Bioweapons - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Bioweapons PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 50734e-ZTc2N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Bioweapons

Description:

Bioweapons Diseases, Detection, and Doctrine I. Guillemin: Points to Remember Three phases in the history of BW Difficulty of effective employment US/UK ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:516
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 125
Provided by: www2Tamuc
Learn more at: http://www2.tamuct.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Bioweapons


1
Bioweapons
  • Diseases, Detection, and Doctrine

2
I. Guillemin Points to Remember
  • Three phases in the history of BW
  • Difficulty of effective employment
  • US/UK difficulties in efficient aerosol
    dispersion.
  • USSR incidents in Kazakhstan and Sverdlovsk
  • Japanese program backfires (perhaps kills more
    Japanese soldiers than Chinese!)
  • Nonstate programs numerous but rarely effective
    Criticisms of Dark Winter scenarios
  • No Golden Age of bioweapon use defenses kept
    pace with offense. Chemicals more commonly used.
    Why?

3
I. Guillemin Points to Remember
  • The Development of BW as WMD
  • Note the US progress in WW II
  • The Immunity Deal with Japanese scientists and
    Cold War Research
  • Bureaucratic politics and the need to match
    atomic-scale devastation (competition for scarce
    resources)
  • Arms races
  • Looking Glass justifications and overestimation
    of opponents
  • The surprising unilateral renunciation of Nixon
    What explains it?

4
I. Guillemin Points to Remember
  • Offense-defense overlap
  • Vaccines as keys to offensive BW
  • Project Whitecoat and the misuse of conscientious
    objectors
  • The dilemma of verification the weakness of the
    BWC
  • The Soviet program
  • US resistance to verification
  • Merits and risks of secrecy
  • Responsible/Irresponsible nations distinction and
    international law

5
II. Supplements to Guillemin
  • Use in World War II
  • The case of Stalingrad
  • Suspicious outbreak of tularemia at Stalingrad
  • Kenneth Alibek (Soviet weapons scientist) alleges
    USSR used bioweapons
  • Other scientists believe outbreak was natural

6
2. Japans Unit 731
  • a. Guillemin lowballs the figures for Chinese
    deaths. But Langford (Introduction to Weapons of
    Mass Destruction, 2004, p.142) says 250,000
    Chinese killed by Japanese BW, mainly plague.
  • b. A few thousand 250,000 is a big range. Can
    we narrow down the effectiveness of the Japanese
    program?

7
i. Testimony of Hayashi Shigemi (October 7, 1954)
  • "In 1943(we) spread cholera once in Shantung
    Province... The germ was first dumped into the
    Wei River, then the dike was destroyed to let the
    water flow into a larger area to rapidly spread
    the germ. I personally participated in this
    mission. I handed the germ to Kakizoe Shinobu, an
    Army medical doctor. He then in turn sent someone
    else to spread the germ. According to my
    knowledge, in our local area there were twenty
    five thousand two hundred ninety one Chinese
    people who died from this. How many died
    altogether I do not know, because it was
    top-secret information. Our mission was to murder
    Chinese people in mass, to test the effectiveness
    of the cholera germ, and to be ready to use it in
    fighting the Russians.
  • Problem Unable to locate source of testimony
    (reprinted on highly nationalist web sites but
    no trials in 1954)

8
ii. Sources of evidence
  • Estimate of 3000 testimony of one official who
    witnessed about 600 deaths/year for 5 years at
    Ping Fan
  • Now considered gross underestimate because
    excludes other camps
  • Prisoners not issued unique IDs 101-1500 used as
    ID numbers, then recycled with next batch of
    prisoners. X-Rays destroyed by end of war.
  • NONE of these estimates include the actual plague
    outbreaks in China. But can those be blamed on
    Japanese BW, or were they natural?
  • Ishii had incentives to exaggerate effects of BW

9
iii. Possible BW-caused epidemics, 1939-1942
  • 1939-1940 Typhoid (near Harbin) from well
    poisonings
  • 1940 Cholera (near Changchun)
  • 1942 Paratyphoid A and Anthrax (near Nanking)
  • 1939-1942 Plague epidemics near Ningbo (possibly
    from infected rats released in cities by Japanese
    troops)

10
c. Bureaucratic Politics?
  • Japanese forces were decentralized (Unit 731,
    Unit 100, Eu 1644, other units)
  • Ishii-Kitano rivalry created incentives to
    overestimate BW effectiveness by both researchers
  • Hypothesis Ishii and Kitano deliberately avoided
    use of controls (i.e. comparison to plague deaths
    in non-BW areas) in order to produce results
    (think US BMD tests or manufacturers tests of
    effectiveness for parallels)
  • Hypothesis suggests deaths were gt10,000 (killed
    directly) but lt250,000 (because that ascribes
    all epidemics to BW, which is probably false)
  • Proven BW-induced epidemics killed lt1000 in each
    case, sometimes lt 100
  • Accordingly, real figures more likely to be in
    20,000-50,000 range
  • Problem No evidence with which to test
    hypothesis. Much was destroyed and most of the
    rest is STILL classified by the US

11
B. A broad definition of bioweapons
  • 1. Pathogens Cause illness
  • 2. Toxins
  • Produced by biological organisms or synthesized
    in the labs
  • Generally worse than chemical weapons
  • Also prohibited by treaty -- biological and
    toxin weapons different from CW even if toxins
    are synthetic

12
(No Transcript)
13
C. Types of Pathogens
  1. Antipersonnel To kill or disable people. Focus
    of most writers.
  2. Antianimal To kill livestock or pack animals.
    Less useful with mechanization, but still
    economic weapon.

14
3. Antiplant A neglected hazard
  1. US stockpiled fungi (wheat stem rust, rye stem
    blast, rice blast) until 1972 for use against
    crops
  2. Most existing fungi have some corresponding
    fungicides ineffective unless transport /
    industry destroyed
  3. Monoculture increases vulnerability use of GEOs
    (genetically engineered organisms) increases risk
    because generally are cloned/engineered and
    patented.
  4. Potential devastation. Examples Irish potato
    famine, American chestnut blight

15
4. Antimateriel
  • Microbes can attack petroleum (developed for
    cleaning up oil spills)
  • Other microbes produce rust and degrade rubber
    (less useful against modern alloys and plastics)

16
III. Biological Weapons The Threat
  • A. Characteristics Dependent on type of agent
    and dispersal mechanism
  • 1. Types
  • Major Categories Bacteria, Viruses, Toxins
  • Persistent (Anthrax) vs. non-Persistent
    (Influenza)
  • Lethal (Botulism) vs Incapacitating (Q Fever)
  • Contagious (Smallpox) vs. non-Contagious
    (Anthrax)
  • 2. How powerful are bioweapons? Answer depends
    on goals of program. Needed BW strategy and
    doctrine

17
B. The Ideal Mass Killer Characteristics
  • Persistence Spores or local animal reservoir
  • Highly lethal ( infected that die), with little
    immunity
  • No effective treatment (i.e. reducing mortality
    or enabling productivity)
  • Factors encouraging epidemic formation
  • Communicable between people (usually trades off
    against persistence ideal is BOTH animals and
    people as carriers)
  • Relatively long incubation period
  • Asymptomatic infection Infectious before
    symptoms emerge
  • Vague onset symptoms
  • Widespread dispersal
  • Low ID50 Amount needed to infect
  • 50 of people (median infective dose)
  • Which pathogens come close?

18
Agent Persist / Animal Host? Lethality If Not Treated Treat-ment? Commun-icable? Incuba-tion? Asymp-tomatic Infection?
Anthrax Yes gt 90 Lim No 1-6d No
Smallpox No 20-40 No Yes 12d No
HIV No 100 Yes Lim 9 yrs Yes
Ebola Yes 80-90 No Lim 5-10d No
West Nile Yes 10 No No 5-15d No
Plague Yes 100 Yes Yes 2-6d No
Tularemia Yes 30-60 Yes No 2-10d No
Marburg Yes 25-90 No Lim 3-9d No
Typhus Yes 10-60 Lim No 6-16d No
CCHF Yes 15-30 No Yes 1-6d No?
Influenza Yes .1-3 Lim Yes 1-4d Yes
19
C. Do BW Superweapons Exist?
  1. No natural disease qualifies
  2. Genetic engineering can increase lethality and
    virulence but usually not persistence or
    communicability
  3. Tendency for reduced virulence over time
    disease that kills 100 usually burns out before
    infecting all possible hosts. Result evolution
    to weaker forms over time.
  4. Who would build one and why? Conclusion
    Assessing risk requires analysis of strategic
    choice

20
D. The Strategic Choice of Antipersonnel BW Agents
  • Two key choices whether pathogen will spread on
    its own (communicability) and whether disease
    kills or merely sickens (lethality)

21
1. Bioweapons Design Choices
22
2. Bioweapons Strategic Choices
23
3. Bioweapons Selected Examples
24
IV. In Depth Four BW Agents
  • Selected as examples of general classes of BW
    agents

25
A. Smallpox (Variola virus)
  • History
  • Most deaths of any infectious disease (500
    million deaths in 20th Century alone)
  • Natural disease eradicated
  • Last U.S. case 1949 (imported)
  • Last international case 1978
  • Declared eradicated in 1979
  • Officially, only two stocks remaining (US and
    Russia)

26
c. Use of smallpox in war
  • i. French and Indian Wars (1754-1767)
  • British gave Native Americans infected blankets
  • Outbreaks ensued, some tribes lost 50
  • ii. Allegations of use in U.S. Civil War
  • iii. Alleged use by Japanese in China in WWII

27
d. Why worry about an eradicated disease?
  • Former Soviet Union scientists have confirmed
    that smallpox was successfully weaponized for use
    in bombs and missiles
  • Active research was undertaken to engineer more
    virulent strains
  • Possibility of former Soviet Union virus stock in
    unauthorized hands

28
2. Bioweapon Potential
  • a. Features making smallpox a likely agent
  • Can be produced in large quantities
  • Stable for storage and transportation
  • Known to produce stable aerosol
  • High mortality
  • Highly infectious
  • Person-to-person spread
  • Most of the world has little or no immunity

29
b. Likely effects of attack
  • Nonimmune population
  • lt20 of U.S. with substantial immunity
  • Potential for more potent attack
  • Engineered resistance to vaccine

30
c. Paths to attack
  • Airborne route known effective mode
  • Initially via aerosol in BT attack
  • Then person-to-person
  • Hospital outbreaks from coughing patients
  • Highly infectious
  • lt10 virions sufficient to cause infection
  • Aerosol exposure lt15 minutes sufficient

31
d. Epidemiology of smallpox
  • Person-to-person transmission
  • Secondary Attack Rate (SAR)
  • 25-40 in unvaccinated contacts
  • Relatively slow spread in populations (compared
    to measles, etc.)
  • Higher during cool, dry conditions
  • Historically 3-4 contacts infected
  • May be 10-20 in unvaccinated population
  • Usually requires face-to-face contact
  • Very high potential for iatrogenic spread
    ?

32
3. Symptoms and Outcomes
  • a. Incubation Four-day period before rash
    develops

33
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 1 Initial rash appears minor

34
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 2 Papules appear

35
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 3 Rash is distinct papules are raised evenly

36
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 4 Vesicles have become firm and filled with
    liquid (highly infectious)

37
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 5 Vesicles have become pustules. Fever
    rises.

38
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 7 Unmistakeable smallpox rash (note that the
    chest / torso usually have less pox than face /
    extremities unlike chicken pox)

39
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 8-9 Pustules reach maximum size.

40
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 10-19 Pox dry up and scab over. Scabs
    contain live smallpox virus. Victim is still
    highly infectious.

41
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Day 20 Victim ceases to be infectious, but is
    likely to be scarred for life

42
b. Symptoms of smallpox from day one of symptoms
(not infection)
  • Again, note that torso has fewer pox than face /
    extremities

43
c. Outcomes of smallpox
  • Historical data from limited-immunity populations
  • ?

44
d. Predicting fatalities Relevant Factors
  • S-shaped curve is known but how many are in
    initial population exposed (first generation of
    cases) determines upper bound.
  • Any delay in notification logarithmically
    increases total cases (and deaths)
  • About 15 of those who get smallpox die in
    partially-immune populations
  • Danger is greater outside developed countries
    (little residual immunity)

45
B. Influenza A potential WMD?
  • 1. History Disease distinguished recently

46
a. 1918-1919 The worst recent pandemic
47
From Americas Forgotten Pandemic by Alfred Crosby
  • The social and medical importance of the
    1918-1919 influenza pandemic cannot be
    overemphasized. It is generally believed that
    about half of the 2 billion people living on
    earth in 1918 became infected. At least 20
    million people died. In the Unites states, 20
    million flu cases were counted and about half a
    million people died. It is impossible to imagine
    the social misery and dislocation implicit in
    these dry statistics.

48
i. US deaths from influenza greater than US
killed in any war
Thousands
Civil WWI 1918-19 WWII
Korean Vietnam War
Influenza War War

49
ii. Military Effects
  • Slowed delivery of US troops on the Western
    front.
  • 43,000 deaths in US armed forces.
  • Slow down and eventual failure of the last German
    offensive (spring and summer 1918) attributed to
    influenza.

50
iii. An unusual flu it killed military-age
people
51
(No Transcript)
52
iv. Temporal and Spatial Extent
Armstrong, et al. JAMA 199928161-66.
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
b. The 1957 Asian Flu
  • i. Key facts

59
ii. Asian Flu Timeline
  • February 1957
  • Outbreak in Guizhou Province, China
  • April-May 1957
  • Worldwide alert
  • Vaccine production begins
  • October 1957
  • Peak epidemic, follows school openings
  • December 1957
  • 34 million vaccine doses delivered
  • Much vaccine unused
  • January-February 1958
  • Second wave (mostly elderly)

60
iii. Temporal and Spatial Diffusion
Spread of H2N2 Influenza in 1957Asian Flu
69,800 US deaths
61
2. Avian Flu A potential BW Agent?
  • a. Recent outbreaks
  • 1997 H5N1 in Hong Kong
  • 18 hospitalizations and 6 deaths
  • 1999 H9N2 in Hong Kong
  • 2 hospitalizations
  • 2003 H5N1 in China
  • 2 hospitalizations, 1 death
  • H7N7 in the Netherlands
  • 80 cases, 1 death

62
Avian Influenza Poultry Outbreaks, Asia, 2003-04
63
b. Ability to Vaccinate?
  • Annual vaccine is trivalent (3 strains), pandemic
    vaccine will be monovalent.
  • Production using current technologies would
    likely take 4-5 months ? may not be available
    before 1st pandemic wave
  • There will be vaccine shortages initially
  • 2 doses may be necessary to ensure immunity

64
c. Control antiviral medications
  • Uses
  • Prophylaxis
  • Treatment
  • Issues
  • Limited supply
  • Need for prioritization (among risk groups and
    prophylaxis versus treatment)
  • Unlikely to markedly affect course of pandemic

65
3. Likely impact (conservative estimates)
  • Attack rate (number of people infected) ranging
    from 15 to 35
  • Cases gt 10 million
  • Deaths 89,000 - 207,000
  • Hospitalizations 314,000 - 733,000
  • Note May exceed local hospital capacity

Source Meltzer et al. EID 19995659-71
66
Estimated hospitalizations due to influenza
pandemic
95th percentile
Mean
5th percentile
Source Meltzer et al. EID 19995659-71
67
Estimated deaths due to influenza pandemic
95th percentile
Mean
5th percentile
Source Meltzer et al. EID 19995659-71
68
(No Transcript)
69
C. Q Fever, aka Query Fever
  • 1. Characteristics Worldwide endemic disease in
    animals
  • Caused by Coxiella burnetii
  • Shed in birthing fluids, excreta, milk
  • Humans infected via inhalation, ingestion

70
Cases of Q fever in Humans Reported by State
Health Departments, 1978-2004
Years in which Q fever was a Nationally
Reportable Disease
71
2. Assets of Q Fever for BW
  • Shed in the environment in a small cell form
  • that is very hardy (spore-like)
  • Resistant to pH changes, desiccation, UV light
  • Resistant to some common disinfectants
  • Remains viable in soil, dust for months to years
  • - isolated from barns, soil culture, PCR

72
Growing Q Fever The 8-Ball Ft. Detrick, MD
ca. 1968
73
3. Acute Q fever
  • 1-3 week incubation
  • Asymptomatic infections occur
  • Nonspecific flu-like illness fever, severe
    headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, etc.
  • Pulmonary Syndrome (30)
  • Hepatitis (30-60)
  • Chronic fatigue-like illness
  • Following acute infection in Australian
    slaughterhouse workers (10)
  • Antibiotics may shorten course
  • Low mortality (lt 1 )

74
D. Anthrax
  • History
  • Disease is ancient
  • Disease most common in agricultural areas (cattle
    and sheep)
  • Industrial Revolution Woolworkers disease
  • Animal vaccine developed Cases dropped in
    developed world

75
  • AnthraxUnited States, 1951-2002

76
  • 20,000-100,000 cases estimated globally/year
  • http//www.vetmed.lsu.edu/whocc/mp_world.htm

77
e. Anthrax Attacks
  • South Africa and Rhodesia 1978-1980 Anthrax
    probably used by apartheid forces
  • Thousands of cattle died
  • 10,738 human cases (largest known outbreak of
    human anthrax in history)
  • 182 known deaths
  • Black-inhabited Tribal Lands only
  • White populations untouched
  • South Africans admit involvement to Truth and
    Reconciliation Commission in 1998

78
ii. Accidental release Sverdlovsk, April-May 1979
Cause now known to be failure to replace air
filter 94 infections, 64 deaths
79
iii. 1993 Aum Shinrikyo attack
  • Japanese religious cult
  • Supreme truth
  • No human injuries. Why?

80
Answer They used the wrong strain
  • Disease-causing strain carries 2 plasmids each
    containing a different toxin gene.
  • Both genes must be expressed to cause disease.

Toxin gene 2
Bacillus anthracis
Toxin gene 1
81
Answer They used the wrong strain
  • Strain produced and disseminated by terrorists in
    Tokyo carried only one of the plasmids, so it was
    not pathogenic. Strain was actually used for
    vaccine research.
  • Bioterrorists are not knowledgeable in the
    molecular biology of disease.

82
iv. The Anthrax Letters, 2001
  • 22 cases
  • 11 cutaneous
  • 11 inhalation
  • 5 deaths (all inhalation)
  • Index case in Florida
  • 2 postal workers in Maryland
  • Hospital supply worker in NYC
  • Elderly farm woman in Connecticut

83
Anthrax Cases, 2001
  • 7 month old boy
  • Visited ABC Newsroom
  • Cutaneous lesion
  • Initial diagnosis
  • spider bite
  • Punch biopsies confirmed anthrax

84
2. Human Transmission
  • Cutaneous
  • Contact with infected tissues, wool, hide, soil
  • Biting flies
  • Inhalational
  • Tanning hides, processing wool or bone
  • Gastrointestinal
  • Undercooked meat

85
a. Cutaneous Anthrax
  • 95 of all cases globally
  • Incubation 3-5 days (up to 12 days)
  • Spores enter skin through open wound or abrasion
    ?Large skin ulcer created
  • Fever and malaise ? 5 - 20 mortality
  • Untreated septicemia and death. Edema
    (swelling due to lymphatic fluid) can lead to
    death from asphyxiation if lesion is near neck

86
Day 2
Day 4
Day 6
87
b. Gastrointestinal Anthrax
  • Severe gastroenteritis
  • Incubation 2-5 days after consumption of
    undercooked, contaminated meat
  • Case fatality rate 25-75
  • GI anthrax never documented in U.S.

88
c. Inhalation Anthrax
  • Incubation 1-7 days
  • Initial phase
  • Nonspecific - Mild fever, malaise
  • Second phase
  • Severe respiratory distress
  • Cyanosis, death in 24-36 hours
  • Case fatality 75-90 (untreated)

89
3. Vaccination and Treatment
  • Vaccine available but effectiveness unproven in
    humans (only monkeys)
  • 5-35 experience systemic side effects
  • No long-term side effects proven
  • Six shots plus annual booster required

90
b. Treatment
  • i. Penicillin
  • Has been the drug of choice
  • Some strains resistant to penicillin
  • ii. Ciprofloxacin
  • Chosen as treatment of choice in 2001
  • No strains known to be resistant

91
4. Anthrax BW Possible Effects
  • a. Worst-case scenario (Office of Technology
    Assessment)
  • 50 kg of spores
  • Urban area of 5 million
  • 250,000 cases of anthrax
  • 100,000 deaths
  • 100 kg of spores
  • Upwind of Wash D.C.
  • 130,000 to 3 million deaths

92
b. Why have previous releases failed to generate
mass casualties?
  • Imperfect dispersal low volume (Sverdlovsk) or
    limited volume of aerosol (2001 letters)
  • Availability of antibiotics Allows prophylaxis
    unless attack is both massive and undiscovered
    before symptoms

93
V. Biodefense Prevention
  • Preventing state use of BW
  • Mass vaccination is impractical (unless one has
    time i.e. intends to use them first)
  • Deterrence Threaten retaliation with something
    that exceeds benefits of BW use (thus increased
    BW effectiveness increases threat needed to
    deter)
  • Nonproliferation Prevent the spread of
    capability (more on this later)

94
B. Preventing Bioterrorism
  • Access control. US data and regulations
  • gt300 registered institutions with bioweapons
    agents
  • gt16,000 registered individuals with bioweapons
    agents
  • Only security requirement is a lock on the door
  • No requirement to exclude non-screened personnel
    for labs
  • No requirement for secure transport

95
2. Anticipation Ideal Characteristics for
Potential Biological Terrorism Agent
  • Inexpensive, easy to produce
  • Can be aerosolized (1-10 µm)
  • Survives sunlight, drying, heat
  • Cause lethal or disabling disease
  • No effective treatment or prophylaxis
  • Person-to-person transmission (to make the most
    of small amounts of agent)

96
Agent Ease to Acquire Lethality If Not Treated Aerosol? Commun-icable? Incuba-tion? Treatment
Anthrax Easy gt 90 Yes No 1-6d Lim
Smallpox Hard 20-40 Yes Yes 12d No
HIV Easy 100 No Lim 9 yrs Yes
Ebola Hard 80-90 Yes Lim 5-10d No
West Nile Hard 10 Yes No 5-15d No
Plague Med 100 Yes Yes 2-6d Yes
Tularemia Med 30-60 Yes No 2-10d Yes
Marburg Hard 25-90 Yes Lim 3-9d No
Typhus Med 10-60 Yes No 6-16d Lim
CCHF Med 15-30 No Yes 1-6d No
Influenza Easy .1-3 Yes Yes 1-4d Lim
97
Ideal Agents for Terrorists
  • Smallpox is ideal but well-guarded
  • Anthrax has only limited treatment (must treat
    before symptoms to save inhalational cases) and
    isnt communicable but is otherwise the best
  • Third best is probably plague, especially if many
    people are rapidly infected

98
3. Estimated Casualties From an Undetected
Bioterrorist Release
  • WHO data (Health Aspects of Chemical and
    Biological Weapons, 1970)
  • Assumes urban area of 500,000 people
  • Assumes 110 pounds (50 kg) of dried agent
    released in a one mile (2 km) line upwind of the
    city
  • Assumes attack is initially undetected
  • Assumes developed country

99
3. Estimated Casualties From an Undetected
Bioterrorist Release
Includes deaths
100
4. Challenges of Detection
a. Initial Symptoms too vague to know attack has
occurred
Agent
Clinical Effect
Initial Symptoms

Mediastinitis Pneumonia Pleuritis,
hepatitis Pneumonia Pustules
Anthrax Plague Q fever Tularemia Smallpox
Headache Fever Malaise Cough
101
b. Epidemiologic Clues
  • Tight cluster of cases
  • High infection rate
  • Unusual or localized geography (rural disease in
    urban area)
  • Unusual time of year (i.e. flu-like symptoms in
    midsummer)
  • Dead animals (for some diseases)

102
4. Which groups are capable?
  • a. Requirements
  • Virulent strain of agent
  • Equipment and expertise to culture agent safely
  • Equipment and expertise to stockpile agent until
    use
  • Equipment and expertise to generate right size
    aerosol OR access to processed food / water
    supplies

103
b. Intent Which groups try?
104
C. Defense against accidental release
  • Encourage other countries to implement
    safeguards, esp. on government programs
  • US High security for BW research but not private
    research.
  • Universities Essentially no safety regulations
    (voluntary only, apply to NIH grants for
    recombinant-DNA research only)

105
VI. Proliferation of BW
  • A. What are the incentives to build BW?

106
1. Advantages of Bioweapons
  • Small amount needed
  • Pathogens grow inside host
  • Extremely toxic
  • Botox Dot of an i kills 10
  • Easy/inexpensive to grow
  • Cheese making equipment (viruses more difficult
    than bacteria / toxins)
  • Large amount produced in short period of time
  • Days to weeks
  • Potential for panic

107
2. Disadvantages of Bioweapons
  • Protection of Workers and Public
  • Release into environment (Sverdlovsk was state of
    the art!)
  • Quality control
  • Particles must be aerosolized (1 micron or so)
  • Delivery problems
  • Rain, wind, UV light
  • Bombs, bomblets, and shells produce poor,
    localized aerosols
  • Heat and shock waves (explosions) kill most
    organisms
  • Poor storage survival
  • Difficult to control release boomerang effects

108
B. Patterns of Proliferation
109
1. CBW Proliferation (Official)
110
2. Suspected BW Proliferation
111
3. Causes of BW Proliferation
  1. Portfolio Strategy Every BW aspirant has also
    pursued Chemical and/or Nuclear Weapons. What
    does this suggest?
  2. Cost-Effectiveness BW cheaper than other WMD
  3. Ease of acquisition offensive BW relies on
    dual-use technology
  4. Difficult to detect Weakness of BWC,
    permissibility of defensive research

112
4. Predicting BW Proliferation
  • Best predictors are security variables
  • Enduring Rivalry Increases Risk
  • Dispute Involvement Increases Risk
  • Defense Pact Decreases Risk
  • Large states more likely to develop BW
  • Other predictors include
  • Democracy Decreases Risk
  • IO Membership Slightly Increases Risk
  • Wealth Increases Risk

113
C. Proliferation The Risks
  • Risk of state use Relationship depends on
    balance between deterrence and escalation
  • Deterrence Use of threats to prevent BW
  • Escalation Use of BW to achieve dominance in
    war
  • Little evidence to test comparisons State BW
    use has always been rare. Only examples are
    cases where no retaliation was possible.

114
d. BW Doctrines as Evidence (Planning the
Unthinkable)
  • i. Realism States use BW to alter the balance of
    power with rivals. Implies BW good for the weak
    side in asymmetric dyads, bad for the strong side
    in asymmetric dyads, and good for balanced dyads.
    Problem balance of capabilities appears to
    increase war risk!

115
ii. Organization theory
  • Military organizations pursue autonomy and
    therefore develop offensive strategies
  • Undermines ability of BW to deter (realism)
    because militaries are partially independent of
    political calculations that drive civilians to
    avoid war

116
iii. Strategic culture theory
  • Civilians also pursue goals other than national
    security i.e. re-election
  • Militaries differ in the degree to which they
    seek autonomy
  • No clear conclusions about whether more BW is
    dangerous
  • Which theory is correct? Read the case studies

117
2. Risk of nonstate use
  • Proliferation should increase risk of nonstate
    use, ceteris paribus. Why?
  • However, hypothesis is difficult to test because
    all is not equal Role of nonstate actors in
    politics changes over time (increase in foreign
    military intervention by nonstate actors)

118
3. Risk of accidental use
  1. Risk is not zero remember Sverdlovsk
  2. Risk increases with each new BW state
  3. Safety measures can slow the increase but not
    avert it.

119
4. The danger of proliferation
  1. The nonstate dimension We dont need to assume
    rogue states are any different in order to
    conclude that more BW is dangerous. Majority of
    BW uses have been nonstate or accidental
    releases!
  2. State-level deterrence fails does not deter
    nonstate actors and has only limited effect on
    accidental releases (provides incentive for
    strong safety systems)
  3. Conclusion Deterrence alone is insufficient.
    Efforts to reduce proliferation or roll back BW
    programs necessary to decrease BW risk

120
D. Anti-Proliferation Strategies
  • Nonproliferation Arms Control
  • (See Assignment 2 and in-class exercises for
    details on the BWC and its effect on
    proliferation)

121
a. The 5th Review Conference of the BWC
  1. US scuttles the conference (Guillemin) BUT
  2. Russia also tried to undermine BWC through
    definition of dozens of terms (would create legal
    loopholes to enable everything but BW programs)
  3. NAM (led by China and including Pakistan and
    India) sought to strengthen Article X (sharing
    technical expertise) at the expense of Article
    III (export controls) and even inspections

122
b. The 6th Review Conference
  • Ended December 8, 2006
  • Only significant accomplishment was agreement on
    annual meetings before the next Review Conference
    in 2011
  • (The 2011 meeting is our simulation)

123
2. Counterproliferation Compellence as a strategy
  1. Rejects deterrence alone must have ability to
    coerce states or groups with BW into renouncing
    it, not just to refrain from using it
  2. Distinct from arms control includes use of
    force associated with reluctance to make
    concessions (bargain)

124
3. Paradoxes of Anti-Proliferation
  • a. Counterproliferation can undermine
    nonproliferation Threat of pre-emptive war may
    encourage WMD development. New
    counterproliferation strategies threaten first
    use of nuclear weapons (new bunker busters). See
    the Sagan article for why this might be a bad
    idea.

125
b. The deterrence dilemma
  • Deterrence cannot roll back BW, because BW
    programs built in full knowledge of the deterrent
    threat (i.e. already taken into consideration)
  • Increased ability to deter increases threat
    (primary driver of proliferation)

126
c. The nonproliferation paradoxes
  1. Rewarding bad behavior Incentives to renounce
    BW may encourage others to build BW as bargaining
    chips
  2. Substitution effect Verification on one
    dimension of WMD may increase appeal of other
    dimensions
About PowerShow.com