How hard would it be to weaponize Ebola? Pretty hard.

The Ebola outbreak has sparked concerns that terrorists could attempt to use the virus for nefarious purposes. However, Pentagon officials maintain that such risk is extremely low.

Susan Walsh/AP
US Africa Commander Gen. David Rodriguez gestures during a news conference at the Pentagon, Tuesday, to discuss the US military response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa.

Is it possible to weaponize the Ebola virus and use it to attack US troops, or civilians?

As thousands of American soldiers head to Liberia with the mission of containing the Ebola outbreak, and with the death Wednesday of the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States, it is a question coming up in discussions within the Pentagon.

It is the particular job of Pentagon officials – paid to plan for every catastrophic possibility, however remote – to explore whether terrorist groups might try to use Ebola for nefarious ends.

Within the Department of Defense itself, this job falls to Andrew Weber, assistant secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs.

Early in his career, Mr. Weber “spent a lot of time” in the biological weapons laboratories of the former Soviet Union.

He was studying the viruses and bacteria that the USSR had developed into weapons. “Many of those were obtained in places like Africa and Southeast Asia,” Weber says.

Some of the more alarmist scenarios have posited that somebody could do the same with Ebola. Peter Walsh, who studies a field called biological anthropology at the University of Cambridge in Britain, told the British tabloid The Sun, for example, that the virus could be used to create a dirty bomb.

Most researchers in the field, however, have pushed back strongly against that notion.

The Ebola virus is “not hearty in the environment,” Weber says. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that the disease is contagious only when patients have symptoms of the disease, and then only when caregivers or others come into contact with bodily fluids.

For this reason, it does not lend itself to “easy exploitation” by terrorist groups, says Weber, who is leaving the Defense Department this week to head the State Department’s Ebola task force.

Still, “there is a risk that terrorist groups could obtain access to blood or tissue samples,” he says, but only “infect a few people.”

Suicide-mission-minded terrorists might also “infect themselves and get on an airplane,” Weber adds.

“So there’s risk, and we need to make sure it’s not exploited in the current circumstances.” But, he adds, “It’s not a grave risk.”

During a news briefing Tuesday, reporters grilled Gen. David Rodriguez, head of US Africa Command, about the rules of engagement if US soldiers need to defend themselves against someone who might have an Ebola infection.

“We have the same rules of engagement everywhere we go,” General Rodriguez said. “But I want to make sure that you also understand, when these people get infected, they are not capable of, you know, doing a mounted attack or anything.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to How hard would it be to weaponize Ebola? Pretty hard.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today