y significant damage. The problem with biological weapons [is that] you need to have a very concentrated agent to cover large territories. But if terrorist groups uses biological agents, they would find more vulnerable targets, in my opinion. What kind of targets? Mostly in the cities--metro systems, administrative buildings, commercial buildings, stadiums, shopping malls. These type of places would be the most vulnerable to biological terrorist act.Worst case scenario, what could happen?Just to be scientifically correct, let me give you an example. Some[time] in the 60s here in the United States, and in the 80s in the Soviet Union, there were so-called [modern] experiments using some non-pathogenic bacteria spread in some metro systems. After this, calculations were completed. What we would see, for example, in case of applying a small amount of some agents in metro systems, up to 10,000 infected and dead people. And we can give many more examples, but you know, this is a real capability of biological weapons.If they had been infectious viruses?If they had been infectious viruses, the amount of people infected and dead would average dozens of thousands.How much of a concern is this? Is this just a group of old Cold War warriors that are worried about the next thing. It seems that we are safe from a nuclear war now that the Cold War is over. No. Let's analyze the logic of weapons development, the history of weapons development ... the problem with biological weapons [is that] they are very complex. But any weapon that has been developed eventually was used in terrorist attacks. Until recently, we hadn't seen anything with applying chemical weapons, but we've seen it recently. Now we can say, if we follow this logic, biological agents, biological weapons could be used in the future. In my opinion, that's not a matter of if; that's a matter of when.What are the ramifications of this type of weapon being used on a society?As I said before,...
