Actually, there are 3 reasons why the "great powers" haven't used any NBC weapons: 1)political backlash, 2)your opponent might start using them as well, 3)using NBC weapons hinder will slowyour own troops down to the point where the enemy can bring up reserves to plug any hole you just made in their line.

To me the real problem about such weapons is the long term effects. I agree that the short term effects are primarily (SP) psychological. The long term ones are bio-hazards that can harm future and uninterested human beings. Par example-you can still get a fairly severe burn caused by Mustard gas that was used in WWI. Be careful where you put your hand on that stone wall in Verdun! Forget Mr Aquifer. If industrial by-products can be considered horrific to those who must co-habitate the same grounds, imagine living at ground 0 of a major cbw incident.

I must respectfully disagree. Conventional weapons, when used properly can never match the destructive power of WMD if THEY are used properly. The Japanese subway was merely an example of people not knowing how to use them properly. Problem is, if they are halfway intelligent, they learned what they did wrong, and may not make the same mistake again.

Military research has always gone into weapons that are immediately fatal or incapacitating. There are however many substances that will cause lingering health problems and death which could be used by terrorist factions who are not interested in immediate fatalities (However the media effect would be much smaller even if TOTAL fatalities where higher). Think Gulf war syndrome. A weapon otimized for this effect could be very dangerous in the long run, especially if it causes cripples. Imagine 10 million people are taken from the work force and need continuing health care. The economy would be in ruins within years. "Dirt" bombs are the nuklear approach to this end and they are very dangerous as well. Uranium and Plutonium are not only strong alpha radiators but also deadly poisonous. The attack could be performed on drinking water (especially in Europe because water quality is much higher there and people trust the water that comes out of the tap). Moffmaster

Water quality better in Europe? I lived there for 3 years and let me tell the stuff is rank. Nobody drinks out of the tap anywhere unless they don't have a choice. Here in the states we get a glass of water gratis. There in Europe they charge you. (In Poland the custom was to have the waiter open the bottle in front of you so you wouldn't be getting half drunken bottles from prior patrons.) You are seriously off base on this statement. Getting back to the statement of putting these items in the drinking water I really don't know if putting heavy metals would work. Wouldn't the filtration system get most of it? I know that the water supplies have been guarded as a source of chemical attack but I don't know about radiological attack.

Varies from place to place, as it does in America. People tend not to drink the water in the Boston suburbs, either, which is why bottled water is so big.

You are right it differs in Europe as well as in America but from what I have heard it is better in Europe than in America. In Germany it's nice wherever you go and in the parts of France i have been it was good as well. In the eastern countries it might be different. Attacking the watersupply itself is (in my opinion) not to difficult in itself. All pipe access and pumping stations are locked but that has never kept anyone out has it? The real difficulty will be to make the stuff spread without it being noticed. It takes almost forever for the water to reach your victims and if someone sounds the alarm no one will use tap water anymore. Such an opperation would require many people to poison the water at many places at once to be effective. In countries where water is scarce however it could be practicable. If you poison a river or other main watersupply there would be nothing left to drink. A terrorist could use large amounts of nuklear waste which can be procured rather easily (it was much easier in the past though). The waste is groud into powder and dumped into the water. Moffmaster

I'll only go so far in this sort of essentially anonymous, public discussion about workable terrorist tactics. As far as contaminating a water supply goes, that turns out to be considerably more of a practical problem than some might realize, and more so as you deal with larger and larger supplies for larger, and infinitely more juicy, public-relationswise, targets. Essentially, it's a combination of a target which is set-up to deal with biological agents, and, as far as chemical agents go, presents a "inkdrop in a swimming pool" problem. It's Public Health 101 that public water supplies are disinfected to destroy infectious agents. That's what chlorination is about. Trying to stage a bio attack on a public water supply tends to resemble a frontal attack on a prepared defender. I don't say it's impossible, but it's not easy. As for a chemical attack, what you need to think about is just how MUCH water is in a public water system. Any poison you want to put in is diluted, a LOT. It's a matter of dosage. Not how much stuff you dump in, but how large the effective dosage to a person at the other end of the system is. Some of the most deadly poisons known to man have benign uses, in very small doses. Even botulism toxin, is enjoying a fad in cosmetic surgery, as a sort of instant face lift chemical. It doesn't really matter what Osama bin Evil wants to dump into the reservoir. If he can't dump a LOT in, it won't kill people. "A lot", in this context, involves quantities which would herniate a caravan of elephants. And, that's where I'm going to draw the line, on this subject.

lets get back to the original subject the usefull ness of WMD's let me put it this way the major reason not to use chemical or biological weapons in a war are that it is easy to turn back and bite you in the arse. This happened in WW1. But that hasn't stopped them from being used the Japanese originated Bioweapons and used them in china with effect. and there is a reason we keep all of our stores of chem bio weapons. also as for useing water to affect people drinking it the use of a chemical, or heavy metal could be used in some tyoe of denial of service attack against water supplies rather than poison the water to the drinkers, slow the production of clean water to the point of a water shortage. if they could acces the water beyond the point of cleansing they could inffect alot of people with a communicable disease(even if it wasn't leathal it would affect the city a great deal) terrorism has become more than just killing people its about bothering people casing uproar and comotion.

I agree, water differes throughout europe, in the UK, virtually everyone drinks tap water, and many 'blind' tests have shown the majority of people prefer the tap water to the bottled stuff. AS commented,t he easiest way to threaten the population would be to poison the resevoirs.