High-quality scans of anthrax letters

I remain skeptical that a "lone scientist" could have produced these spores. Physics, Microbiology and Biochemistry are involved here, and I doubt a scientist of just one discipline has the expertise needed in all three to produce this anthrax.

Even if somebody had the necessary expertise, developing the weaponization process is not something that could easily be done. It would require extensive experimentation and testing to come up with a workable process. This means that there is a modern lab somewhere to which this scientist had sole access for long periods of time. Also, doing this for the necessary period of time without generating any contamination would be difficult, especially for a lone person, operating without being required to follow institutional protocols and the like.

How would he have tested the results of his intermediate attempts? Testing could not have been done in a glove box. It presumably would be done on test subjects in a normal environment (I'd like to think animals, but I'm sure Iraq has carried out tests on human subjects).

[This assumes that the report is true that some of this anthrax was more highly weaponized (more finely ground) than anything the U.S. had. If that report is false, the anthrax could simply have been stolen from U.S. stocks, say.]

You are right, of course.

Well, I can't be sure, but I think so.

It seems to me that some of the spores would have spread throughout the glove box in your scenario, even though the person is moving everything as smoothly and slowly as possible. Yes, most of the powder would go inside the envelope, but the outside of the envelope and the outside of the baggie would still get contaminated, probably substantially.

The use of gloveboxes is routine. Precautions can be taken to keep the spores from flying all over the place. The guy didn't pour the spores from the test tube from a height. He did it carefully. And if the outside of the baggie was contaminated, that is easily taken care of by the decontamination procedures at the end. The outside of the bag could be swabbed down with some kind of antiseptic, same with the gloves. And I believe everything left in the box is then sterilized with ultra-violet light. Glove boxes are used for handling all sorts of things that are dangerous to handle. The cleanup procedures are routine for people in fields that need gloveboxes.

But my guess is that the envelopes may have been filled abroad (in Iraq perhaps?) in a real lab

Really? You really believe that the letters were written overseas, with the date put on them, the anthrax put into them, they were then sealed and brought to the United States by some unidentified al Qaeda member who mailed five some of them a week after Sept. 11 and two more a month after Sept. 11? I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that. After all that handling, how did they get the letters out of the Baggie filled with anthrax? Why wasn't a mail box contaminated? Why did someone overseas target The New York Post and Senator Leahy? That whole idea is absurd.

If the mailer grew all the anthrax himself from an initial supply, he would have had to weaponize it himself; weaponization in this context refers to a process of physical preparation (milling, drying, that sort of thing). These anthrax spores are supposed to have been ground more finely and to therefore be more highly weaponized than any produced by the U.S. military. They also are said to have been prepared so that they would have no electrical charge. This would be very difficult to carry out in one's home (to the point of near impossibility)

There's a link on my web site to a new article by David Tell at The Weekly Standard, where he goes into great detail about how simple it could be. Some of those "experts" are talking about how things were done back in the 1960s. Things aren't done that way anymore. There was almost certainly NO milling involved. When anyone talks about "milling" they are talking about the way things were done in the 1960s or by Iraq. They are talking about out-of-date technologies.

Notice that it's not just a question of whether there exists a simple method of weaponizing anthrax; the mailer would have had to discover that method, in your scenario. This would require extensive testing and experimentation; it's not conceivable that this could be done out of someone's home or in brief clandestine laboratory sessions (whether by a domestic scientist or an al-Qaeda terrorist). Such experimentation would have to be carried out in a full-time lab with security, to prevent being found out.

The methods aren't that secret. And no one would use anthrax to learn how to refine anthrax spores. It's too dangerous. You use a similar but harmless germ, like BT. When you have mastered the technique using BT, you then switch to anthrax for the final step. All that is required to learn how to "weaponize" anthrax is the equipment, the anthrax, and the desire. And in many fields it is almost a requirement to learn how to do it. If you know something can be done, but you don't know how to do it, you are falling behind in your field. Learning new techniques can help you discover new processes and new science for other areas where you advance your career.

How likely is it that somebody was sitting on weaponized anthrax, just waiting for some event like 9/11 to happen? What was he actually waiting for, if he didn't know that 9/11 was coming?

I speculate about that in detail on my web site. Look for the link about "Plan A". And the guy wasn't "sitting on weaponized anthrax". All he had was a supply of anthrax germs, which he was culturing while probably experimenting using BT. You think he had the anthrax ready. I say he didn't. And the fact that the anthrax in the media letters was less well refined than the anthrax in the Senators' letters indicates he was growing and refining anthrax during the three week interval.

All your speculation about al Qaeda is based upon one coincidence: Some al Qaeda members lived near the first cases of anthrax at AMI in Florida. All the rest of your beliefs are based upon that one coincidence. Because all those Sept. 11 al Qaeda members were DEAD at the time letters were mailed, the entire al Qaeda scenario falls apart.

Finally, there's the question of motive. The motive for a foreign state (like Iraq) to do this is quite clear and straightforward: it's an act of military deterrence. (The possible motive for the mad scientist is vague and not very believable.)

But if Iraq did it as an "act of military deterrence", it certainly backfired. Ever since 9-11, Bush has been doing all he can to find a way to attack Iraq. And how can such a plan deter anything if you don't make it clear who did it? When it was first learned that there had actually been an anthrax attack, the first thought for everyone was that Iraq was behind it. The FBI and the American government spent a lot of time trying to prove that Iraq did it. They finally had to stop wasting their time on that pursuit when the evidence became overwhelming that it was a domestic terrorist. Would Iraq really go after The New York Post, AMI and Senator Leahy? Why? That's totally absurd.

There is virtually no doubt that the anthrax terrorist is an American scientist working at some kind of laboratory in Central New Jersey. For all the details visit my web site at anthraxinvestigation.com

Ed

Your scenario is based on this hypothetical easy method of weaponization, so easy that a person can get it right the first time he tries it on anthrax spores, without going through a normal cycle of prototypes and testing. I doubt that this is possible. (If it is possible, I certainly agree that it changes the whole picture. It also would change the entire balance of power in international relations, because every country (as well as many small organizations) could arm itself with a weapon of mass destruction.)

Really? You really believe that the letters were written overseas, with the date put on them, the anthrax put into them, they were then sealed and brought to the United States by some unidentified al Qaeda member who mailed five some of them a week after Sept. 11 and two more a month after Sept. 11? I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that.

Well, I don't "believe" that in the sense that it's been proven or that it's the only way it could have happened. It seems likely, however, that the envelopes were filled in the lab where the anthrax powder was prepared. It is possible, however, that they were filled later, in a different lab.

After all that handling, how did they get the letters out of the Baggie filled with anthrax? Why wasn't a mail box contaminated?

The same question exists with any scenario. The baggies and the outsides of the envelopes obviously had to be cleaned before removal from the glove box. This is more easily done in a full-fledged lab than a makeshift one.

Why did someone overseas target The New York Post and Senator Leahy? That whole idea is absurd.

The choice of targets seems strange no matter who did it. The point was to get noticed, and sending to a smattering of media and a couple of major government officials would do that. But there appear to be more letters that weren't saved (ABC, CBS, probably AMI, and maybe others). Maybe if we knew the full list of recipients, then the few we know about wouldn't appear to have been selected out of the blue.

All your speculation about al Qaeda is based upon one coincidence: Some al Qaeda members lived near the first cases of anthrax at AMI in Florida. All the rest of your beliefs are based upon that one coincidence. Because all those Sept. 11 al Qaeda members were DEAD at the time letters were mailed, the entire al Qaeda scenario falls apart.

My speculation is about Iraq or some other foreign power, not about al-Qaeda specifically. The 9/11 hijackers appear to have been part of this foreign power's delivery vehicle. What the exact nature is of the relationship among the hijackers, al-Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, etc., I do not know.

The link between the hijackers and anthrax is not just based on the geographic proximity (although that proximity is striking and demands explanation). It's also based on proximity in time, on the indirect connection between the hijackers' rental agent and AMI, on the highlighting of the letters A-T-T-A in two of the letters, on the apparent cutaneous anthrax case contracted by Alhaznawi, on the fact that Atta was looking at cropdusters (which implies that he had access to some biological or chemical weapon), and on the content of the messages.

Also, why did Mohamed Atta go to Prague earlier in 2001 at great trouble, to meet with an Iraqi agent? In these days of instant communication, why did they have to meet physically? It must have been for the transfer of some physical object. If this object wasn't a vial of anthrax or a prepared set of envelopes containing anthrax, what could it have been?

But if Iraq did it as an "act of military deterrence", it certainly backfired. Ever since 9-11, Bush has been doing all he can to find a way to attack Iraq.

I don't think it's backfired at all, at least not yet. Of course trying to "find a way to attack Iraq" is what would happen. But you don't see an attack yet. Plus, if you think about the nature of deterrence, its use as a deterrent would have to be reserved for the most serious situations: the use of nuclear weapons (or other WMD) by us on Iraq, or an actual attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq. They can't waste their deterrent on lesser things, because then we have no reason to be deterred from taking more drastic action.

The whole military situation is very tricky. I don't think the anthrax will ultimately work as a deterrent this time, but it will come close. Rumsfeld, et al., are figuring out exactly how to respond.

And how can such a plan deter anything if you don't make it clear who did it?

They probably did make clear who did it, in private channels. It wasn't done publicly because Iraq (or whoever) felt that a public announcement in the wake of 9/11 might cause a public outcry for an immediate attack, whereas a private message to the government would result in a slower, deliberative response. Plus Iraq has the PR factor to take into account.

There is virtually no doubt that the anthrax terrorist is an American scientist working at some kind of laboratory in Central New Jersey.

I've enumerated substantial evidence for a connection between the anthrax mailings and the 9/11 attack, together with a coherent military rationale for a foreign power to have carried them out. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's there. I understand that you find it unconvincing.

But where is there any evidence at all linking the anthrax to an "American scientist working at some kind of laboratory in Central New Jersey"? I see nothing, not even circumstantial evidence.

It's possible that I'm wrong and you're right. I certainly wouldn't go out on a limb and say that there is "virtually no doubt" that I'm right. For you to say that about your own theory implies that you have very strong evidence for the American scientist theory. What is this evidence?

As a final thought, I do wish we had some definite information on the pre-9/11 letters, the ones that were said to be postmarked in Indianapolis. They might shed some light on the whole question.

The Atta-Iraq meeting that you base so much upon is turning out to be totally bogus. Newsweek has a story about it HERE.

You wrote: Your scenario is based on this hypothetical easy method of weaponization, so easy that a person can get it right the first time he tries it on anthrax spores, without going through a normal cycle of prototypes and testing. I doubt that this is possible. (If it is possible, I certainly agree that it changes the whole picture.

Actually, I said he didn't get it right the first time. The first mailing had spores that were not as well refined. He had to work on it for another three weeks to get it right.

Why wasn't a mail box contaminated? The same question exists with any scenario.

Not quite. I explain why the mail boxes weren't contaminated in detail on my GloveBox/MailBox page. The American scientist most likely took the letters straight to the mail box from the lab. That's a lot different from packing them away in a suitcase that goes aboard flight after flight (with pressurization and de-pressurization) and through customs search after customs search and then are stored away somewhere for months.

The choice of targets seems strange no matter who did it.

Not really. The media was a natural target for someone wanting to awaken America to the dangers of bioterrorism - particularly someone with "right wing" attitudes. Targets are always very carefully selected by terrorists. While al Qaeda would probably have picked The New York Times, the American terrorist chose The New York Post probably because it's the newspaper he reads. And Patrick Leahy was targeted because between the two mailings Leahy opposed AG Ashcroft's plans to trash all laws preventing illegal search and seizure. For someone deathly afraid of a bioweapons attack, Leahy's actions probably seemed traitorous. Al Qaeda would probably have seen it as a good move and gone after Ashcroft.

your own theory implies that you have very strong evidence for the American scientist theory. What is this evidence? It's all explained in detail on my web site, but the key items are the fact that the recipients of the letters were told to take precautions, the anthrax was carefully enclosed in the letter in a pharmaceutical fold, the targets were typical "right wing" targets and NOT typical al Qaeda-type targets.

Ed at anthraxinvestigation.com

Me: Your own theory implies that you have very strong evidence for the American scientist theory. What is this evidence?

You: It's all explained in detail on my web site, but the key items are the fact that the recipients of the letters were told to take precautions, the anthrax was carefully enclosed in the letter in a pharmaceutical fold, the targets were typical "right wing" targets and NOT typical al Qaeda-type targets.

I've enumerated a list of connections between the hijackers and the anthrax mailings, generally circumstantial but nevertheless connections. You haven't presented any specific evidence, even circumstantial, for this domestic theory.

The key items you list above do not in any sense point to an American scientist in New Jersey. The fact that "the recipients of the letters were told to take precautions" points to an American scientist in New Jersey? The use of a pharmaceutical fold points to an American scientist in New Jersey? There's no connection at all, not even circumstantial.

In fact, your key items are totally consistent with the military deterrence theory. (I agree that this was not an al-Qaeda attack as such, and I'm not claiming that it was. Al-Qaeda attacks look very different -- they don't include warning letters, and they set things up to try to murder many. This was something different -- a warning statement, warning us that the other side has a weapon of mass destruction and possesses both the ability and the willingness to use it, so we had better watch our step.)

By the way, the New York Post and American Media are hardly right-wing targets. Characterizing the recipients in that way is misleading. Even the other targets aren't the high-profile liberal icons that the "right wing extremists" focus on. (I'm not sure why you think the hypothetical American scientist would target liberals, but it's not even true that the recipients all fit that description.)

Regarding Atta's meeting with Iraqi agents, an important point is that the military deterrence theory does not rely on this being true. (I'm not even necessarily convinced that Iraq is the foreign power involved, although it seems fairly likely.) There are enough connections fitting together into a coherent explanation that the theory does not depend on the validity of any one of them.

But don't write off the story of Atta meeting Iraqi agents yet. See this FR thread for discussion of it. The Newsweek report is basically unsourced. How reliable is it? There has been a whole series of media reports that Atta met with two different Iraqi agents in several different European cities, and also that one of the other hijackers met with an Iraqi agent in the United Arab Emirates. Just because somebody decides to leak a denial a year later doesn't mean that all the older reports are suddenly invalidated. It may be that this latest report is true; I obviously don't know, but it's much too early to say that the earlier reports are "turning out to be totally bogus." Maybe it's the latest report which is bogus; we don't know. [But do notice that the only reason given for not believing the original stories is that there is no known travel record for Mohamed Atta under his name at the time of one of the reported visits. Maybe a person carrying anthrax would travel under a false identity? Maybe one of the reported visits didn't happen but the others did? Maybe the INS and Customs just don't have very good records? This whole denial is very weak. Why did Czech intelligence report this in the first place? They were following al-Ani; they must have taken photographs.]

The key items you list above do not in any sense point to an American scientist in New Jersey.

You're right. The items that point to New Jersey are the fact that he mailed the letters from New Jersey, he wouldn't have transported the letters very far (certainly NOT from some foreign country), Central New Jersey has a great number of laboratories where anthrax could have been cultured, he targeted The New York Post which is sold in Central New Jersey, and the return addresses on the Senators' letters were phony New Jersey addresses that seemed to be variations of real addresses. You have to look at all the clues in order to see the whole picture.

I'm not sure why you think the hypothetical American scientist would target liberals

I'm not sure he targeted "liberals" as such. He targeted the media, which is a frequent target of "the right". And he targeted two Democratic "liberal" Senators, one of whom had been in a lengthy and heated debate with a true blue conservative, AG Ashcroft, during the three week period that the second batch of anthrax was being cultured and refined. Also, this particular scientist appears to have been fed up with America's lack of preparedness for biological weapons and took matters into his own hands by sending anthrax through the mail. That isn't a "liberal" way of doing things. It's an "anti-liberal" way of doing things.

Your comments which attempt to make the warnings in the letters seem like warnings by Iraq and your dismissal of the Newsweek story are rationalizations. Instead of looking at what the evidence says, you are locked into the idea that Iraq is behind the mailings and you find ways to interpret all the evidence to support that theory.

We could probably argue forever about this. But the key point is: The anthrax terrorist had enough anthrax to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans (maybe millions), but he apparently only killed one deliberately and four by accident. Bob Stevens worked at AMI and could therefore be considered a target. The way the anthrax was wrapped and sealed indicates that the postal employees were all unintended targets. And the fact that the media letter told Bob Stevens to take penicillin indicates that the anthrax terrorist didn't really want to kill Bob Stevens, either. That by itself says that Iraq and al Qaeda were not behind the anthrax mailings. But someone used Arab phrases in the letters to point the blame at the Arabs - while doing minimum damage.

Ed at anthraxinvestigation.com

I had written: The key items you list above do not in any sense point to an American scientist in New Jersey.

You responded: You're right. The items that point to New Jersey are the fact that he mailed the letters from New Jersey, he wouldn't have transported the letters very far (certainly NOT from some foreign country), Central New Jersey has a great number of laboratories where anthrax could have been cultured, he targeted The New York Post which is sold in Central New Jersey, and the return addresses on the Senators' letters were phony New Jersey addresses that seemed to be variations of real addresses. You have to look at all the clues in order to see the whole picture.

1. You're forgetting about the Florida anthrax cases. There clearly was some transportation involved. Was it somebody in Florida who then visited New Jersey? Was it somebody in New Jersey who visited Florida? Was it somebody from elsewhere who traveled to both places? We can't say. As a result, there's no evidence that it's somebody from New Jersey.

2. There's also no evidence that the sender was an American.

So I don't see how you can possibly think that there is "virtually no doubt" that it is an American from New Jersey. That's pure speculation; it's possible that it's true but also possible that it's false.

Your comments which attempt to make the warnings in the letters seem like warnings by Iraq and your dismissal of the Newsweek story are rationalizations. Instead of looking at what the evidence says, you are locked into the idea that Iraq is behind the mailings and you find ways to interpret all the evidence to support that theory.

You misunderstand my position here. I wouldn't be very surprised if it turned out to be a country other than Iraq, or to be an alliance of various countries. I do not think that the connection with Iraq is proven by any means. I will be surprised, however, if it turns out not to be a military warning, of a deterrent nature, by some foreign power or powers. (In any case, I'm not "locked into" this theory. I've gone through a variety of possible theories since last Fall, but, after much discussion, military deterrence is the only one that appears to explain all the evidence.)

As to the meetings between Atta and the Iraqi agent, the jury is out. You can't reach any conclusions on the basis of one article, especially considering that the article is unsourced. But the military deterrence theory does not depend on the validity of these meetings; the foreign power involved may not even have been Iraq.

As for news articles, take a look at the special section that just came out in the New York Post on the anthrax mailings: here's a link to a FreeRepublic thread on this well-reasoned set of articles.

We could probably argue forever about this.

Indeed. But I do appreciate the discussion, even though (or maybe especially) because we disagree. Discussions always shed light on a subject.

But the key point is: The anthrax terrorist had enough anthrax to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans (maybe millions), but he apparently only killed one deliberately and four by accident. Bob Stevens worked at AMI and could therefore be considered a target. The way the anthrax was wrapped and sealed indicates that the postal employees were all unintended targets. And the fact that the media letter told Bob Stevens to take penicillin indicates that the anthrax terrorist didn't really want to kill Bob Stevens, either. That by itself says that Iraq and al Qaeda were not behind the anthrax mailings. But someone used Arab phrases in the letters to point the blame at the Arabs - while doing minimum damage.

You misunderstand the nature of military deterrence here. I agree that this demonstrates that it was not an actual attack intended to kill. But that isn't what I was claiming.

Time will tell. This is probably the best we can do at the current state of publicly available evidence; it will be interesting to see what new evidence emerges. Hopefully we'll get a satisfactory resolution at some point.

You wrote: 1. You're forgetting about the Florida anthrax cases. There clearly was some transportation involved.

Yes, indeed, there was transportation involved. The letter mailed with all the other media letters in Trenton on September 18 was transported by the post office to Boca Raton, Florida, and from there to the AMI offices.

I wasn't forgetting about the Florida anthrax cases at all. But apparently you feel that the AMI case is somehow unconnected to the other media cases (NBC, CBS, ABC and The New York Post). There is absolutely no evidence to support that idea. Everything indicates that the AMI letter was part of the same mailing.

I'm aware of the New York Post articles, and I've exchanged e-mails with the editor who wrote the editorial. I told him to look in the mirror if he wants to find someone who is not doing their job, since The New York Post hasn't pursued the source of the Indianapolis letters they wrote about, nor have they pursued the most likely cause of Kathy Nguyen's death by anthrax.

Ed at anthraxinvestigation.com

I wasn't forgetting about the Florida anthrax cases at all. But apparently you feel that the AMI case is somehow unconnected to the other media cases (NBC, CBS, ABC and The New York Post). There is absolutely no evidence to support that idea. Everything indicates that the AMI letter was part of the same mailing.

I don't think it's unconnected, but there is some difference between those two. Notice that, at AMI, there were two cases of inhalation anthrax but no cases of cutaneous anthrax. The people at the media in NY experienced many cases of cutaneous anthrax but no cases of inhalation anthrax. (The only cases of inhalation anthrax in the Northeast were in postal workers, and these could well have been due to the Daschle and Leahy letters only.) Now, inhalation and cutaneous anthrax are caused by the same bacterium; the difference is the site of infection. This difference in symptoms suggests that something was different in Florida as compared to the NY media cases: maybe the delivery method was different, maybe the physical preparation of the powder was different.

I'm aware of the New York Post articles, and I've exchanged e-mails with the editor who wrote the editorial. I told him to look in the mirror if he wants to find someone who is not doing their job, since The New York Post hasn't pursued the source of the Indianapolis letters they wrote about, nor have they pursued the most likely cause of Kathy Nguyen's death by anthrax.

I would very much like to see some research on the Indianapolis letters. The NY Post is apparently the only one to have seen these letters, other than the recipients and presumably the FBI and police.

As for Kathy Nguyen, how would a reporter pursue your theory (that she was infected by anthrax disposed of along with the undiscovered letter to CBS and ABC)? I agree that this was one possibility for the route of infection, but it's hard to see how a reported would investigate it. I guess garbage truck routes could be looked into, but it won't be too definitive a story no matter what's done.

Overall, the series of three articles in the NY Post is well-researched. The author doesn't get as far as motive (military deterrence, in my view), but he's asking the right questions and thinking logically about the evidence.

Ed, you are hung up on what you want it to be rather than what is.

"pharmaceutical fold"

The "pharmaceutical fold" is a pretty dang lazy one, if it is that. More likely the letter was just folded in at the sides to keep the powder from falling out while the envelope was loaded. Do you see any diagonal fold in of the edge folds? I do not.

Taken in combination with the blinders-on "evil right wing Dr Strangelove nut case" body of your argument, yet more than anything else you've said, this trumpeting of "pharmaceutical fold" makes me discount you.

You wrote: As for Kathy Nguyen, how would a reporter pursue your theory (that she was infected by anthrax disposed of along with the undiscovered letter to CBS and ABC)? I agree that this was one possibility for the route of infection, but it's hard to see how a reported would investigate it."

I'd begin by checking on what happened to the anthrax. It was apparently thrown into the trash, and at The New York Post they apparently actually dug their letter out of the trash weeks later. The two people at the Post who got anthrax got it from digging it out of the trash.

If the trash was just tossed into a dump truck and taken to a dump or an incinerator, I'd move on to the next case. I'd find out who handled the letters in the mail rooms. I'd find out exactly what happened to the letter after it was received in the mail. I'd find out who cleaned the desks where the anthrax was dumped out of the letters. I'd find out if they rode the same subway as Kathy Nguyen.

It's a matter of following the anthrax and anyone who might have come in contact with the anthrax. The CDC and FBI spent a lot of time following Kathy Nguyen's movements. All that needs to be done now is to follow the anthrax to see where the two trails might intersect.

Ed at anthraxinvestigation.com

The "pharmaceutical fold" is a pretty dang lazy one, if it is that. More likely the letter was just folded in at the sides to keep the powder from falling out while the envelope was loaded.

Duh. That's the point. Why not just pour the anthrax in the envelope? Why wrap it in the letter? If you want to contaminate the postal system with anthrax, you just dump it in the envelope.

And you could also fold the letter normally - with only one end folded over - and still pour the anthrax inside through the open end. But the anthrax mailer didn't do that. Furthermore, he taped the flap shut on the Senators' letters.

Ed

bump

The anthrax was meant to be collected, sampled and analyzed to prove that America's enemy (Iraq presumably) has the ability to manufacture weaponized anthrax.

That was the point of the exercise, not to kill a few postal employees or even a senator or two.

Whoever sent the gram sized samples must be presumed to have smuggled hundreds of kilos into the USA, ready for a massive strike if that nation is attacked. I see it as Iraq's "non nuclear MAD on the cheap".

100 one kilo glass jars of the weaponized spores dropped onto subway tracks in America's ten largest cities on the same day would kill tens to hundreds of thousands, and shut down those cities for weeks or longer, resulting in an economic disaster. Another ten kios put into thousands of leaky envelopes and dropped into mailboxes across the USA would shut down mail delivery for weeks or months, adding to the economic disaster. Many other delivery methods exist which are not yet in the public domain for open discussion, best not to give any new ideas to our enemies.

Last Autumn's "anthrax attacks" must be seen as a demonstration, and planning must be based on that idea. Of course, the witehouse and NSC may be privy to further proofs which they have not informed the public of.

bttt

If you want to contaminate the postal system with anthrax, you just dump it in the envelope.

This is a red herring. They weren't trying to contaminate the postal system. They wanted to prove that they had weaponized anthrax, that it was in the U.S., and that they had agents to deliver it. There had to be enough powder left in the envelope that it could be analyzed, so that we could see what it was and that it was "weaponized."

And, by being willing to waste a significant amount of anthrax spores on just a warning, they strongly implied that they have a much larger quantity of it. Maybe they're bluffing, but I wouldn't take that chance.

If someone delivered a perfect scale model of a working hydrogen bomb complete with plutonium to the whitehouse, it must be assumed that it is a warning, and not the product of a gifted crank.

The weaponized anthrax sample was a warning.

I assume that further proof was sent to the whitehouse which has been closely held, demonstrating the quantities produced, and even perhaps the amount currently stockpiled here in the USA.

We know from the WOD that it is a trivial exercise to bring a ton of any type of powder, including anthrax, into the USA.

Our NSC must operate on the assumption that at a minimum the 100 one kilo jars of weaponized anthrax spores are already in the USA and agents are waiting for orders to head for the subways and mailboxes and other targets.

If someone delivered a perfect scale model of a working hydrogen bomb complete with plutonium to the whitehouse, it must be assumed that it is a warning, and not the product of a gifted crank.

Excellent analogy.

The weaponized anthrax sample was a warning.

I assume that further proof was sent to the whitehouse which has been closely held, demonstrating the quantities produced, and even perhaps the amount currently stockpiled here in the USA.

Quite possibly. At the very least, the sender has either identified itself outright or strongly hinted as its identity, since, without that, the warning would presumably be ineffectual.

We know from the WOD that it is a trivial exercise to bring a ton of any type of powder, including anthrax, into the USA.

Assuming that we're looking at a state sponsor (and not just, say, al-Qaeda and some Pakistanti scientists), diplomatic pouch is an easy way to smuggle contraband.

Our NSC must operate on the assumption that at a minimum the 100 one kilo jars of weaponized anthrax spores are already in the USA and agents are waiting for orders to head for the subways and mailboxes and other targets.

I wouldn't know how to guess the specific amount. For all we know, it could even be a huge bluff (but I agree that this is unlikely.)