as we hopefully are entering a period where biodefense will be a priority to the U.S. Senate........
nuclear warheads, ICBMs....... kill indiscriminately, and defense is pretty much limited to first strike. a world without massive nuclear destruction has, at times, depended on the rational decisions of very few men. downside risk has always been there as a deterrent.
bioterror agents...... kill selectively or indiscriminately depending on design, and defense is simple to establish. bioterror agents can be engineered, simply, such that the terrorist is protected and populations around him can be readily protected. there is no downside risk, if one does not value the entrenched social infrastructures of the world.
It doesn't take much sophistication or money to establish a lab.
It's common sense to ramp up Human Health Services, defensive services, in the face of increased global crowding and ease of transport.
Before modern bioengineering was being taught in undergrad courses, worldwide, bioterror was anthrax, smallpox, etc. Now? We have publications in respected journals that instruct how to use a lethal virus to disable any effective immune response that might otherwise be juiced.
I'm not a military-industrial freak. I'm not one of those who believe that we have to occasionally jack up the economy by providing jobs in the defense sector, preparing for war. But pussyfooting around here is pretty alarming IMO. |
