Bioterrorism, smallpox vaccines, & another WMD Commission report

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Well, not as we know it, but looking at the political environment today it's hard to imagine a scenario where a significant perceived threat would not cause a political knee jerk event similar to that we are seeing with the economy. Congress seems to be very easily maniputlated of late.

One can speculate. I would suggest looking to the response to Hurricane Katrina as a model case for comparison w/r/t federalization of response. (And hurricanes can trigger [usually do] the Stafford Act.)

Regardless, the law is written the way it is written today. Additionally, across the TOPOFF-2, -3, & -4 events (the closest full scale terrorism response exercise that involves federal, State, local, and tribal governments), local governments and police resist ceding authority to States, States governments and police resist ceding authority to DHS & FBI, and most have resisted DoD coming into play. The initial response to the first Amerithrax cases in Florida wesn't federalized until use of the US postal system was discovered.

Now in the event of another bioterrorism or chemical terrorism or radiological terrorism, things may change. That’s speculation. And the robustness of those speculations both w/r/t policy acuity and technical content/reality may vary. (Detonation of a nuclear device would trigger Stafford Act but through a different route.)

Over the weekend, I was part of a group that was mostly clinicians and PharmD's (of which I am neither). About half were former military/DoD. One observation that struck me -- because it was surprising to me -- was how the private sector folks kept asking for federal guidelines and requirements (w/r/t acquisition, dosage, usage, storage, emergency response plans, etc of medical treatments and response to a CBW terrorism event). Basically, the private sector representatives (mostly ER docs and hospital pharmacists) were wanting federal intrusion w/r/t preparation. What States do is up to the States. Federal agencies can issue advisories and minimum requirements if one requests funding through certain programs (e.g., MMRS).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[alw 0]

Quote

. . .
One can speculate . . .

And so I shall . . .

To begin with I should think that a true mega terrorist event would not be an exercise in history but one in imagination. It would not be localized or narrowly targeted but widely focused. It would not require acutal mass response but rely on mass concern, worry, or even some hysteria without relying on a factual basis for that hysteria. Response would not matter since the event would achieve its primary objectives before a response would be mounted against it.

What can be seen today is a national if not global "Government must fix this" attitude. Here in the good old USA we don't think local or state governments will fix anything and even those local and state governments are looking for federal solutions. Contrary to popular belief shit rolls both up and down hill.

Terror events in the past have been generally local or finely focused on a specific group. A general disregard for borders and factions, that is to say a true assault on society as a whole would have an enormous impact on western society. It would also be politically impossible to solve without a breakdown of political borders.

Since terrorists seem to be more imaginative than governments the single spot of hope is that they may have considered that such an act may have just the opposite effect than the one they are trying to achieve. That is, it might actually bring governments closer together. That might be the only reason they would not execute such an attack.

There is no direct preventative measure which could prevent such an attack. If it could be stifled in the press, that would suffice to negate it, but that is unlikely here in America. Some reporter would gladly trade national panic for their Woodward and Bernstein moment.

As long as we are willing to discuss scenarios where the words won't, can't, must, and law are not used I think we might be able to actually appreciate the potential that could be faced. Of course it would be much easier to just require everyone to play by the rules.

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

... One can speculate . . .

And so I shall . . .

Terror events in the past have been generally local or finely focused on a specific group.

Yes & no. A great deal of thinking on terrorism is still influenced by the separatist-nationalist terrorism that predominated (but was not exclusive) from the 1940s (e.g., early Zionists) through 1980s (e.g., Western Sahara, IRA, Tupac Amura, Shining Path, GIA). As you write they were frequently focused specific territories; it was also a concurrence of the anti-colonialism of the time.

Before that the predominant terrorists were globally focused, and others have argued as such offer a better model for planning that the separatists-nationalists, i.e., the anarchists of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Similarly non-specific territory-focused but very different in their goals/motivations and operations was another much earlier terrorist group. One of the most well-known of early sub-state actors that operated multi-regionally, were the Hashishiyyin (origin of the modern word “Assassin”).

Quote

A general disregard for borders and factions, that is to say a true assault on society as a whole would have an enormous impact on western society. It would also be politically impossible to solve without a breakdown of political borders.

Concur. And recognition of that is critical to recognition of the importance of the wider world … strategic communications and why what the rest of the world thinks matters, (part 2).

Once one makes that recognition, what does that suggest with respect to response and planning for response?

Quote

Since terrorists seem to be more imaginative than governments the single spot of hope is that they may have considered that such an act may have just the opposite effect than the one they are trying to achieve. That is, it might actually bring governments closer together. That might be the only reason they would not execute such an attack.

There are lots of reasons terrorists might not execute an attack:

pressure from tacit supporters (e.g., seen w/IRA and PKK)

pressure from credible authorities

re-integration (e.g., IRA, Tamil and Uraguay)

disintergration/collapse (e.g., Red Cells, Tupac Amura)

disruption of a group’s operations [e.g., MNF at start of OEF]

reality or perception of target hardening/decreased (or less) vulnerability of targets

success in conventional weapons and improvised explosives

patience

success at achieving the group’s goals.

Yours is one that I’ve never heard put forth before. Doesn’t make it invalid. Just one that I’d like to hear more evidence and understand the process behind it.

You may find interesting and edifying in the non-pejorative sense of the word a relatively recent RAND study: How Terrorists Groups End, which I was asked to review last summer, on the end of terrorist groups – how they end & what has been found to work best toward ending them.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying