From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Wed Aug 23 2000 - 12:57:12 MDT
"Spudboy" asks,
> Peace through techno-transendence. Will wars become a form of entertainment
> as the did in ancient and not so ancient days, because of cheap robots and
> highly effective defense systems?
Probably not.
Check this out:
Expert: US Open To Bioterrorism
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Advances in technology make the United States
more vulnerable to bioterrorism than to nuclear attack, a leading
expert in defending against biological weapons said Tuesday.
Dr. Tara O'Toole, deputy director of Johns Hopkins University's
Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies, suggested devoting $30
billion over the next 10 years to prepare health care systems to
detect, track, respond and contain epidemics that would be
triggered by biological weapons.
The Department of Health and Human Services says it is spending
$278 million this fiscal year to prepare for bioterrorism.
``The likelihood of a biological weapon being used is a lot
higher than a missile coming across the Pacific,'' O'Toole said.
``And yet we are spending a lot more on missile defense than we are
on biological systems.''
``A bio Unibomber is perfectly possible, and that threat will
grow because of the growing power of biotechnology and genomics,''
she said in a discussion at the independent Center for Strategic
and International Studies.
Spurred by the spread of computers, the Internet and large
corporations searching for medical miracles, biotechnical advances
are moving much faster than physics did in the 1950s, O'Toole said.
Genetic research to develop new drugs could ``create the tools
to build a more powerful weapon and virulent bug,'' she said.
Simple devices such as a nasal spray could spread a deadly
disease such as anthrax, underscoring the difficulty of detecting
biological weapons before their use.
O'Toole said the United States needs to strengthen its public
health and medical care system to deal with biological attacks
because this would ``probably make ourselves less attractive
targets to would-be perpetrators.''
A byproduct of such an effort, she said, would be an improvement
in the everyday functioning of hospitals and other health care
systems, because new medical devices and treatments would be
developed.
O'Toole recommended a robust research and development program to
reduce vulnerability to biological weapons using resources of the
departments of Defense and Health and Human Services.
``We've also got to engage the genius of the universities, the
pharmaceutical firms and biotechnology companies, who are not now
in this game,'' she said. ``They are not running around looking for
cures for anthrax. There is no market reason to do so.''
The research program should focus on three areas, she
recommended:
_Developing an automated means to diagnose disease-causing
organisms by using microchips.
_Producing better vaccines, more vaccines and new antibiotics
and particularly anti-viral drugs for likely bioagents.
_Enhancing immune response generally ``so we can get `one-bug,
one-drug' and see if we can find a more all-purpose way to limit
our susceptibility to infectious disease.''
Public health experts have warned for several years that
bioterrorism, the release of deadly bacteria or viruses, is a
growing threat. While the government knows how to respond to
chemical spills or bombings, bioterrorism could be the ultimate
sneak attack: no one would know it had happened until sick people
began arriving at hospitals.
It's not a theoretical risk. In 1985, a cult sickened 750 people
by poisoning salad bars in Oregon with the food-poisoning germ
salmonella. In 1995, experts say Japanese doomsday cultists tried
but failed to release botulism toxin and anthrax in Tokyo. The same
cult later released nerve gas into a subway and killed 12 people
and made thousands sick.
Center for Strategic and International Studies:
http://www.csis.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:34 MST