Uncommon Wisdom Wrote to me
In theory, Ebola is the perfect terror weapon: scary, gruesome and deadly. Could the so-called Islamic State or other groups turn the disease into a weapon?
Some experts think so. Others think not. Today we’ll hear from both — and let you decide.
Which expert do you believe?
Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen wrote an Oct. 20 editorial titled A Dark Winter of Ebola Terrorism . He begins by describing a 2001 planning exercise in which government officials practiced their response to a fictitious smallpox outbreak.
After 25 days, the number of cases has risen to 30,000, with 10,000 expected to die, and the National Security Council is advised that, absent large scale and successful vaccination programs, the epidemic “could conceivably comprise as many as 3,000,000 cases of smallpox and lead to 1,000,000 deaths.”
So what about Ebola?
Unlike smallpox, which is hard to come by, the Ebola infection is raging right now in parts of Africa where Islamist extremists could have easy access. As physician Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute points out, with Ebola, “Mother Nature has created the perfect bioweapon in many respects, as long as the attacker has suicidal aspirations.”
Ebola has up to a 21-day incubation period — more than enough time for terrorists to infect themselves and then come here with the virus. In a nightmare scenario, suicide bombers infected with Ebola could blow themselves up in a crowded place — say, shopping malls in Oklahoma City, Philadelphia and Atlanta — spreading infected tissue and bodily fluids.
Or, the virus could also be released more subtly. Terrorists could collect samples of infected body fluids, and then place them on doorknobs, handrails or airplane tray tables, allowing Ebola to spread quietly before officials even realize that a biological attack has taken place.
The scenario is definitely terrifying. I have no doubt that many terror groups would love to attack the U.S., Canada or Europe in this way — if it were possible to do so.
Is it possible?
***
Today Stratfor, the Austin-based private intelligence firm, published a report, Evaluating Ebola as a Biological Weapon . Security analyst Scott Stewart begins with the startling news that terror groups have already tried using Ebola.
Ebola and terrorism are not new. Nor is the possibility of terrorist groups using the Ebola virus in an attack. As we have previously noted, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to obtain the Ebola virus as part of its biological warfare program. The group sent a medical team to Africa under the pretext of being aid workers with the intent of obtaining samples of the virus. It failed in that mission, but even if it had succeeded, the group would have faced the challenge of getting the sample back to its biological warfare laboratory in Japan.
The Ebola virus is relatively fragile. Its lifetime on dry surfaces outside of a host is only a couple of hours, and while some studies have shown that the virus can survive on surfaces for days when still in bodily fluids, this requires ideal conditions that would be difficult to replicate during transport.
Regarding Thiessen’s point that terror groups could send infected suicide bombers to public places, Stewart says ...
One problem with this scenario is that it would be extremely difficult to get an infected operative from the group’s laboratory to the United States without being detected. As we have discussed elsewhere, jihadist groups have struggled to get operatives to the West to conduct conventional terrorist attacks using guns and bombs, a constraint that would also affect their ability to deploy a biological weapon.
Even if a hostile group did manage to get an operative in place, it would still face several important obstacles. By the time Ebola patients are highly contagious, they are normally very ill and bedridden with high fever, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea, meaning they are not strong enough to walk into a crowded area.
The heat and shock of the suicide device’s explosion would likely kill most of the virus. Anyone close enough to be exposed to the virus would also likely be injured by the blast and taken to a hospital, where they would then be quarantined and treated for the virus.
I would add another point to this. Any terror group capable of sending suicide bombers into the U.S. doesn’t need to lace the device with Ebola. The bomb alone would create plenty of terror. Since they haven’t overcome that basic challenge yet, adding Ebola to the equation doesn’t seem likely.
***
I’m linking to both these articles because they contain a useful investing lesson.
To make good trading decisions, we must always consider both sides of an argument. We have to look at facts and not let ideology or emotion get in the way.
Thiessen and Stewart are both smart people who have different opinions on this point. Follow the links above to read both their articles in full. Try to read critically before you accept either conclusion. Every investor needs this skill and these two articles are a chance to practice it.
Which expert do you believe?
Do you see flaws in the logic? Does one writer make a better case? I’d love to know what you think. Please leave a comment on our website or send me an e-mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment