This inquiry develops a theoretical framework that explains the strategic logics of bioterrorism. Extremists who pursue or use bioweapons do so to accomplish one of four general strategic objectives: mobilization, intimidation, attrition, or annihilation. With respect to mobilization and intimidation, bioweapons are a relatively poor substitute for conventional weapons—they are more difficult to acquire and deploy and their use is likely to cause a significant public backlash against perpetrators. Extremists pursuing the more maximalist goals of attrition and annihilation, however, have greater incentives to incorporate bioweapons into their arsenals, especially as the technical barriers to developing bioweapons decline.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charles Mahoney (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: