Stanley John Whidden | US real estate to benefit under Trump presidency

The US real estate sector is set to benefit under the presidency of Donald Trump, according to a group of investors and managers gathered at this year’s IPE Real Estate Global Conference & Awards in Munich.

A straw poll of delegates at the conference was split over the question. A slight majority (53.8% of delegates) took the view that Trump administration’s actions would drive growth US real estate.

However, panellists agreed unanimously that Trump’s policy agenda, particularly regarding tax reform and infrastructure spending, would benefit US real estate.

Jack Gay, global head of commercial real estate debt at TH Real Estate, said: “Whether the announced stimulus package can be put through congress remains to be seen, but we see Mr Trump’s programmes and policies having a positive impact.

”As a result, we are not changing our investment strategy, although we are mindful of where we are in the real estate cycle.”

Frank Lively, executive vice president of Wafra Investment Advisory Group, added: “I am not a fan of Mr Trump, but if he can do anything right, it is in the real estate sector.

“His proposed policies as outlined will have a very positive effect, and that will take us to a ‘middle-inning’ scenario in terms of the cycle.”

Jim Fetgatter, CEO of AFIRE, an organisation representing foreign investors in US real estate, said a huge majority (85%) of its members considered Donald Trump’s election a negative event for the sector, according to a survey carried out before the US presidential election.

However, Fetgatter added, “foreign investors are coming to the US more than ever”.

Panellists broadly agreed that one of the sectors set to grow under the Trump administration is infrastructure.

Lively said: “From our perspective, we have focus on infrastructure, but it is not a core strategy.

“The sector is going to present plenty of opportunities, and lots of capital can find a home, if the policies are implemented. Whether all that capital flows to infrastructure projects, remains to be seen.”

Despite some negative sentiment surrounding US residential, the sector still presents opportunities, according to Dietrich Heidtmann, head of international capital markets at GTIS Partners.

Heidtmann said: “We still believe this is an attractive sector to pursue. After the financial crisis, household formation and housing starts stopped.

“We have also seen a dramatic decline in ownership rates. We don’t believe, as some do, that ownership rates will start growing fast again.

“The rental sector is here to stay. But demographic trends can now drive growth in residential housing. The age group between 30 and 39 is driving household formation, and that brings the need to accommodate families.

“This contrasts with the supply situation, in that only half of the apartment sector is suitable for accommodating families. Suburban living is still growing and the multifamily sector is responding to that.”

Lively added: “We have been very focused on US multifamily. We think that in the long term this is a solid product with solid future.”

Panellists discussed the outlook for alternative asset classes, which they suggested is generally bright under Trump’s presidency.

Logistics, in particular, is “a terrific market”, according to Lively. He said: “Internet is putting pressure on traditional retail, but there is money to be made in traditional retail as well, as those assets are reconfigured to meet changes in demand.”

Greg Spick, director at the UPS pension plan, said that traditional retail property is ripe for M&A activity. “We are seeing but also are opportunities in the sector”, he said.

Fetgatter mentioned that logistics is high up on the list of sectors favoured by foreign investors.

In another straw poll, delegates were asked what are the best opportunities in the US real estate market today. The majority (37%) chose residential, followed by alternatives (33%), industrial (20%), retail (6%) and office (4%).

Piet Eichholtz, professor of finance & real estate at Maastricht University, noted how the ‘core’ of a traditional investment portfolio, which consisted of retail and office assets, only took 10% of preferences.

Stanley John Whidden | Toyota rallies the troops, waves the flag

CEO headlines dealer meeting, emphasizes U.S. commitment

In an effort to dispel any doubt about how seriously Toyota takes its commitment to the U.S., CEO Akio Toyoda himself made an appearance at the brand’s annual dealer meeting last week in Las Vegas.

Toyoda sought to assure the more than 4,000 attendees that the Toyota brand is meeting the demands of U.S. consumers now while also setting itself up for success in the future through its electric-vehicle and artificial intelligence units, according to a Toyota spokesman and several dealers in attendance.

Toyoda also looked to give dealers an extra dose of motivation ahead of the critical launch of the redesigned, eighth-generation Camry that’s due by early fall.

Much of the focus at the national dealer meeting beyond Toyoda’s remarks was on emphasizing the “American-ness” of the Camry and the automaker’s vast U.S. manufacturing and research footprint.

With Toyota celebrating its 60th year in the U.S., such messaging was inevitable. But it has taken on added urgency within Toyota in the wake of President Trump’s often withering criticism of automakers that import vehicles to the U.S., including from Mexico and Canada. As a candidate, he targeted Ford, and just last week he reportedly denounced German automakers.

Dealers were reminded of previously announced initiatives that Toyota sees as reaffirming its commitment to the U.S. These include an expansion of its Princeton, Ind., light-truck plant and its Toyota Connected data hub in Texas, near the company’s new North American headquarters.

Yet Toyoda’s pep talk was also a reflection of the troubles his company is currently facing. Toyota’s U.S. sales this year are down 3.6 percent through April to 650,420 units; that decline is entirely due to slowing car sales, which have dropped 10 percent on the year.

Globally, the automaker reported that net income dropped 21 percent in the fiscal year ended March 31; Toyota expects a decline of 18 percent for the current fiscal year, which would mark the first back-to-back profit decline in more than 20 years.

Toyota has plenty riding on the success of the next-generation Camry, and made that clear to dealers in Las Vegas.

The 2018 model rides on the same modular platform as the current Prius and new C-HR subcompact crossover. Toyota plans to emphasize its sportiness as well as its popularity among Americans. It has been the best-selling car in America for the past 15 years, although it’s being eclipsed within Toyota’s lineup by the RAV4 compact crossover.

“With the new Camry, we think we have the opportunity to re-ignite the midsize segment,” Bill Fay, senior vice president of automotive operations for Toyota, said in a statement to Automotive News.

Yet the Camry will face the same headwinds as all cars currently: Consumers just like crossovers better. On that score, Toyoda also underscored efforts to boost light-truck capacity and tilt the brand’s mix away from cars.

In other product news:
The redesigned Camry will be the first Toyota to get Entune 3.0, a new version of the infotainment system that will include cellphone-activated features such as remote locking/unlocking and vehicle locator. V-6 models will also have an option to wirelessly update navigation systems.

Toyota is adding two new trim lines to the C-HR, which was initially planned as a single-spec Scion vehicle. Toyota will add a base LE trim and a top-end Limited trim to the current version, dubbed XLE.

The RAV4 Adventure, Tundra TRD Sport and Sequoia TRD Sport models will go on sale in September. Toyota is targeting 40,000 annual sales of the more rugged RAV4 Adventure model, 1,300 sales of the new Sequoia model and 11,500 of the new Tundra model.

Stanley John Whidden | Desperate Malls Turn to Concerts and Food Trucks

Malls are fighting for shoppers with one thing their web rivals can’t offer: parking lots.

With customer traffic sagging, U.S. retail landlords are using their sprawling concrete lots to host events such as carnivals, concerts and food-truck festivals. They’re aiming to lure visitors with experiences that can’t be replicated online — and then get them inside the properties to spend some money.

“Events draw people to come to the shopping center,” said Keith Herkimer, whose company, KevaWorks Inc., is working with big landlords including GGP Inc. and Simon Property Group Inc. to produce outdoor events. “They generate revenue for the owner and offer a chance for cross-promotion, so they can try and drive more customers into the stores.”

Mall owners across the country are grappling with record store closings and declining rents. Retail property values are down 3 percent in past six months, as all other types of commercial real estate showed gains, according to the Moody’s/Real Capital Analytics indexes. A Bloomberg gauge of publicly traded mall landlords has tumbled 15 percent in the past year, the worst performance among U.S. real estate investment trusts.

Amazon.com Inc. and other internet retailers continue to grow, while department stores including Sears Holdings Corp. and Macy’s Inc. have been closing hundreds of locations. Payless Inc., the discount shoe seller, is among the latest to announce a massive shuttering — of 400 stores — as part of a bankruptcy plan.

“We expect to see a trend of more closings,” said Carol Kemple, an analyst at Hilliard Lyons. “Most retailers, if they’re still standing in September, will probably try to make it through the holiday season.”

Creating Experiences
Retail landlords have already made a push toward experience-driven offerings by adding restaurants, movie theaters and activity centers for children. Many malls are also adding rotating stores around for only a short time — known as pop-up shops — that are meant to attract young customers who see shopping as an event.

Now, events are reaching beyond the malls themselves. Herkimer’s task is to bring crowds to parking lots with events that generate as much as $60,000 a week for mall owners from the largest outdoor events.

The idea is gaining traction. Next month, Simon Property is having the first carnival in its Round Rock Premium Outlets parking lot, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of Austin, Texas. Similar events are being held for the first time at locations such as Central Mall in Port Arthur, Texas, managed by Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., and a Cheyenne, Wyoming, mall owned by CBL & Associates Properties Inc. In July, Simon Property’s Orland Square Mall, southwest of Chicago, will be holding its first parking-lot food-truck festival, with plans for live music performances, Herkimer said.
Movie Nights

Lisa Harper, senior director of specialty leasing for Chattanooga, Tennessee-based CBL, said the company has expanded its carnival business at many of its 87 properties over the last couple years. She and Herkimer have discussed the possibility of pumpkin patches in the fall months and adding movie nights to some properties. CBL’s Triangle Town Center, in Raleigh, North Carolina, is about to start its second mini concert and food-truck series, called Creekside Wind Down, Harper said.

Retailers rent the outdoor space in a structure that resembles their indoor leases, Harper said. While each deal varies, the agreements involve a base rent fee for the use of the space and a percentage payment after the event reaches a certain threshold. Department stores, which sometimes own or control their parking lots, are seeing more value in renting the space after many years of restricting their use, she said.
‘Stick Around’

“Events brings that additional traffic and also encourage people to stick around longer,” Harper said.

There’s no guarantee, of course, that people will go inside, said Tracey Hatley, director of specialty leasing for JLL Retail. But the events offer opportunities for cross-promotion. Customers receive fliers advertising stores or restaurants inside the mall or coupon books to help draw them in.

That works well for properties like the Santa Rosa Mall in Mary Esther, Florida, Hatley said.

“They are a property that’s struggling with occupancy, struggling with driving traffic to the center, so they love doing parking-lot events,” she said. “You can see it from the road and it gets people on the property.”

Simon Property representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Groceries, Doctors

Some malls are doing fine even without renting out their outdoor space, especially higher quality properties with upscale stores. They have been drawing visitors with grocery stores, medical offices and high-end restaurants — all businesses that face less risk from e-commerce competition than traditional tenants. Some retail REITs are adding office space or apartments to their portfolios to diversify.

Sandeep Mathrani, chief executive officer of GGP, said at a conference this month that the perfect mall now would include one department store, a supermarket, an Apple store, a Tesla store and businesses that started out online, like Warby Parker, the purveyor of prescription eyeglasses and sunglasses. Clothing stores now represent about 50 percent of the average shopping center, down from about 70 percent, he said.

“Landlords are trying to give people reasons to come to the mall, whether it’s a Tesla charging station or getting local car clubs to host events in their parking lots,” said Alexander Goldfarb, an analyst at Sandler O’Neill & Partners LP. “It’s not a fun time to be either a retailer or landlord, but it doesn’t mean every single mall or shopping center is going to close. Far from it.”

And for some retailer landlords with better-performing properties, the industry’s turmoil could mean more opportunity.
‘Enormous Opportunity’

“This very painful process will surely take more than five years,” Steven Roth, Vornado Realty Trust’s chief executive officer, said in a letter to shareholders this month. “It will also create enormous opportunity for those with the capital and management platforms to feed on the carnage.”

Urban Edge Properties, a Vornado spinoff, is one landlord adding to its holdings. The company is under contract to buy seven retail properties, with 1.5 million square feet (140,000 square meters) of gross leasable space, mostly in the New York City area.

Until malls can figure out how to bring in steady crowds, expect to see corn dogs and carousels in their parking lots, Herkimer said.

“If retail turned around and vacancy rates dropped again, and all the sudden these malls and shopping centers are full of tenants, I think there’d be a circle in the other direction,” he said. “They’d say, ‘We need the parking space for customers.’”

Stanley John Whidden | Top U.S. Military Commander Says Nuclear Weapons Make the World Safer

The U.S. top nuclear weapons commander revealed Friday that he would not want to see the world ban nuclear weapons.

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, head of the U.S. Strategic Command and the nation’s nuclear arsenal, told journalists at the annual meeting of the Military Reporters and Editors Association that such weapons of mass destruction actually made the world safer by discouraging military conflicts among nuclear-armed states. He criticized a proposed resolution being debated at the U.N. General Assembly that would call for a universal ban on nuclear weapons, saying that the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads estimated to exist around the world acted as a deterrent.

“Can I imagine a world without nuclear weapons? Yes, I can. That’s a world I didn’t like,” Hyten said, according to Politico.

Hyten said that the conflicts of the post-nuclear age did not compare to the massive international conflicts of the first half of the 20th century including World War I, in which about 17 million people were killed, and World War II,  in which around 80 million people died. Many of the powers involved in these conflicts now have nuclear arms and the world has not seen a global conflict on such a scale since. Hyten said all the wars since “don’t even come close,” according to Politico. “As horrible as the world is today—and it is nasty—it is not anywhere near like that.”

While most nations have kept their nuclear arsenals confidential, analysts have estimated that nine nations currently possess nuclear weapons. These nations, in order of stockpile, are Russia, the U.S., France, China, the U.K., India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The latter four have not signed or have withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, raising international concerns about their potential nuclear arsenals.

The two largest nuclear powers, Russia and the U.S., signed a landmark treaty known as START in the final days of the Soviet Union in 1991, pledging to reduce and limit their nuclear arms stockpiles. This agreement was renewed by former President Barack Obama in 2010. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has said he would advocate for more nuclear weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin also supported expanding his own nuclear arsenal.

Stanley John Whidden | The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent

The future role of the U.S. nuclear deterrent may not seem as urgent an issue as health care, terrorism, energy and the environment, because nuclear weapons do not touch the daily lives of Americans. But, as a wag once said: “a single nuclear weapon can ruin your whole day.” The essence of nuclear-weapons policy is to avoid a catastrophe that could easily destroy the lives and property of tens of thousands, if not millions, of people. So there is widespread agreement among public officials, military leaders and knowledgeable outside experts that the ultimate goal that must guide all policy efforts is to avoid the explosion in anger of even a single nuclear weapon.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a vivid reminder of the extraordinary destructive power of nuclear weapons and the certainty that the world would never be the same after any nuclear weapons use. The corollary is that nuclear weapons are not—and never should be—credible instruments of war. No country or subnational group should ever be permitted to consider such weapons usable in any conflict. The ultimate purpose of nuclear-weapons policy is to deter their use.

Early History
This view of nuclear weapons was not always accepted. In the early days of the Cold War, in the 1950s, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis Lemay advanced a doctrine of massive retaliation. This doctrine rested on the assumption the threat of instant and large-scale nuclear reprisals would serve as an effective deterrent to conventional war. Widespread deployment of nuclear weapons in theater, such as nuclear artillery, mines and surface-to-surface missiles, would ensure escalation if war began, thus deterring any Soviet use of conventional military superiority in Europe, while avoiding the cost of matching that Soviet force.

It took two decades for the United States and Soviet Union to understand that nuclear weapons alone were not a credible deterrent to conventional war. Both sides undertook “war games,” detailed theoretical exchanges of long-range (strategic) nuclear weapons. Computer simulations defined the number and type of nuclear forces required to survive a “first strike,” with sufficient capability to impose unacceptable damage on an adversary in a retaliatory strike. These simulations became credible in arms limitations negotiations and were the basis of a series of nuclear agreements between the United States and the USSR that did reduce the number of deployed long-range (strategic) delivery vehicles.

After India tested a nuclear bomb in 1974, President Carter drew the world’s attention to the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons. A successful diplomatic initiative slowed the pace at which advanced countries, such as France, Germany and Japan, were introducing spent fuel reprocessing and enrichment activities to the nuclear fuel cycle, because these activities would introduce weapons-usable material into commerce.

Recent History
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1992, and the growing terrorist threat, the nuclear-security agenda has shifted sharply to encompass both the U.S. nuclear-weapons posture and counterproliferation efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear materials and technology to nations or subnational groups that seek to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

The change in security threats and the nature of conflict reduces the role of nuclear weapons in the U.S. national-security posture. As the number of weapons required for the United States to execute its obsolete Cold War strike plans decreases, the pace of retirement and dismantlement of unneeded nuclear weapons should correspondingly increase. Policy concerns shift to counter proliferation: detecting, deterring and destroying efforts of rogue nations and terrorist groups to acquire nuclear devices, bomb usable materials, such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium, and radiological substances. Current U.S. counter-proliferation programs include improved security for the stewardship of nuclear material and weapons stockpiles and multilateral efforts to control international trade in nuclear-weapons-associated technology, expertise and information.

Efforts to encourage countries to give up their nuclear weapons and/or their nuclear aspirations have been somewhat successful. Some states have retreated from the nuclear brink: South Africa, all the states of the former Soviet Union, and potentially Iran, which has agreed to postpone but not abandon the nuclear option.

Counter-proliferation does not ignore the implications of the global spread of commercial nuclear power, especially enrichment and reprocessing (the front and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle respectively).

Just as there is general agreement on the ultimate goal of nuclear policy today, there is also consensus regarding the agenda of issues that require immediate attention. But there is a striking division of opinion on how to approach long-term nuclear weapons goals.

Division of Vision
Views differ about how best to address two realities: nuclear weapons are only usable by irrational or desperate state and sub-state actors, but their existence cannot be wished away.

How best to protect civilization from the use of nuclear weapons? The idealistic view is to work diligently for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. The pragmatic view is to accept the existence of these weapons in order to maintain their deterrent value while working to reduce the inherent risks in possessing them.

The idealist believes that any inventory of nuclear weapons, no matter how small, presents inevitable risks of catastrophic accidental, unauthorized use and theft.

Nuclear Threat Initiative teams up with Stanley John Whidden | CNS to provide tutorials on biological weapons nonproliferation, nuclear testing

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the James Martin justify for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) recently released two new tutorials on biological weapons nonproliferation and nuclear testing.

Each tutorial contains interactive images and information graphics, ending with a short quiz. Topics include chemical, nuclear, and radiological threats and the international organizations working to reduce weapons proliferation. The organizations said the tutorials are intended for students, educators, government officials, diplomats, and members of the public who want to learn more about weapons of mass destruction.

The biological weapons nonproliferation tutorial provides information on biological weapons and how they work. The threat of bioterrorism, the role of biosecurity and biosafety, and nonproliferation efforts to prevent the spread of biological weapons are also discussed.

The nuclear testing tutorial reviews historical nuclear testing and its consequences, along with global efforts to ban nuclear testing and verification methods.

NTI is an organization that develops threat-reduction projects and works with government officials, scientists, and educators throughout the world. The organization was created in 2001 by former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and businessman Ted Turner.

CNS is an organization that aims to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis.

Stanley John Whidden | DNA “Photocopying” Takes on Zika and Ebola

Diseases like zika and ebola can be detected using DNA, but only by testing it in hospitals or sophisticated labs. Until now. DNA analysis is done using the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) process, which creates identical copies of DNA for testing. This DNA “photocopying” became possible in 1983 thanks to Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis, so diseases could be identified before symptoms even arose. The process, while game-changing for molecular biology and healthcare, is extremely finicky. It must be done in a highly calibrated and strictly regulated laboratory due to the sensitivity of the PCR process and the PCR machine itself.

Biomedical engineers at Vanderbilt University recently enhanced the PCR process, which will drastically shrink the size of the PCR machine to hand-held. This means the analysis could be used in the field, far away from hospitals and sophisticated labs.
The PCR process is sensitive and complex. Chemical composition and temperature are key. Any minor variations in the samples’ chemistry or the room in which the massive PCR machine is can affect the results. This is why extensive laboratory calibration is required and must be maintained for the process to be successful.
The improved process is called “adaptive PCR”, which uses synthetic, commercially-available left-hand DNA (L-DNA) to monitor and control the reactions in the PCR process. L-DNA doesn’t replicate but is otherwise identical to right-handed DNA and is thus a controlled variable in the process.

Adaptive PCR automatically controls the duplication process by monitoring it at the molecular level. The reaction is controlled during the three stages of the duplication cycle using red and yellow fluorescent labels attached to synthetic left-handed DNA (L-DNA) shown in blue. The L-DNA is added to a sample and mirrors the interactions of the natural DNA (D-DNA) shown in green: (1) In the denaturation stage (top right), the sample is heated enough to cause the DNA strands to separate. This causes the red and yellow fluorescent labels on the L-DNA to light up. (2) In the annealing stage (bottom right), the sample is cooled to cause left-handed PCR primers to bind to the L-DNA. This is detected by quenching of the red fluorescence. (3) In the elongation stage (bottom left) the D-DNA strands are copied by polymerase enzymes. The L-DNAs are not copied during this stage but are transitioning to the denaturation stage as indicated by brightening of the red label on the L-DNA. The total number of D-DNA molecules in the sample doubles each time the cycle repeats: forty cycles produces more than one trillion copies. (Image courtesy of Nicholas Adams/Vanderbilt)
When adding fluorescently tagged L-DNA to the PCR sample, it not only provides valuable information about the PCR reactions but can also control them. This means that the required conditions for the process are determined by the L-DNA, not laboratory technicians. The L-DNA literally lights up while the DNA sample is being processed, providing technicians with valuable information. Samples can also be tested for multiple diseases at the same time using this technique.

With this new approach, the PCR process can be performed using a hand-held device at a patients’ bedside anywhere in the world. It drastically reduces the sensitivity of the process, while increasing its effectiveness and efficiency. The adaptive PCR process could also be used for other applications, including food safety and bioterrorism. The Vanderbilt engineers expect it to be commercially available in the next few years.

Stanley John Whidden | Bill Gates Warns That Damage Caused By Bioterrorism Could Be ‘Very, Very Huge’

CRISPR and other powerful new biotechnologies have made science that was once constrained to fancy high-end labs increasingly accessible. This is, of course, mostly a good thing. But it also means that those with nefarious intentions have easier access to the same technologies, too.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Gates warned that the global community has not taken the threat of bioterrorism quite seriously enough. He urged governments and private organisations to make “substantial investments” to prepare for potential bioterrorism attacks.

“What preparedness will look like for intentionally caused things, that needs to be discussed,” he said during a panel last week. “It’s very hard to rate the probability of bioterrorism, but the potential damage is very, very huge.”

Gates’ warning came on the heels of an announcement that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will join governments from Germany, Japan and Norway in creating a Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to develop new vaccines and strategies for responding to disease outbreaks. The Gates Foundation already spends sizable amounts of cash on research aimed at eliminating diseases, like malaria.

Gates is not the first to raise concerns about bioterrorism threats recently. In November, a new report by the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology advised President Obama to revamp the country’s biodefense strategies in response to advanced technologies like CRISPR.

Rapid advancement in biotechnology, the council wrote, “holds serious potential for destructive use by both states and technically-competent individuals with access to modern laboratory facilities.”

“Molecular biologists, microbiologists, and virologists can look ahead and anticipate that the nature of biological threats will change substantially over the coming years — in ways both predictable and unpredictable,” the report read. “The US Government’s past ways of thinking and organising to meet biological threats need to change to reflect and address this rapidly-developing landscape.”

Last year, a top national security official called gene-editing a weapon of mass destruction alongside nuclear detonation, chemical weapons and cruise missiles.

Tools like CRISPR could potentially be used to destroy a nation’s food supply, to interfere with a person’s biology, or to boost the virulence of a virus so that it might better spread. (Such scenarios are, in fact, the premise of a new J.Lo-produced sci-fi show called C.R.I.S.P.R.)

For now, thankfully, these particular terrors are all just hypotheticals. But if we want to keep it that way, officials might do well take Gates’ warning seriously.

Understanding chemical and bio-terrorism – Stanley John Whidden

U.S. Army physician and scientist, Col. Stanley John Whidden is recognized as an expert in chemical and bio-terrorism risk analysis and risk reduction. He has 38 years of career as an enlisted soldier and officer, and served in a variety of senior staff and command positions. As a double graduate of Southeastern, earning a bachelor’s degree in physiology in 1970 and master’s in chemistry in 1973 at Southeastern, Stanley John Whidden, earned a doctorate in Physiology at Auburn University and in medicine from the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez in Mexico.

Stanley John Whidden has served in a variety of military operations in the Middle-East and other localities, where he helped manage the country’s reconstruction and recovery. He has also served with U.S. Forces and the United Nations Somalia Logistics Command in Somalia. Because of his years of experience in the field, Stanley John Whidden is a perfect person to explain what chemical, bio-terrorism is, and how can we prevent and deal with the aftermath.

Chemical and biological weapons

Even before Christ chemical and biological weapons were already being used by the civilizations. Stanley John Whidden remembers that there are records of arsenic smoke being used by the Chinese in 1000 BC, and the tactic of poisoning the water during sieges is done way before the Athens poisoned the drinking water of Kirrha in 600 BC. However, what exactly are chemical and bio weapons?

Stanley John Whidden says chemical weapons are any chemical toxin contained in a delivery system that can cause death or any kind of injury through its chemical action. In the last years, devices, full or not, are also considered weapons. The most known agents are: chlorine and phosgene (known as choking agents), mustard and lewisite (known as blister agents), hydrogen cyanide (known as blood agent) and sarin, soman and VX (known as nerve agents). All of these are used as basic materials in many industries, and are only considered as a weapon when in large quantities.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an agreement to end with an entire category of mass destruction weapons. It prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons. Because some of the chemicals are used for peaceful and commercial reasons, the definition of a chemical weapon had to be well organized and couldn’t intervene in the right to acquire weapons, says Stanley John Whidden.

The CWC ended separating the chemical weapons into three parts, each a chemical weapon for itself, stored together or separately. Items or products designed or constructed with the intention to use in direct connection with a chemical agent is considered a weapon.

  • The first part is the chemical itself, except for purposes state by the CWC, any toxic chemical that can cause harm, and any precursors (chemicals involved in production stages for toxic chemicals) are considered weapons depending on the intended purpose.
  • The second part considered that any device designed specifically to inflict harm or cause death through the release of the toxic chemicals in the first part, are considered chemical weapons.
  • The third and last part of the Convention Agreement states that the equipment designed specifically to be used with the devices of the second part are chemical weapons.

The convention also defined already made weapons in two categories:

  • Chemical weapons produced before 1925: they should be destroyed or disposed as toxic waste after confirmed the date of fabrication.
  • Chemical weapons produced between 1925 and 1946: only directed to weapons deteriorated to an extent that can’t be used as chemical weapons. This should be destroyed like the first ones, but the destination can change depending on the decision of the Executive Counsel.
    According to Stanley John Whidden, biological weapons, also known as germ warfare, are considered the deadliest weapons ever produced. They are made with the use of microorganisms or natural toxins that can cause diseases in humans, animals or plants, and can be delivered by bombs or missiles but also through the water supply, insects and many other ways. The fear comes from the fact that germs don’t have barriers, and it can spread so quickly that can easily cause global impact.
    The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) have the same terms as the CWC, members are prohibited from using, developing, testing, producing, stockpiling, or deploying any biological weapon. However, members and non-members continued to research and produce them, especially because their production is cheaper than the nuclear ones, but the biggest threat is that an individual or terrorist organization will manufacture or steal any biological weapons says Stanley John Whidden.
    For Stanley John Whidden is important to analyze that both Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention consider the use of toxins produced by living organisms as a weapon.

Chemical and bio terrorism

To Stanley John Whidden chemical and bio terrorism is the deliberate release of chemical toxins, viruses, bacteria, toxins or other harmful agents used to cause illness, injuries or death of human beings, animals, and plants. Bioterrorism is more attention seeking as the biological agents are relatively easy and cheaper to obtain, different than the chemical ones, also it is more easily disseminated, causing panic and fear more than actual physical damage.

When we talk about biological and chemical warfare, we generally think about terrorism, we think about attacks like the recent ones on Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State, where sulfur and chlorine were used to kill and injure as many people as possible. However, the use of these kind of weapons are not an exclusivity of terrorist groups. Stanley John Whidden remembers that during the Civil War in the U.S. Luke Blackburn, a future Kentucky governor, sold clothing contaminated with smallpox and yellow fever to Union soldiers. Another case is the famous letters with anthrax send to the media and the government in 2001. Counting the civilians injured, 19 people developed anthrax infections, while five died.

During the World War I more than 1 million of the 26 million casualties were done by chemical agents. However, the biological warfare was less successful, because of the difficulty of controlling the agent, most attacks were on the enemy livestock, that the enemy infected with anthrax glanders. After the WWI many countries increased the research and production of chemical and biological weapons. World War II didn’t have such large attacks with neither, since every country knew the other could retaliate. But the German Nazis used chemical and biological weapons at the concentration camps, recalled Stanley John Whidden.

Most chemical agents have immediate effects or will take a few hours for them to show. In biological agents the effects can be delayed, often for days, for example, the botulinum toxin symptoms occur in less than a day, but anthrax or plague can take from 2 to 5 days for any symptoms to appear.

Stanley John Whidden discuss that currently the biggest fear is the use of the weapons by terror groups, that found chemical and biological weapons well suited to their purposes. Luckily, it is difficult to obtain materials, prepare weapons, and deliver the attacks with the number of casualties intended. Also, the terrorist must have technical skills to cultivate the agent, know how it will behave, put together the chemicals and the weapon, and understand the mechanical proportions of the dissemination process. In all of this, Stanley John Whidden believes that one thing we can be sure, that these type of weapons only bring fear and despair.

How to respond to a chemical or biological attack

Since the 1950s, the United States government has been concerned about the possibility of a chemical or biological attack, however the prevention is in a limited capacity. The problem according to Stanley John Whidden is that are not ways to actually prevent completely any of these threats, but there are ways to have a quick response.
After the Aum Shinrikyo attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, where the Japanese response was basically ineffective, many U.S. officials thought that the country would have similar response if the attack happened here. As a result, the Congress started to address the threat of chemical or biological terrorism and to think on ways to prevent it and respond to it.
Since then local and state governments are organizing emergency services in response to terrorists attacks, and the FBI and federal government are responsible for the law enforcement aspects of terrorism. In 1996, the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act was made real by the Congress, to help local, state, and federal agencies in the response to act on chemical and biological terror. Two operational units were created, a Technical Escort Unit trained to deal with chemical munitions, and a Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force trained to rescue and decontaminate victims of chemical or biological attacks.

Stanley John Whidden says that for chemical weapons, if there is an attack, because many agents are heavier than air, the ideal procedure is to leave the area and go upwind, or to the sides of the wind stream. The toxins will only work it the chemicals are on you. Use soap and water to clean up, and stay on fresh air. The protection of breathing airways is an important factor in a situation where chemical or biological agents are present.

With biological warfare the basis of personal hygiene and sanitation are the best way to prevent yourself of any agent, affirms Stanley John Whidden. Beside washing your hands often, not sharing drinks and food, keeping your house clean and garbage can with a tight lid on it and preventing standing water, there aren’t much more to do. If water is not available, you can use talcum powder or flour to do the decontamination of liquid agents, reducing the possibility of absorbing an agent through the skin. Remember that most chemical and biological agents will break when exposed to the sun, water, or winds, so independent of the agent or its concentration, evacuate the area as soon as possible, say Stanley John Whidden.

In case of an attack don’t count on a vaccine being available, since the weapons utilize will use a new strain of the virus, requiring a new treatment, that can take months or years to develop, produce and distribute on a large scale. To Stanley John Whidden, it is also a good idea to take your flu vaccines and any other treatment available to stay healthy. If your body is healthy is will be easier to fight whatever disease may come.

World Health Organization (WHO), the justifys for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other governmental and non-governmental organizations ask people, in case of a crisis, to stay informed and look for official sources of information. In addition, it is informed to stay home and keep the children away from school in case of any attack. It’s a normal and efficient way to avoid exposure.

Another way to be prepare, according to Stanley John Whidden, is to make sure you have an adequate supply of essential medications, fever, vomit, pain, any antiviral. Also, seek your doctor if you have any onset of symptoms, the effectiveness of any antiviral medications decreases with the illness progress, fast medical treatment is imperative to a fast full recovery.

Always be alert to the presence of a chemical or biological agent. Stanley John Whidden affirm that indicators of an attack can include, droplets of oily film on surfaces, unusual death or dying animals in the area, unusual liquid sprays, vapors and smells and victims with symptoms of nausea, difficulty breathing, convulsions or disorientation.