Despite the lagging beliefs of many Americans, nuclear weapons are taking a back seat in the world of warcraft. Now taking the front seat, however, is the more realistic and frightening threat of biological weaponry. This looming and purportedly inevitable reality was laid forth during the Weapons of Mass Destruction Symposium on October 21^st, hosted by The Homeland Security Policy Institute and GW’s Elliot School of International Affairs, and featuring the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.

 

“The threat of bioterrorism is not only possible, it is probable” said Commission Vice Chairman and former Senator Jim Talent. “When you think about the objectives of the people trying to launch these attacks, and the means that they have shown they are willing to use, it is perfectly logical that they would be seeking weapons of mass destruction.”

In the report issued yesterday, the commission concluded that the United States is failing to address its most urgent threat—biological proliferation and terrorism. While they supported the Obama Administration’s high-level of attention given to the nuclear threat, the commission cited a range of missteps on biosecurity, including the absence of a senior-level advocate for biosecurity, attempted funding “raids” on two critical biopreparedness programs, and a lack of appropriate disease surveillance.

 

“The fact is, it is only getting easier and cheaper to develop and use biological weapons—and our best response is to mitigate the effects through faster, safer vaccines and therapeutics,” said Talent. “It’s essential that the U.S. government move more aggressively on this front.”

 

The commissioners emphasized the need to develop a common understanding of the biothreat, enhance executive responsibility on the matter, provide funding for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Project BioShield at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and improve domestic and international disease surveillance.

 

“We cannot use the same ‘lockdown’ strategy that we use in the case of nuclear attacks,” said Commission Chairman and former Senator Bob Graham, noting the wide availability of biomaterials that would make such a strategy ineffective. “Instead, we need to attack the word ‘mass’ and make response become the deterrent.”

 

“The clock is ticking,” warned Graham. “The United States has taken action, but we have not kept pace with those who would do us, or the world community, harm. The terrorists are flexible and increasingly capable. The executive branch, the legislative branch, and even the American people must do more.”

 

Congress established the bipartisan WMD Commission to address the grave threat that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses to the United States.

 

The Commission is a legacy of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission). Those reports looked at the past, explaining US government failings to anticipate the events of 9/11. This Commission looks to the future.

 

The Commission’s December 2008 report, World at Risk, determined that unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013—and that terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon. It identified 13 recommendations consisting of 49 actions that Congress and the Administration should take to change the trajectory of risk.