>it's not effective in doing anything but news cycles.

That's literally the desired effect. What you're thiking of is war.

I was referring to the original comment above:

> It sounds like you could infect thousands/millions

Its not the right way to infect millions of people. It does not scale. Therefore not effective.

> it's not effective in doing anything but news cycles.

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" is a definition of terrorism. Death count is irrelevant (outside of spreading fear itself). Zero deaths in a terrorist attack could still be a very effective attack. Spreading something that causes a hideous disease in a city and causing mass hysteria could be an excellent terrorist tactic. Likely better than a bomb that kills a few people.

"Terror" is the point of "terrorism". It's in the word.

We need to expand the set of possible actors and goals. The anthrax campaign happened immediately after 9/11. The result of the campaign was the end of effective political opposition to the massive expansion of military and "secret" aspects of the USA government made possible by 9/11. Cui bono? Certainly not the several implausible patsies the authorities immediately had lined up to blame.

Numerous USA calamities make a lot more sense when we study them with an eye toward who benefits rather than who is blamed.

What made 9/11 such a successful terrorist attack was that it made the US live in fear. That is a change (and it hasn't changed back). Terror (fear) is a perfectly fine end in itself for terrorism.

The anthrax mailing caused changes and fear in US society with very little work. That sounds like a very efficient terrorist attack IMO.

Given that an attack of this sort would be propagated through mass media, then the claim that the attack would be ineffective is wrong.

ineffective to kill millions which was the initial claim.

5 envelopes, 5 dead, 17 more infected.