Читать книгу Prospect of Biological and Nuclear Terrorism in Central Asia and Russia - Musa Khan Jalalzai - Страница 8

Chapter 2

The Prospect of Bioterrorism: The Threatof Pathogen, Biting Insects and DirtyBomb

In yesteryears, President Vladimir Putin’s resolve showed that he was feeling Russia as a great power. As President Putin elaborated in an interview with Oliver Stone, whether America’s motives are truly just centered on corporate welfare or not, the position the U.S. was putting him in requires him to respond to the heightened threat. Soon thereafter he claimed in his annual address to the Duma announced weapons of new generation the heavy MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle) missiles, one of which could kill every major city in Texas; nuclear-powered cruise missiles with essentially unlimited range for evading U.S. defenses; virtually undetectable nuclear torpedoes for destroying American coastal cities and major ports; and hypersonic delivery vehicles which completely skew the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction by reducing the amount of time that policy makers have to decide whether to go to nuclear war from 15 or 30 minutes to perhaps less than five.

Modern diplomacy (29 March 2020) in its short comment noted frustration of the US army and Pentagon vis-a-vis emerging security threats and modern technologies: “The technological superiority of the United States armed forces is being challenged by new and evolving threats constantly being developed by potential adversaries. To counteract these challenges, the country’s Department of Defense (DoD) is expected to spend an estimated $481 billion between 2018 and 2024 to identify and develop new technologies for advanced weapon systems, giving rise to numerous revenue opportunities in this space”.¹ Before this, in February 2018, BBC reported Moscow’s condemnation of US military proposals to develop new, smaller atomic bombs mainly to deter any Russian use of nuclear weapons. Russia’s Foreign Minister called the move confrontational” and expressed deep disappointment”.²The proposals emerged from concerns that Russia might see current US nuclear weapons as too big to be used. The Russian Foreign Ministry accused the US of warmongering in its statement, issued less than 24 hours after the US proposals were published.

The recent coronavirus attacks authenticate my postulation of the intensification of bioterrorism in Europe and Asia in 2020. The blame game between Washington and China further prompted misunderstanding about the hegemonic role of the US army that it wants to mitigate the future role of nuclear weapons and missile technology in peace and war. Chinese Ambassador was summoned in Washington when Foreign Ministry in Beijing tweeted that the deadly coronavirus was seeded in Wuhan by the US military. US President Donald Trump also called Covid-19 a “Chinese” and “foreign” virus, earning condemnations not only from Beijing but also from much of the mainstream media. However, China categorically stated that the corono virus attack was a hybrid war against its economy and industry. Moreover, initially, Iranian officials also declared that the coronavirus was a biological weapon created in US military laboratories. Some state in Europe demonstrated weakness in fighting the Coronavirus war against their population.

Italy, Spain and France have been irritated in overcoming the death rate from the disease, while the British Prime Minister become frustrated in changing his controversial approach to the pandemic spread across the country. On 22 March 2020, the Guardian newspaper reported frustration of Downing Street about the shameless statement of controversial advisor to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Dominic Mckenzie Cummings, who argued in a private meeting that the government’s strategy towards the coronavirus was “herd immunity, protect the economy and if some pensioners die”. Now the Johnson administration decided to kill all British citizens in 60s and 70s. The allegations, which were widely circulated online widely criticised that the government response to the Coronavirus was initially too weak, frustrated and controversial based on a notion that rather than limiting its spread, enough people could be allowed to contract it to give population-wide “herd immunity”.³ Dominic Mckenzie Cummings acted like Afghan war criminal by proposing the killing of senior citizens.

On 03 April, 2020, Associate Professor in Practice at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore and the author of “The Billionaire Raj”, James Crabtree, in his Foreign Policy analysis painted an interesting picture of the ideas and perceptions of Brexit architect and Prime Minister Boris Johson’s political advisor, Dominic Mckenzie Cummings who is famous for his controversial thinking against the old population of his country that by saving economy, elderly lives must be sacrificed:

“More radical still were the ideas of Dominic Cummings, a Brexit architect and Johnson’s quixotic political advisor, to shake up the British state. Cummings attracted derision with a job advert inviting “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” to apply to join his Downing Street team. He planned to lead a group of self-styled insurgents at the heart of government, launching bold forays to scrap some state bodies and build others in their place, for instance a U.K. version of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is responsible for developing cutting-edge military technology. Cummings’s plans are eye-catching, but they require deft state direction that would be highly unusual in recent British history. The idea here, attractive on its face, is that Britain can innovate its way into a new period of prosperity. Government economic measures unveiled in response to the pandemic may create further space for radical ideas too. Cummings imagines a radically different education system as part of this, with a focus on science, creativity, and problem solving. Britain’s recent decision to defy Trump and permit the Chinese firm Huawei to play a part in its future 5G rollout was part of this picture too, as Johnson and Cummings prioritized next-generation telecom infrastructure over favorable ties with the United States. Yet this second approach also comes with problems. Cummings’s plans are eye-catching, but they require deft state direction that would be highly unusual in recent British history. Johnson will have less money to spend either way, given the damage the coronavirus response is likely to do to national finances”.

Former Parliamentarian and politician, George Galloway raised the question of the incompetency of Boris Johnson government to tackle the crisis of COVID-19 (11 April 2020) in his article (PUSSYCAT media has failed to call out the UK government’s abysmal Covid-19 response) published on Russian Television’s website:

Even then, the numbers will likely still be insufficient – even for the NHS. But what about transport workers? Care home workers? Social care staff? My own 85-year-old mother had to turn her care workers away (God bless them) because they had neither masks nor gloves, nor had been tested – and this at a time when my sister has to leave my mother’s groceries at the outside door and wave to her through the window. A state of shame now exists in Britain. Elderly people are being handed documents by their doctors– Hippocratically bound by their oath to “Do no Harm” – and told to sign them. Upon inspection, the documents declare that the patient does not wish to be resuscitated should they become unconscious from the virus. Euthanasia by stealth, and contrary to law, has washed up on our shores. And all under the deaf, dumb and blind monkeys of the Fourth Estate. Such is the credibility of the British government that, when news began circulating that the Prime Minister’s health had sharply deteriorated and he had been taken to hospital and was in intensive care, a government spokesman diverted to blame “Russian disinformation.” The newshounds now known as stenographers duly wrote this down and published it. Only a few hours later the government was forced to concede how bad the PM’s condition was, and even if he was not put on a ventilator as the sources cited by the Russians said, never before had “Russian disinformation” claims aged so poorly, so quickly.

The UK fight against COVID-19 has been reprehensible due to the intentionally designed wrong and weak strategies of the Boris Johnson government. His Ministers and advisors demonstrated like warlords-using baggy language against journalists, writers and TV anchors-reporting their criminal behaviour and failed approach to the pandemic. They provided inaccurate COVID test to the health workers, and allowed them to dance in the jaw of death in hospitals and clinics.

On 20 Apr, 2020. Prominent journalist and analyst, Chris Sweeney warned in his well-written analysis that the British Prime Minister’s wanton dereliction of duty in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic killed thousands and he must be held accountable: “Boris Johnson must go. Recent revelations have shown the prime minister to be an entitled, arrogant, dismissive and negligent oaf who cannot be allowed to continue in his position. The details about his conduct during the initial outbreak of Covid-19 put a new spin on the metaphor ‘asleep at the wheel’.On December 31, China alerted the World Health Organization about the virus spreading in Wuhan, so leaders, governments and scientists immediately began to address the situation. From then until now, Great Britain desperately needed its commander-in-chief to grasp the reins. Completing a holiday on Caribbean island Mustique and not returning until January 5– an aside, it’s still unclear who paid for the £ 15,000-a-week villa he stayed in. Missing five Covid-19 COBRA meetings in succession (until March 2). Taking the last two weeks of February off to unwind at a mansion in Kent. Organising his divorce and stage managing the public announcement of his girlfriend’s pregnancy. Doing nothing as stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and pandemic-related items were found to be run down and out of date. Sending 1,800 pairs of goggles, 43,000 sets of disposable gloves, 194,000 sanitising wipes, 37,500 medical gowns and 2,500 face masks to China in February, five days before the Health Service reported it was facing a “nightmare” due to the lack of PPE.

On 23 April 2020, the Guardian reported experts warning that race and racial inequalities are a risk factor for Covid-19 after Guardian research which has revealed that ethnic minorities in England are dying in disproportionately high numbers compared with white people. “The revelation that people from minority groups appear to be over-represented among the coronavirus deaths, by as much as 27%, “confirmed the worst fears” of campaigners who said there was now no question of an excessive toll. The Guardian analysis found that of 12,593 patients who died in hospital up to 19 April, 19% were Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME even though these groups make up only 15% of the general population in England. And the analysis revealed that three London boroughs with high BAME populations-Harrow, Brent and Barnet–were also among the five local authorities with the highest death rates in hospitals and the community. The findings confirm suspicions raised by local reports, hospitalisation rates and evidence from other countries, that minority groups face the greatest risk. And they show for the first time that areas with high ethnic minority populations in England and Wales tend to have higher mortality rates. While it is not yet clear why communities with proportionally higher number of BAME inhabitants appear to be dying at higher rates, one expert on public and ethnic health said that social deprivation was the strongest indicator for mortality due to an increased underlying burden of disease. Dr Zubaida Haque, deputy director of the Runnymede Trust, said: “The Guardian’s analysis confirmed our worst fears. We’re already aware that people of colour are much more likely to be critically ill with Covid-19 than their white counterparts, but we now know that BAME people are also much more at risk of mortality with Covid-19. Covid-19 is throwing into sharp relief existing racial inequalities.”

However, Mr. Chris Sweeney also noted criminal negligence of the Prime Minister missing five COBRA meeting: “You can’t hold one person responsible for every single thing that goes wrong inside a government. We can, though, declare Boris Johnson guilty as charged. All of the above are facts. Take the five missed COBRA meetings. On the afternoon of one such meeting, he had time instead to lark about with a Chinese dragon to mark the lunar New Year for a photo op at Downing Street. His government only actioned an order of necessary medical equipment on January 30. The contracts were already set up but by then, due to the rest of the world grasping the situation far sooner – the British order couldn’t be fulfilled. Sources have confirmed that during his countrywide break, aides were told if they wished their memos to be read by the PM, to keep them short. He even stated at a press conference on March 3 that he was happy to keep shaking hands, even with coronavirus patients – Boris subsequently caught the virus and was admitted to intensive care on April 5. The facts and figures are incredulous and frankly, stomach-churning. Britain is currently anticipated to suffer 66,000 deaths. Clearly, the UK has a far larger population (approximately 12 times) but not enough to explain a death toll that’s 6,000 percent greater”.

On 11 April 2020, Parliamentarian, politician and TV host, George Galloway in his article (The government has NEVER been pressed enough on any of these catastrophic failures by the pussycat press), severely criticized the Johnson administration for it weak and controversial approach to tackle the virus:

“And even when testing is promised – on a mass scale – but never happens, nobody seriously asks why? When ventilators are being DONATED by TURKEY, CUBA and CHINA, nobody asks where are the ventilators the British government belatedly ordered? From a vacuum-cleaner manufacturer, Dyson, who had never made a ventilator in his puff? When did Britain become a beneficiary of foreign aid from countries we’ve long been told are ‘enemy’ countries, or at least ‘rogue third-world states’? Care home workers? My own 85-year-old mother had to turn her care workers away (God bless them) because they had neither masks nor gloves, nor had been tested – and this at a time when my sister has to leave my mother’s groceries at the outside door and wave to her through the window! A state of shame now exists in Britain. Elderly people are being handed documents by their doctors–Hippocratically bound by their oath to “Do no Harm” – and told to sign them. Upon inspection, the documents declare that the patient does not wish to be resuscitated should they become unconscious from the virus. Euthanasia by stealth, and contrary to law, has washed up on our shores. And all under the deaf, dumb and blind monkeys of the Fourth Estate. Such is the credibility of the British government that, when news began circulating that the prime minister’s health had sharply deteriorated and he had been taken to hospital and was in intensive care, a government spokesman diverted to blame “Russian disinformation.” The news hounds now known as stenographers duly wrote this down and published it. Only a few hours later the government was forced to concede how bad the PM’s condition was, and even if he was not put on a ventilator as the sources cited by the Russians said, never before had “Russian disinformation” claims aged so poorly, so quickly”.

On 21 April 2020, the Russian Television new reported: “UK healthcare workers were given flawed Covid-19 tests, a government minister has admitted, meaning frontline staff may have returned to work carrying the deadly virus. Junior health minister Helen Whately told Sky News on Wednesday that NHS staff have been informed that their coronavirus tests were “not up to scratch” and results may not be accurate. They have now been offered a new test. At least 100 frontline health workers have died from Covid-19, according to the most recent figures. Defending the serious error, Whately claimed it was all part of a “normal process when you are using a test for an illness.” My understanding from the clinical advisers is some of the early tests were evaluated and the evaluation was actually they weren’t effective enough. It comes after Health Secretary Matt Hancock – who has promised 100,000 tests by the end of April – recently claimed that “no test is better than a bad test.” Editor of open Media James Cusick reported that a leaked Public Health England (PHE) document seen by open Democracy warned that the flawed tests had failed to detect up to 25 percent of positive Covid-19 results. It’s the latest controversy to hit the UK government, which has been accused of badly mishandling the coronavirus pandemic. In particular, reports of a severe lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and social care workers has dogged the health secretary”.

Moreover, on 22 April 2020, the RT news and British newspaper reported opposition parties call for an official inquiry into Johnson and his cabinet members’ criminal negligence. Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey, called for an official inquiry to be launched into the prime minister’s handling of the coronavirus response. “Once we are through this crisis, there will of course need to be an independent inquiry to officially review the government’s response to the pandemic, so we can learn the lessons,” Liberal Democrats acting leader Ed Davey said. In Davey’s estimation, the inquiry must be granted “the strongest possible powers” given the Tory governments “shocking failures on protective equipment for staff and the slow response of government.”

The UK currently has 130,184 confirmed cases of coronavirus infection with a death toll that has risen to over 17,300. The country’s National Healthcare Service, which had been gutted for years prior to the current pandemic, was woefully under prepared to handle the onslaught of ICU patients, among them Boris Johnson himself. At least 100 frontline health workers have died from Covid-19, according to the most recent figures. Before he became prime minister, Johnson was accused of being too casual and not having a grip on detail, particularly when he was foreign secretary. The concept of herd immunity was first raised publicly by Vallance on 13 March with a comment that it could be an “important part of controlling [coronavirus] longer term”. His remark sparked alarm among the public as the UK continued to allow mass gatherings, while European neighbours were banning sports fixtures and closing schools.

On 21 April 2020, the Guardian newspaper reported serious questions faced by the government about its competence in every phase of the coronavirus crisis, concentrates its focus on that immediate challenge: this isn’t the right time to launch an inquiry, ministers say, this is the time to come together. In bizarre, sixth-form language, they pour scorn on media scrutiny. Probably in some corner of a bygone world, that strategy still works. Yet questions over their capability are not the only challenge they face. More seriously, the virus threatens to upend the conservative world view. All these projects were undertaken at a time of epic national debt and genuine fiscal insecurity. The message was not so much “money is no object” as “money has no meaning”. Perhaps the NHS has emerged as the most important because it was the one that lasted, or perhaps it lasted because it was the most important. Either way, a principle was established: socialism in health, if nowhere else.

However, on 22 April 2020, labour leader Starmer grilled Dominic Raab over care home deaths in first virtual PMQs, Labour leader attacks government on testing failures as minister is unable to say how many care home staff died. Dominic Raab and Keir Starmer were in the chamber in person but many MPs asked questions via video-link. Dominic Raab has admitted the government does not know how many care home staff died from Covid-19 in the first virtual prime minister’s questions. The first secretary of state, who is deputising for Boris Johnson while the prime minister recovers from the virus, was quizzed by Labour party leader, Keir Starmer, who accused the government of being far slower than other EU countries on testing and said its personal protective equipment strategy was not working.

Asked how many NHS and care staff had died from the virus, Raab said: “On the latest figures my understanding is 69 people have died within the NHS of coronavirus and I don’t have the precise figure for care homes – they are more difficult establish in relation to care home workers as opposed to care home residents. On 22 April 2020, the Guardian reported fire fighter were tackling patients in hospitals. “Seeing how families are being torn apart is really distressing and sad,” says Bill Pitt. “As firefighters, we want to be out there and to be reassuring.” Without a professional plan care homes deaths increased.

On 22 April 2020 in his “Good Morning Britain” programme, Piers Morgan slammed Care Minister Helen Whately for failing to know how many health workers have died due to the coronavirus pandemic in the UK. Ms Whately appeared on the show and was criticised for laughing as Piers confronted her over the number of people that were reported to have died in care homes. The interview this morning continued to heat up as Piers grilled the minister on the figures that are currently being published by the government. Speaking on Good Morning Britain from her home in Kent, Ms Whately said the government was currently changing the way it collects data, before admitting that ‘more people than usual’ were dying in care homes. Speaking to Good Morning Britain from her home Helen Whately said; ‘The situation with data we have is that it includes some people who have died in hospitals and it would be misleading. ‘We are changing the way we collect the data so we are able to publish specific figures’. ‘We know 61 NHS workers have very sadly died and we have a figure at the moment of 15 care workers that have died.’ Piers showed a graphic of the people who worked in the NHS and across the care home sector which stated that it was in fact 111 people who have died from the virus. Piers said 11,000 people had died in care homes and that the FT had completely different numbers to the government minister.

Journalist and analysit, Zachary Basu argued that the Johnson government’s criminal negligence caused embarrassment to the country in international community, and noted some wrong steps of his administration in tackling COVID-19: “A 5,000-word exposé by the Sunday Times of London—38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster”—finds that Prime Minister Boris Johnson, distracted by personal turmoil and his Brexit victory lap, skipped five early crisis briefings (Cobra meetings) on the coronavirus. Why it matters: Warnings issued in January and repeated in February fell on “deaf ears,” according to the Sunday Times, with the lost time potentially costing thousands of British lives. The big picture: The U.K. government held its first Cobra meeting on Jan. 24, sensing the looming threat as the virus had spread from China to at least six known countries. Health Secretary Matt Hancock told reporters that the risk to the British public was “low,” while a spokesperson for Johnson—who skipped the Cobra meeting — said the U.K. was “well prepared for any new diseases.” Johnson went on to skip four more Cobra meetings, distracted by mass flooding, the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union, a Cabinet shakeup and a countryside holiday with his fiancée, before finally attending one on 02 March 2020.

On 19 April 2020, Richard North noted some aspects of the failure of Boris Johnson’s strategies to control COVID-19: “In many ways, this points up the divide between the way I tend to work, employing inductive reasoning on the basis of documentary evidence, and media reporters who rely extensively on oral evidence, weighting accounts according to the prestige of their sources, and the number of times the claim is repeated. In the absence of a vaccine, and no expectations of its early availability, and without the proven antivirals such as Tamiflu which are so useful in mitigating the effects of influenza, controllers have to fall back on time-honoured epidemiological tools, isolating cases, tracking down their contacts, testing them and isolating them as well if they prove positive for the disease. The error here is in asserting that the “test, track and trace” programme is a central part of a pandemic plan. It certainly should have been but, as we have seen by reference to the influenza plan on which the government relied, contact tracing was confined to the initial stages, with a view to demonstrating that community spread had become established”.

The issue of Boris Johnson’s missing five COBRA meeting caused consternation within the country that due to his criminal negligence the virus might kill thousands. On 20 April 2020, Karim El-Bar warned in his article that many things were not going on right directions:

An investigative report by British newspaper The Sunday Times rocked the U.K. government Sunday, claiming a series of grave errors were made early in the coronavirus outbreak in late January and February. The piece, titled “Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster,” said Prime Minister Boris Johnson missed a series of crucial meetings, that stockpiles of personal protective equipment (PPE) were not replenished and that testing capacity was not ramped up quickly enough. British health authorities announced Sunday that the U.K.-wide death toll from the coronavirus had reached 16,060. Britain lost “a crucial five weeks in the fight to tackle the dangerous threat of the coronavirus despite being in a perilously poor state of preparation for a pandemic,” the report said. Johnson missed five meetings of Cobra, the government’s emergency council that convenes in times of crisis, according to the report. The report added that the U.K. sent 279,000 pieces of PPE to China despite not replenishing its own stocks in preparation for increased cases; the last pandemic rehearsal was in 2016 and found the U.K. lacked both PPE and ventilators, but the recommendations were not acted on; no-deal Brexit preparations “sucked all the blood out of pandemic planning”; and that despite the British Healthcare Trades Association offering help making PPE as early as February, their offer was only accepted on April 1.....The report said Johnson was also distracted by private matters, namely finalizing his divorce and announcing his engagement to his pregnant girlfriend Carrie Symonds”.

There have been contradictory statements of the Johnson’s cabinet Ministers about the virus developments, lockdown and hospital death since February 2020, but civil society and medical forums rejected their claims and macrologies. Journalist and expert, Katy Balls in her Guardian article (23 April 2020) has exposed the failed strategies of government to tackle COVID-19:

“The beleaguered health secretary has been in the news this week as a potential “fall guy” for the government over its handling of coronavirus. Among the hostile briefings, a No 10 source complained to the Telegraph that Hancock’s promise in a press conference earlier this month of 100,000 tests by the end of the month would “come back to bite him” and suggested the figure was “arbitrary”. Meanwhile, senior Tories are speculating that he will be moved from his brief before any public inquiry. While Hancock is the minister most clearly in the firing line, there has been a change over the past week. As the prime minister’s health has improved, MPs and ministers have become more loose-lipped when it comes to concerns over the government strategy and lockdown – with senior Tories kicking off about the economic impact of lockdown and a growing cabinet debate over the exit strategy. In recent weeks, there has been annoyance within the government at the 100,000 test target. When Hancock made that promise at a press conference in early April, it followed a few days of bad headlines for the government which included mixed messaging and an uninspiring performance from the business secretary, Alok Sharma, the day before. Inside the government there is frustration that the ministers not involved in the day-to-day decisions have taken to knocking those who are in the engine room. “There are two types of people during a pandemic: those who spend all their time dealing with a pandemic and those who aren’t involved and spend their time complaining,” says a government source”.

Now, I want to describe and quote painful stories of innocent elderly patients who were killed by doctors, nurses, Liverpool Pathway Care, and injections. The stories of elderly patients who were tortured and humiliated in hospitals, clinics and care homes, mothers and their new-born babies who have undergone ruthless moments. On 13 July 2012, Bazian reported NHS acknowledgment of the incompetency and inability of the organization to tackle number of scandals that exposed it true face:

“Poor hospital care is “needlessly killing 1,000 NHS patients a month”, The Daily Telegraph headline reads. It says that the largest ever study of errors in British hospitals has found that one patient in 10 is affected by potentially serious medical errors, with half of them dying as a result. A recent example of a preventable death, highlighted by the Telegraph, was the tragic death of Kane Gorny. His inquest found that he died from dehydration due to a combination of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. Most of these “possibly preventable” deaths occurred among elderly, frail patients with multiple other medical problems. This raises debate over whether these deaths were actually “preventable”. Based on these figures the reviewers estimated that almost 12,000 (11,859) adult deaths would have been preventable in England during 2009. These are important findings, but are estimates only – the reviewers only examined the records of 1,000 patients from a sample of hospitals. While a single preventable death is one too many, the researchers actually found that the number of preventable deaths was far lower than previously thought. Some previous estimates put the number of preventable deaths occurring every year in England as high as 40,000. The researchers were keen to stress, “this does not mean that preventable deaths should be ignored and no attempt made to improve our understanding of their causes”.

However, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust also admitted inability of its trust to treat patients properly: “There has been both interest and concern relating to the recent immediate imprisonment of a doctor for manslaughter. Commentators have questioned whether the threshold for conviction of surgeons for manslaughter is being lowered in England and Wales. Are there safeguards in the criminal justice system that makes the anxiety that doctors are now more prone to conviction or imprisonment for manslaughter ill-founded? Manslaughter is an offence of unlawful killing, or homicide. It is distinguished from murder by finding the absence of ‘malice aforethought’, roughly translated as an intention to kill”.

The issue of lethal injection is has also been matter of great concern that kills numerous people being in hospitals. Under figures gained from a 2012 freedom of information request by The Daily Telegraph, 85 per cent of NHS trusts were revealed to have adopted the Liverpool Care Pathway. Just over half of the total of NHS trusts have received or are due to receive financial rewards for doing so. At many hospitals more than 50 per cent of all patients who died had been placed on the pathway and in one case the proportion of foreseeable deaths on the pathway was almost nine out of 10.

In yesteryears, Daily Mail published interesting stories about the malpractices and scandals of NHS establishment. In that stories, the newspaper reported cases of rape on hospital bed, humiliation, torture and killing of elderly patients whose cases were never thoroughly investigated by their sons and daughters Ministers, secretaries and working class. Credit goes to the great management of the Daily Mail that reported the killing of 130,000 elderly patients every year. According to the Complementary Medical Association details, the Daily Mail reported on the way that the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), an end-of-life care programme was being used in the NHS. The programme was designed to help improve what was termed as – the “quality of dying” – for terminally ill patients.

The CMA also reported that, ‘once a doctor – or a nurse–determines that a patient has days or hours left to live, they are allowed to give them a steady dose of morphine – or other painkillers – until they die. The report quotes a ‘prominent professor’ as describing this programme as a “back-door form of euthanasia” and claiming that it now “kills” around 130,000 patients every year. The accusation is that many healthcare practitioners aren’t properly assessing patients’ status and simply implementing the programme when they want – and it is felt – that this is being used to remove troublesome patients. The key critic of this policy, Professor Patrick Pullicino, said he was personally witnessed this programme being used to “deliberately killed patients that were not terminally ill”.

Steve Doughty in 20 June 2012 wrote for the daily mail and noted important facts about the killers of NHS establishment: NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed. Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly. He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country. It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent. There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP. Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’. He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors. Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated. He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’. In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift”.

In another report David Vance (Altnewsmedia) revealed that NHS has been the killing field in Britain: “Dr Jane Barton was found to be responsible for a culture of dishing out powerful opiates at the Gosport War Memorial hospital in Hampshire, after a government report said more than 450 people had their lives shortened. “450 had their lives shortened”? Oh, is that the new media euphemism for killing patients who medics deem past their sell by date? Were the family consulted in this decision to bring the lives of their family members to an abrupt end? No. Was there transparency in making this approach to ending life available to all those concerned? No. Here are just a few of the many whose lives were terminated under the death culture overseen by Dr. Barton. “Yes, I accept these patients were mostly elderly, and frail, and in pain. Yes, I accept that it is very challenging for any Doctor when faced with making critical decisions about them. But when a conscious decision is made to terminate the lives of patients, and when this decision is hidden from family relatives, then this is a step too far and an abrogation of the fundamental medical obligation Primum non nocere – first, do no harm”.

Forty thousand patients die every year as a result of mistakes by NHS staff. This was revealed in a comprehensive report of Tory MP David Davis. He published a 35-page report, highlighting a dossier by the Chief Medical Officer Professor Liam Donaldson which catalogues around 850,000 ‘adverse events’–or errors–in the NHS each year. 40,000 patients were killed the report said. The Gosport inquiry report revealed that GP ‘responsible’ for practice of lethal opiate prescribing which may have killed up to 650 patients at NHS hospital. Alex Matthews-King Health on 20 June 2018 reported the killing of 650 patients. A public inquiry into the care at Gosport War Memorial Hospital in Hampshire found an “institutionalised practice of shortening lives” between 1989 and 2000 – during the tenure of one GP, Dr Jane Barton. Families, who have battled for 20 years to have their loved ones’ deaths investigated, were “marginalised” by hospital staff when they complained and “failed” by the police and medical regulators who did not act or investigate thoroughly, the inquiry found. Alex reported. Moreover, Tim Worstall in his analysis in Continental Telegraph (August 01, 2019) noted the killing of 30,000 patients by NHS every year:

“We’re told that Google’s Deep Mind can identify a problem before it kills people. That’s good, that’s nice. But now read the story the other way around. Currently the NHS kills 30,000 people a year through simple incompetence. Not such a good story now, is it? Artificial intelligence designed by Google’s DeepMind can now predict deadly kidney injury two days before it happens, in a breakthrough which could save the lives of 30,000 NHS patients each year. Around 100,000 people in Britain die from Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) annually which occurs when the organs suddenly stop functioning, creating a build up of waste in the blood and eventually death. That is good, no doubt about it. So, what’s the cause of this problem? It often occurs through dehydration in hospital patients, but until now has been difficult to predict. Previous NHS research has suggested that around 30 per cent of cases of kidney failure deaths are preventable if caught early, so the algorithm could prevent 30,000 deaths in Britain each year”.

On 05 March 2018, the Guardian newspaper reported the killing of hundreds of mental health patients in NHS hospitals. “Guardian investigation finds 271 highly vulnerable patients died between 2012 and 2017 after 706 failings by health bodies. Mental health campaigners said the findings were shocking and claimed that many of the deaths were avoidable and constituted a “tragedy”. “It is not acceptable that some trusts fail in some of the most fundamental requirements of providing care, with catastrophic consequences,” said Paul Farmer, chief executive of the mental health charity Mind. “Every one of these deaths is a tragedy, and it must be deeply difficult for families already having to come to terms with losing a loved one to learn that their death could have been prevented,” added Farmer, who chaired NHS England’s taskforce in 2015-16 on improving mental health care. The Guardian’s analysis found two trusts with notably high numbers of deaths. Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS trust and Camden and Islington NHS foundation trust in London each had 14 such deaths across the six years”.

However, the NHS Medication Errors contribute to as many as 22,000 deaths every year. On 23 February 2018, Tasnim, an Iranian newspaper reported NHS millions of prescribing errors and mixups which contribute to as many as 22,300 deaths a year, according to a major report commissioned by the Government. Errors include failures to properly monitor patients on powerful drugs, poor communication between GPs and hospitals, and giving patients the wrong medication, Independent reported. While the potential risk can be as low as giving the wrong strength inhaler, it can also mean that the medication for seriously ill patients in hospital is mixed up, with potentially lethal consequences. The research conducted by university academics in Manchester, Sheffield and York identified more than 230 million medication errors a year that took place in the NHS. The report said: “We estimate that 61.4 million and 4.8 million errors occur in England per annum that have potential to cause moderate or severe harm, respectively.” On average, 712 deaths a year were definitively linked to adverse drug reactions being the main cause of death. The number of deaths where medication errors played a part ranged from anything between 1,700 to 22,303. The newspaper reported.

On 03 August 2019, Press TV reported failure of the UK healthcare system repeatedly in the quality and safety of care. The National Health Service (NHS) is now under more criticism resulting from the sixth death due to hospital food being contaminated. The individual who died in a listeria outbreak caused by eating contaminated food at Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in southern England was one of nine confirmed cases of the infection. The sixth patient to die had eaten food supplied to the hospital by the Good Food Chain. Public Health England (PHE) continues to investigate whether more people have died at dozens of trusts. The NHS has experienced worse medical and hospital outbreaks, which have led to criticism of the standards of hygiene across the organization, with some patients buying private health insurance or travelling abroad to avoid the perceived threat of catching a “superbug” while in hospital. Since 2015, several films have uncovered that the staff of the specialist hospital Whorlton Hall, County Durham, abuse and mistreat patients with learning disabilities and autism. Experts believe the culture was deviant at the privately-run NHS-funded unit with evidence of “psychological torture”. Since the end of 2018, police has arrested and questioned 10 workers as part of an investigation into alleged physical and psychological abuse of patients. Press TV reported.

The NHS maternity scandal is another painful story Richard Vize reported for the Guardian on 22 November 2019: The NHS’s worst maternity scandal raises fundamental questions about the culture and safety of our health service. The Independent has revealed that an inquiry into maternity care at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust has uncovered dozens of avoidable deaths and more than 50 babies suffering permanent brain damage over the past 40 years. The trust joins the roll call of NHS hospitals where endemic poor care has caused harm and death. Failings uncovered at Shrewsbury include a lack of transparency and honesty, defensiveness, a disrespectful and unkind attitude to families, a failure to learn from or even recognise serious incidents, and a “toxic” culture. The 2015 inquiry (pdf) into deaths of babies and mothers at University hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS foundation trust, the Francis inquiry two years earlier into failures at Mid Staffordshire, and the 2001 landmark public inquiry (pdf) into children’s heart surgery at Bristol Royal infirmary all revealed layer upon layer of systemic failings. These included the breakdown of teamwork, poor leadership, lack of respect between professional groups, a tolerance of poor standards, defensiveness, dishonesty, failure to assess risks, and repeated failures to recognise and investigate serious incidents. The newspaper reported.

On 19 December 2019, BBC reported scandal of Stafford Hospital scandal where regulator condemned “appalling” standards of care and reported there had been at least 400 more deaths than expected between 2005 and 2008. Later, an independent inquiry chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC, with a report published in February 2010, stated that hospital patients had been left “sobbing and humiliated” by uncaring staff. BBC reported.

Biological war in Europe and Central Asia will cause huge fatalities. These weapons introduce a bacteria or virus, combined with a delivery mechanism, into an environment for hostile purposes that is not prepared to defend itself from the intruder. It is important to note that these weapons agents are cheap. Joelle Jenny and Simon Limage (War on the Rocks, 01 March, 2018) have argued that terrorist groups want to buy and sale radiological material to make a dirty bomb. They also noted that the nuclear material fallen into the hands of ISIS terrorist group in Iraq was a warning to international community to secure their weapons programme:

“States are not alone in engaging in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: There are strong indications that terrorist organizations are seeking to access them as well. ISIL, for example, has not only used chemical weapons in Syria, but also acquired the knowledge to develop them–and possibly other weapons of mass destruction. In 2014, an ISIL laptop was recovered containing documents on how to develop biological weapons, including the bubonic plague. According to the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, there were a total of 143 terrorist attacks across the world from 1970 to 2014 that used weapons of mass destruction – 35 biological, 95 chemical, and 13 radiological. Countering this shadowy threat requires close collaboration beyond any one country’s borders. This massive effort is underpinned by a global architecture of arms control and nonproliferation treaties that define the obligations of governments to prevent the illegal export or use of weapons of mass destruction. These far-reaching obligations include tasks such as destroying chemical weapons stockpiles, developing and implementing rigorous export control laws, or implementing stringent security practices at sensitive facilities. To succeed, these efforts need a combination of well-resourced intelligence gathering, law enforcement, border controls, and preventive measures. These efforts also need to directly engage the scientists, laboratory technicians, emergency first responders, law enforcement agencies, intelligence officers, and customs officials who are at the front end of nonproliferation efforts. Ultimately, these are the people who make the world safer.”

Conventional weapons explode once and are finished. The “new era of biology” emerging over the last couple of decades has been characterised by significantly accelerated scientific and technological developments. Development of bio-technology and its illegal use against rivals is matter of great concern. In yesteryears, a number of disasters and attacks involving a CBRN component, whether they have occurred or been prevented, have challenged response systems and left their mark on public opinion worldwide. While Ebola virus attacked West Africa in 2014-2016, France and other states tackled it with military means. In 2015, the Paris terrorist attacks, the military doctors in the field of triage and care of wounded by warlike injuries proved decisive when the care system had to cope with an influx of victims.

During the last 20 years, Russia and the United States have made considerable progress for maintaining nuclear warheads. This dayto-day militarisation of potential conflict, the withdrawal of NATO and US forces from Afghanistan, and civil wars in the Middle East have all intensified the war of interests between the two states. In the presence of all these weapons, the danger of nuclear terrorism, the potential spread of nuclear materials in the black market and the recent threatened control of nuclear materials by terrorist group (ISIS) in Iraq, has raised serious questions about the safety and security of nuclear weapons. The international task force on the prevention of nuclear terrorism has also warned that the “possibility of nuclear terrorism is increasing” because of a number of factors including “the conventional forms of terrorism” and the vulnerability of nuclear power and research reactors to sabotage and of weapons-usable nuclear materials to theft.

In the past, terrorists attacked Pakistan’s nuclear installations. In 2007, terrorists attacked two air force facilities in Sargodha, associated with nuclear installations. On August 21, 2008, terrorists attacked the Ordnance factories in Wah. In July 2009, a suicide bomber struck a bus that may have been carrying A Q Khan Research Laboratory scientists, injuring 30 people. Moreover, two attacks by Baloch militants on suspected Atomic Energy Commission facilities in Dera Ghazi Khan have also drawn international attention to the security of the country’s nuclear installations. On October 10, 2009, nine terrorists, dressed in army uniform, attacked the GHQ. In June 2014, two suicide bombers killed high ranking military officers linked to Pakistan’s nuclear programme in Fateh Jang. In his Global Security Review paper Gerald Brown (Dec 16, 2019) not only supported my standpoint on the possible nuclear war, and the use of biological weapons in Asia and Europe, but also described the fear of security expert and policymakers:

“The possibility of escalation to a limited nuclear conflict at the tactical level, utilizing low-yield, counterforce nuclear weaponry is a plausible reality. Low-yield, counterforce nuclear weapons can be utilized in a limited fashion against an adversary’s military forces without threatening the survival of either state—particularly when there is a significant disparity between the nuclear capabilities of the states involved. The structure of the international system has been one of conflict and anarchy for the entirety of human history. The world has never known an era without warfare; states compete to maximize their security and ensure their survival against one another. But in the modern era, this competition may have far more dire consequences. States now yield weapons with unimaginable destructive capabilities and are capable of delivering them at unprecedented speeds. While these weapons almost certainly cause states to act more cautiously, it does not undermine the competitive nature of international relations; states will still compete and seek primacy over one another, securing their own interests and security. While possessing nuclear weapons may raise the risk of failure and serve as a strong deterrent to other states, the weapons by themselves are not enough to prevent this competition between states. In some cases, they may go as far as to instigate it as states seek to ensure their security against another’s nuclear capabilities. Nuclear weapon use in a limited manner may be a serious threat, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the changing state of the world into a multipolar nuclear order may encourage this”.⁴

The current threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons proliferation signals trouble, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia, which will not be redressed without resolving regional conflicts, which may in turn require internal political changes. India and Pakistan need to implement nuclear risk reduction measures. Terrorists want to buy or steal nuclear material to fabricate a crude bomb or to make or detonate radiological weapons. Analyst Gerald Brown (Dec 16, 2019) has noted the emergence and invention of modern nuclear weapons but argued that nuclear modernization and proliferation have forced states to develop low-yield, counterforce nuclear weapons which can be utilized without threatening a state’s survival in a limited nuclear conflict:

“In the modern nuclear age, the use of these weapons is increasingly likely, particularly if doing so will give a state a significant advantage over another. Deterrence has merit, but it undoubtedly lies in the presence of a realistic, credible threat, across all levels of the threat spectrum that mitigate this potential advantage. Nuclear multipolarity and increased interstate competition are resulting in an increasing number of competing, nuclear-armed states with historical tensions, leading to instances of escalation and the development of the security dilemma between multiple actors. Nuclear modernization and proliferation are prompting states to develop low-yield, counterforce nuclear 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 across China and globally. Xi’s centralized; personalized power has amplified both the strengths and failings of authoritarianism”.¹¹

We can predict that in future, Central Asia would be the battlefield of bioweapons, viruses and nuclear explosive devices because the region has played a key role in the development of weapons of mass destruction. Uranium was extracted throughout the region and shipped to uranium enrichment facilities in other parts of former Soviet Union and later incorporated into nuclear weapons. A large-scale anthrax production facility in Stepnogorsk, Kazakhstan, was dismantled. The fact is the threat of WMD materials in Central Asia could be used as a transit point for materials originating elsewhere. Both Russia and Central Asia now fight virus on their soil, but the question is who transported Coronavirus to the region. Definitely, international air travel might have caused the transfer of virus to the region. Analyst and expert Ellen Laipson (30 Mar 2020) is on the opinion that intelligence infrastructure and satellites can easily detect viruses:

“Diseases can be invented in laboratories, and pathogens are held in store by defense ministries in some countries, presumably for defensive purposes, to prepare antidotes should their armed forces be attacked by a biological weapon from an adversary. But the coronavirus health crisis reminds us that biological weapons, unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, are exceedingly hard to find and detect in enough time to respond. While satellites can detect large military facilities, and intelligence services monitor chemical capabilities of states and non-state actors, biology is everywhere. A malign actor can weaponise a pathogen in very low-technology ways. Recall the anthrax scare after the September 11 attacks. For weeks, there was fear and considerable disruption to normal traffic in the US capital. In the end, it was a lone attacker, a trained medical research doctor, who had access to laboratory specimens. His motives were never discovered. Scholars who work on biological weapons make other distinctions between them and the other “weapons of mass destruction.” According to Gregory Koblentz, author of “Living Weapons: Biological Warfare and International Security,” biological weapons are not particularly useful on the battlefield, are developed in great secrecy and do not really work as traditional deterrents in the big geopolitical landscape. But they are an effective tool of intimidation, or useful in asymmetric warfare when a smaller, weaker party can inflict damage and fear on an enemy with greater conventional warfighting capability”.¹²

As mentioned earlier, the United States wants to establish long term partnership with Central Asian States in order to confine Russia to a specific region, and deploy hundred thousands of jihadist forces to easily penetrate into Russian Federation for fight against the armed forces. The United States has already trained thousands of jihadists from Central Asia inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. Analyst Kristen Cheriegate (13 February, 2020) has reviewed the US engagement in Central Asia:

“U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s early February visit to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan marks a notable achievement for Central Asia: The United States is keeping an active eye on the region. An increased number of visits to the former Soviet republics has occurred in recent years, with U.S. officials voicing interest in strengthening relations. The State Department declared in a December special briefing that it had “intensified [its] bilateral diplomatic engagements with Central Asia” this past year. However, the Trump administration may experience a difficult time with its current strategy if key parties are not involved. During the meeting between the foreign ministers of all five Central Asian republics and Pompeo earlier this month, one important regional power not only was absent, but was negatively singled out – China....On the economic front, China has heavily pivoted to Central Asia in the past decade, and recognized the region as the backbone of the Belt and Road Initiative’s “Silk Road Economic Belt” – an overland network of infrastructure corridors that connect Chinese goods to European consumers via Central Asia. Billions in joint venture investments were made to develop Caspian Sea hydrocarbon fields, and Kazakhstan has some of the region’s largest reserves of oil and gas. In a reflective example of current U.S.-Chinese relations, Pompeo cautioned the Central Asian countries not to become overly dependent on Beijing and criticized Chinese business and lending practices”.¹³

The presence of Russia and China in Central Asia is considered as a “neighbors’ right”. The US engagement in Central Asia is a serious threat to the national security of Russia as CIA and Pentagon using Pakistan and Afghanistan to train the ISIS fighters and transport them to their destination. Soon after Pompeo’s Central Asia tour, the “United States Strategy for Central Asia 2019-2025: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity” was published. Moreover, while in Kazakhstan, Pompeo raised the issue of Uighurs of Xinjiang, prompting top Chinese diplomats to rebuke this demarche against China. The US new hegemonic design in the region reinvigorated the perspective of international politics in the region as a geopolitical game.

Bioterrorism is involving the intentional release or dissemination of biological agents. These agents are bacteria, viruses, fungi, or toxins, and may be in a naturally occurring or a human-modified form, in much the same way in biological warfare. Biological agents are used by the terrorists to attain their social or political goals and are used for killing or injuring people, plants and animals. Response of Europe to the threat of future bioterrorism seems limited due to political and economic reservations of some member states. The approach to searching for biological agents at airports and shipping container entry points, and promoting bio-hazard awareness raised several important questions. Biological terrorism can be loosely categorised based on the agent used. The virus threat including smallpox, influenza, dengue fever, yellow fever, Rift Valley fever, and haemorrhagic fevers like Lassa, Ebola, and Marburg. Smallpox spreads directly from person to person. The third category of bio-threat is ‘bacteria’, which includes anthrax, plague, and cholera. There are numerous reports on the genetically development of viruses by some states to use it and achieve their political and economic goal.