HoustonChron

Sept. 26, 2001, 6:22PM

It's harder to poison a city than most of us think

By AVIGDOR HASELKORN

OSAMA bin Laden, the prime suspect in masterminding the terrorist attacks on the United States, has never denied his interest in acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- although that doesn't appear to be the direction in which he is headed.

In a television interview in 1999, he said, "To seek to possess the weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious duty." Indeed, in court documents unsealed in 1998 in connection with the trial of the bombers of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. prosecutors charged that bin Laden has made efforts to obtain the components of chemical weapons as early as 1993. One of his disciples, Ahmed Ressam, who was sentenced to 140 years in prison for his role in the plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, testified in court that he and others were taught to use cyanide, including how to feed it into air ducts in buildings to kill large number of people.

In an affidavit filed recently by the U.S. Justice Department to extradite two members of bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist organization from Britain, evidence was presented of at least two attempts by the group to buy enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

The recent attacks on U.S. soil amply demonstrate that America's strategic deterrence has failed. Indeed, in the wake of the horrific attacks on the United States, many have concluded that the use of weapons of mass destruction may be imminent.

On Sept. 11, the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily grounded all crop-dusters for fear they could be used to spray chemical or biological agents. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, said that the CIA told him that "there were other acts of terrorism in the United States and elsewhere that were part of this plan. Not necessarily hijacking another airliner but maybe putting a chemical in a city's water system." On Sept. 18, the Senate Press Gallery told reporters they would be given gas masks as a precaution. Yet on closer examination it appears that bin Laden so far has opted for using "conventional" weaponry in his war on the United States.

There are numerous reasons for this choice. First, while it is relatively easy to produce chemical and biological agents, dispersing them effectively requires a high level of technical proficiency. Recall that early Iraqi attempts to conduct chemical warfare in its war with Iran were not only ineffective, they ended up contaminating Iraqi soldiers themselves.

The Japanese terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo, also known as the Aum Supreme Truth, simultaneously released the chemical nerve agent sarin on several Tokyo subway trains in 1995. It was able to kill just 12 people and injure several thousand -- most of the latter from the ensuing panic -- because of problems with the agent as well as its method of dissemination. The group attempted to disperse anthrax and botulinum toxin at least five times without success, despite the fact that the group had at its disposal chemists and molecular biologists as well as modern laboratories.

Similarly, attempts to poison the population of a U.S. city by contaminating its water supplies with chemical or biological agents would likely fail.

Palestinian terrorists have tried the chemical route against the Israeli national water carrier without success. Generally, chlorinated water supplies inactivate toxins within 20 minutes. Even fresh water naturally inactivates botulinum toxin within three to six days.

The point is that bin Laden's method of attack provided higher confidence in the results.

Equally important, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon indicate that bin Laden sought to achieve the following objectives:

First, inflict mass casualties to signal the ruthlessness of the attackers and frighten and intimidate the United States.

Second, cause mass destruction, allowing bin Laden to show his followers as well as enemies that U.S. power would turn into rubble when confronted by Islam's warriors.

Third, martyrdom; by opting for a suicide mission, bin Laden has signaled that he is undeterrable. "We will win because we are ready to go all the way and pay any price," is the unmistakable message.

Fourth, destroy the symbols of America's might; the attack was aimed at the centers of the U.S. military and economic power.

While chemical and biological attacks could certainly cause mass killings and could even be pinpointed against a building such as the Pentagon, such attacks would not provide the spectacular destruction that bin Laden sought. Moreover, biological and chemical warfare does not lend itself to martyrdom the way a fiery crash of a plane does.

Thus, if these criteria continue to hold, the greatest care should be given to protecting the U.S. government's nuclear, biological and chemical facilities and laboratories from a suicide attack either from the air or the ground.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Answers

>such attacks would not provide the spectacular destruction that bin Laden sought.

That's a key sentence for me. Bin Laden does like spectacle. However, I think it's a mistake to assume that all criminals of his ilk want to see smoke and fire. Some just want Americans dead and are willing to do the deed "quietly," which is why I applaude the citizens who've gone in person to check up on the security on rooftops, water plants, and other potential targets.

I've always assumed that WWIII would be a bloodless land grab. Remember when the Asians were buying up farmland and large blocks of stocks in major companies?

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

The way I see it, in their eyes it is all number. The more people killed (numbers) the better. If they can't kill them, put the fear of terror into their souls. That would shut down this country, which is what they want.

So, if they do manage to whack 10,000 in a city of 250,000. I can bet they would be laughing knowing the other 240,000 would be terrified.

Think out of the box here. It isn't just the death toll (which I agree makes them glad), but the terror put on the survivors.

I refuse to live in fear. So I die tomorrow, it won't be with fear.

Sheeps

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Sheeps, you're a definite GI! Perhaps the terrorists' next little trick will be a "small" suicide bomber, just to let us know it can happen anywhere, any time. The IRA has had big bombings followed by small ones, as have Hamas and Islamic Jihad. One of the reasons the IRA hated Margaret Thatcher so much is because she absolutely refused to be intimidated and constantly exhorted Brits to carry on as usual.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

"while it is relatively easy to produce chemical and biological agents, dispersing them effectively requires a high level of technical proficiency"

I just figured it out. It's all so damn simple, given the network that has been established in this country. You poison the water supplies the same way that industry has done it for decades, by injecting it directly into the aquifer in a well recharge area. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of sites like that. They are called state and federal superfund sites. It doesn't need to be by crop duster over a major reservoir.

Warning, I may decide to delete this comment in a while.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Delete my comment if you delete yours, Brooks.

In many metro areas, the water supplies are being carefully monitored for that possibility. I don't know about the rural areas.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Meemur, my comments went more to whether there were effective ways of dispersing the toxins since that is their reason for saying the water supplies are safe. What I have in mind might be noticed quite quickly, and therefore few people directly poisoned if the valves are turned off, but the water supply might have to be closed down. We're back to a reactive stance where the level of monitoring is irrelevant in the long term. There's not enough bottled water to go around if enough supplies are hit. My y2k preparations did not take into account long-term water disruption.

(I've had a separate theory that the method of damage would be an indication of who was behind the attack. IOW, that certain groups would be more concerned than others about permanently poisoning our land or groundwater by nukes or other means.)

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

OG,

Hubby and I had long conversations over the weekend about this whole situation. I asked him if he thought there would be other attacks and he agreed that there would be.

His thoughts went along the lines of this...

Hit another non-descrip building in NYC. Not a bank or Wall Street, say an insurance company or something. Just to show that they could still do it there with all the extra "security".

Then, start in on either the west coast or north or southern lines. He thought more west coast. But his main thing was another hit in NYC (or maybe Washington DC).

Sheeps

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

Your partner is thinking along the lines of some of the guys around here as to the next targets.

On a related topic: one of the spooks around here looked me up this morning to make sure that I got back from LA. He wouldn't be specific as to what information he had, but he did say that he would be a lot less concerned about me if I went about my normal routines, including staying in the area.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

"Hit another non-descrip building in NYC. Not a bank or Wall Street, say an insurance company or something"

Our NY branch is located in one of those "or somethings".

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

I just wish I knew more about the Arab mind. They do seem to stick with what works, don't they? It's more practical for them to use suicide bombers in restaurants and bars in Israel, so that's what they mainly do. However, they've been known to use snipers on occasion, too. They've seen how successful they can be with their plane bombs, so they may indeed try that again. As noted above, could be a small plane and a small building, maybe even in a small, insignificant town--like ours. Or maybe on the West Coast, as in let them have a taste of it too. And it could be in Europe.

That's the problem and the intent: we just don't know what's next.

-- Anonymous, September 27, 2001

small plane with a nuke backpack? even if it is shot down, it goes off...

if they went after a fault line out west, and hit it in several strategic spots, could that cause a massive earthquake? then you have the fall out in more ways than one.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 2001