This paper focuses on the question of how much protection a building provides its inhabitants from a BW attack. The reason for considering this problem is simple: most people spend the majority of their daily lives inside buildings. In fact, the U.S. EPA estimates that average Americans spend approximately 87% of their time indoors.5 However, most previous technical assessments of BW incidents ignore the effects of buildings, computing casualties based only on integrated outdoor surface dosage. The protective effects of buildings have been considered for other toxic releases. Karlsson, for example, looks at the effects of indoor deposition upon toxic gas clouds,6 and Engelmann7 and others examine the sheltering effectiveness of buildings against respirable plutonium releases. In this paper we seek to extend these basic ideas to biological agents and to explore aspects of the problem that are unique to biological weapons.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: A brief discussion of general aspects of biological weapons is first presented. Then, we introduce the method used to model the penetration of buildings by biological agents and discuss the factors that determine the sheltering effectiveness of a particular building. The paper concludes with a discussion of simple measures that individuals can enact to increase the sheltering effectiveness of a particular building.

This paper develops a probabilistic model that can be used to determine the technical performance required for a defense to meet specific political/military objectives. The defense objective is stated as a certain probability that no warheads leak through the defense. The technical performance is captured by the interceptor single-shot probability of kill and the warhead detection, tracking, and classification probability. Attacks are characterized by the number of warheads and undiscriminated decoys. Barrage and shoot-look-shoot firing modes are examined, with the optimal interceptor allocation derived for the shoot-look-shoot mode. Applications of this model for sizing national and theater missile ballistic missile defenses are discussed.

The Global Diffusion of the Internet Project was initiated in 1997 to study the diffusion and absorption of the Internet to, and within, many diverse countries. This research has resulted in an ongoing series of reports and articles that have developed an analytic framework for evaluating the Internet within countries and applied it to more than 25 countries. (See http://mosaic.unomaha.edu/gdi.html for links to some of these reports and articles.)

The current report applies the analytic framework to compare and contrast the Internet experiences of Turkey and Pakistan, through mid-2000. Although historically these countries have not been closely related, there are significant parallels between the two that make them well suited for a comparative study of the absorption of the Internet. Turkey and Pakistan are among the largest non-Arab Muslim countries in the world. In contrast to most of their Arab counterparts, their governments were founded as secular, parliamentary democracies. Both countries have had stormy political histories, however, with periodic coups and authoritarian governments. Each country has firmly entrenched bureaucracies with closed and, to varying degrees, corrupt processes.

Their economies have been similarly troubled, with periods of relative hopefulness punctuated by stagnation and decline. Both countries have suffered from erratic growth rates, high inflation, and high deficits. For most of their histories, their economies were rather closed and autarkic.

In recent decades, each country has taken substantial steps to move toward a more open, market-oriented economy and made expansion of the telecommunications infrastructure a high priority. Each country has sought, less successfully than had been hoped, to attract foreign investment and integrate itself more fully with the global economy.

Each country has a number of national security concerns. Turkey and Pakistan both have histories of serious domestic terrorism and persistent conflict with a non-Muslim neighbor.

In spite of the macro-similarities, there are numerous differences between the two countries. Pakistan is considerably poorer and less developed than Turkey; it has had more coups and assassinations, deeper economic troughs, greater heterogeneity within its population, and more endemic corruption.