carrying no contraband, have no prior record, and be associated with no one. They will however be coughing.
One may fly to Istanbul, asking passers-by directions, and coughing, and then board a train into Europe to visit the malls and other populated areas. Another may fly to Southeast Asia, and make their way to Australia. Given the interconnectedness of our modern world its not difficult to imagine the ultimate result. The enemy himself may need never come to our country at all, but will instead send thousands of unwitting emissaries.
Does anyone believe our enemy would regret the demise of the vast majority of humanity, even a billion Muslims, if it left the world free for them? I dont doubt they would call those Muslims they sacrificed martyrs. Meanwhile, isolated as they were, they would not fear infection.
Possessing what knowledge I have of micro- and cellular biology, and genetics I am of the opinion that the ability required for creating such an agent is not great, but is instead well within the means of any state with the will, the money, the time, and the resources. I flatter myself, thinking given enough time and resources I could come up with something myself. Whats more, considering that the information concerning biological agents concocted by the Soviets or us may well be available for sale, the difficulty in producing such an agent could be far less than even what I would imagine.
Considering this very real threat, I believe there are two options.
The left and the far right alike would likely champion the first: isolation
But what sort of isolation would be effective against such a threat? First it would be necessary to construct an impenetrable barrier at the US/Mexico border, and the US/Canada border, and patrol those borders with tens of thousands of guards. It would be further necessary to patrol our coastal areas, on sea and land, with several tens of thousands of more guards. No one would be allowed entry into our country for fear of infection, and in those cases where special considerations are made, an extensive period of quarantine and study would be required. No one would be allowed to leave, unless they understood they would not be allowed to return, and rather than monitoring all foreign mail in sealed safe rooms, mail from out of country would not be permitted.
Extreme measures, but were that the course to be followed, necessary ones.
Of course, what would be the ultimate result of such an isolationist policy? With the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from the rest of the world, the globe would be left to the remaining factions: the muddling pacifistic European socialists, the Chinese and other communists, and the Islamic extremists. In short order, South Korea would disappear, Taiwan would be engulfed, Israel would be destroyed, Russia would rethink whose side it was on, and Europe would be overrun.
Antagonism in Kashmir would increase, likely leading to a nuclear exchange, and China and the remaining Islamic world would split the prize of India.
Afghan would revert to Islamic rule. Pervez would be shot and Pakistan would fall to the Islamists. Iraq would be torn apart internally only to have the Iranian Shiites arrive to install their form of Islamic rule. All moderate Islamic states would revert to a more extreme version or be destroyed by terrorists from within. All extreme Islamic states would quite possibly merge into a single caliphate.
The end result would be an Islamic superpower.
In short, our attempts at security against Islamic extremists would have utterly backfired.
The other option, the only rational one, is to fight, to determine what nations may posses the capability to develop biological weapons, and to utterly destroy those institutions. Iraq was found to have been continuing its biological weapons programs. Destroying that regime was the right and sensible thing to do. To deny that is wildly illogical.
The administration never claimed it was an imminent threat, and justifiably understood that it was the responsible thing to do to attack Iraq anyways. It was later confirmed that Iraq was an imminent threat, and more dangerous than most analysts, including Dr. Kay, had suspected. To continue to bemoan our involvement beyond that point far transcends the borders of irrationality.
It is far better to steady our resolve for the years of tribulations to come. There will be more deaths and more bad days in the war against terrorism. Let us not forever seek to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The threat of a biological agent being developed by a rogue state and then passed along to be released by our demonstrably suicidal enemies is too great to intentionally ignore by naively wishing it will evaporate like a bad dream at the coming of dawn.
The only morning we will have is the one we fight to insure.
Some reading:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/impevents.htm
