Prospect of Biological and Nuclear Terrorism in Central Asia and Russia. Musa Khan Jalalzai
weapons which can be utilized without threatening a state’s survival in a limited nuclear conflict—particularly when parity is not present at all levels of nuclear escalation. The most likely threat for nuclear weapons use would be a state escalating to tactical nuclear use against an adversaries’ conventional forces, attempting to coerce them into backing down, ensure victory, or deter foreign intervention. For example, if China decided to retake Taiwan, it may be able to do so conventionally, but such a crisis has the potential to incite an American military response in defense of Taipei and have considerable Chinese casualties. If U.S. forces responded, Beijing may believe tactical nuclear strikes against those forces would be an effective means of creating military superiority against a conventionally superior force and that low-yield weapons could be utilized without threatening China’s survival. Such a measure would be incredibly unlikely to incite a nuclear response against China’s homeland, for fear of a similar response”.5
Conversely, Jeff Daniels (17 March 2017) argued that in near future, transgenic insects could be developed to produce and deliver protein-based biological warfare agents, and be used offensively against targets in a foreign country: “Frightening details about military nanotechnologies were outlined in a 2010 report from the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, including how “transgenic insects could be developed to produce and deliver protein-based biological warfare agents, and be used offensively against targets in a foreign country.” It also forecast “micro explosives” along with “nanobots serving as [bioweapons] delivery systems or as micro-weapons themselves, and inhalable micro-particles to cripple personnel.” In the case of nanoscale robots, Del Monte said they can be the size of a mosquito or smaller and programmed to use toxins to kill or immobilize people; what’s more, these autonomous bots ultimately could become self-replicating”.6
Daily life of every man and woman has become influenced by fear and consternation. The twenty first century appeared with different class of National Security threats. After the first decade, world leaders, research scholars, journalists, politicians, and security experts grasped that the world has become the most dangerous place. The avoidance of war was the primary objective of superpowers, but with the end of the Cold War, emergence of biological and nuclear threat prompted many unmatched challenges. Home-grown extremism and radicalization continues to expose a significant threat to the National Security of the EU and Britain. In Asia Times, (01 February 2020), Katherine Wong has warned that bacteria, viruses, and fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war. The author has highlighted the danger of virus in a historical perspective:
“Biological warfare is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war. Throughout human history, this method has been used for hundreds of years. In the 1300s, Mongols catapulted the bodies of plague victims over city walls during sieges. During the 1700s, North American colonizers gifted smallpox-infected blankets to the Native American population. In the American Civil War, Confederate soldiers sold clothing infected with yellow fever to Union troops. However, this issue is not just relegated to the distant past. During World War II, the Japanese Imperial Army developed biological weapons as a means to attack the Chinese civilian population. As many as 600 prisoners were killed per year during experimentation, with tens of thousands more decimated after weapons were deployed. The volatility of biological warfare in conjunction with the immense pain and suffering it causes should be enough to convince law makers to discontinue its research. Many diseases used in biological weapons kill their victims painfully and excruciatingly slowly. This is highly likely during even the testing phase of biological warfare as viruses often escape laboratories, making it easy for governments to accidentally infect their own population. During the 1970s, the USSR accidentally infected its own population with the plague and smallpox in Aralsk, a city near a bioweapons research centre in the Aral Sea”.7
Chinese and international print and electronic media recently revealed that Chinese laboratories are identified as mystery virus to be a highly infectious new pathogen by late December 2019. The Wuhan City is the epicenter of the pandemic. International experts have categorically demanded the destruction of the lab. Analyst and experts Monika Chansoria (25 March 2020) has argued that: “the new-age defense high frontiers will be the biological frontier. Biodiversity and technology innovation will redefine biological military revolution. Since 2016, China’s Central Military Commission has been funding projects on military brain science, advanced bio-mimetic systems (that mimic biological systems), biological and biomimetic materials, and new-age biotechnology”.8 However, in his research analysis (Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 15 Issue: 148, 18 October 2018), analyst and experts Nurlan Alyiev noted Russia’s concern about the US ‘Biological Weapons Program in Several Former Soviet Republics:
“Commander of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops, Major General Igor Kirillov on 04 October 2018 warned that renewed construction is occurring at a series of alleged biological laboratories in Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, purportedly being financed by the United States. Most likely, Kirillov claimed, “under the guise of peaceful research, [the US] is building up its military-biological potential”. However, Nurlan Alyiev reported Igor Georgadze, a former member of the Soviet KGB and a former head of Georgia’s state security ministry campaign against the Tbilisi-based Lugar Center in the Russian media. Moreover, Russian Foreign Ministry press secretary Maria Zakharova stated that the US, through programs financed by the Pentagon, was creating a network of microbiological laboratories in the Caucasus and Central Asia. She added that “the very fact of the large-scale medical-biological activities of the Pentagon on the borders of Russia” causes particular concern for Moscow (Mid.ru, April 12)”.9 However, in 04 October 4 TASS reported Russian Defense Ministry demanded the United States and Geotgia to explain the storage of toxic agents and biological weapons at the Richard Lugar Public Health Research Center, Chief of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops Major General Igor Kirillov said. According to Kirillov, ministry’s experts have studied materials published by former Georgian State Security Minister Igor Giorgadze on US activities at the Richard Lugar Public Health Research Center, located in the Georgian settlement of Alekseyevka outside of Tbilisi. He said that a number of patents listed various types of munitions intended for delivering chemical and biological agents. “It brings to fore the question: ‘Why are such documents being stored at the Lugar Public Health Research Center?’ We expect a clear-cut answer to this question from the Georgian and American sides,”” Kirillov demanded. However, General Kirillov warned: “These munitions are not related to the list of conventional armaments and humane tools of warfare, while the publication of this information contradicts international accords on the prohibition of biological weapons,” he added.10
Debate over the fight against bioterrorism, or coronavirus has intensified in intellectual, medical and media forums that what would be the shape of our world after the elimination of the virus. We are living in a world of diseases and viruses; some have been created by out dirty environemnt and some have been genetically developed in bio-laboratories. Yuen Yuen Ang’s (09 April 2020) perception of the spread of virus is not so different from other commentators as he understands that debate over whether autocracies or democracies are better at fighting epidemics is misguided:
“Under President Xi Jinping’s centralized command, his administration has both succeeded and failed at handling the COVID-19 crisis. While it effectively curbed infections within China after the virus had spread, it failed to stem the outbreak before it went global. As COVID-19 swells into a pandemic, a political debate is simultaneously raging about whether autocracies or democracies are better at fighting epidemics. In fact, this is a misplaced debate. In the current contentious geopolitical climate, popular narratives either condemn the Chinese leadership for its failures or hail its successes in dealing with COVID-19. For a balanced perspective, we must know when and how this regime failed and succeeded at responding to the virus since it first surfaced in Wuhan. In China, the government under President Xi Jinping has displayed both strengths and lethal shortcomings in handling COVID-19. On the one hand, it successfully mobilized a strong national response once the paramount leader gave the green light to act. On the other hand, its lack of transparency and Xi’s initial inaction delayed decisive measures to curb the outbreak before it spread