Trent Shipley wrote:
>
> Anthrax is probably too conservative.
>
> Were I them I would opt for one of the agressive hemoragic fevers.
>
> Ebola starts out as highly contageous and leathal. However, it is so leathal
> that it kills hosts faster than it can find new ones and burns itself out.
> In the process it also becomes less leathal. With a good choice of a
> hemoragic virus and you could kill thousands. Hundreds of thousands if you
> are lucky, swap a first world healthcare system, and really drive a spike
> into any economy. However, even if a traveler made it to Cairo or Jakarta
> they might show symptoms in time to quarantine a flight. Even in a bad case,
> WHO would probably arrive fast enough to ensure an acceptable, probably even
> a positive, kill ratio.
> There are excellent odds that Afghanistan would be unscathed. The odds
> of a global pandemic would be miniscule.
Besides, then it would more closely resemble a Tom Clancy novel. :P
Julia
