This is also incorrect: Most people think of botulism as a scary byproduct of careless home and commercial canning, because the bacterium grows and produces toxin only in airless environments such as vacuum-packed jars and cans.
Not so - the organism (Clostridium botulinum) is anaerobic, that is, it reproduces in the total absence of oxygen. However, production of the toxin takes place in an environment where a tiny percentage of oxygen is present, a "microaerophilic" environment - a leaky can or jar, for example. That's why dented or swollen cans are a danger sign.
The toxin is probably most useful in a terrorist scare threat to a water supply, and then more so for the panic than actual mortality. On the battlefield it's virtually useless - it breaks down too rapidly to be an area denial weapon, and as mentioned above, doesn't have a handy vector to function as an antipersonnel weapon. As far as toxicity per volume it's the champ, but that's about it.
Steve Sternberg could have researched it a bit better. Or maybe he just left out important details intentionally? This is an example of yellow journalism and cheap propaganda at its worst.
Otherwise, why would be be trying so hard to put together a nuclear weapon? Don't need a nuke, if bioweapons are viable alternatives. Much cheaper and easier to make too.
I think the Europeans have been attacked by this toxin. Only way to explain why they are averse to taking baths. ;)