|Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratories are among the most complex facilities to design, operate and maintain. See:http://www.absa.org/abj/abj2011v16n2.html|
Let's take a look at methods used to identify underground facilities as this is problematic. both in terms of nuclear weapon programs but also very much in terms of biological weapon laboratories. Assessing an above ground laboratory for BW traits posses fewer obsticals. A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 372 entitled: Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues, provides background into concerns arising over the use of underground or hardened facilities. The archieve brief states:
U.S. intelligence requirements with respect to monitoring underground facilities can be divided into four basic categories. The first is verifying the existence of such a facility at a specific location, hints of which may come from intelligence sources or claims that may emanate from defectors. A second requirement is determining the facility's mission--whether it be leadership protection, weapons production, weapons storage or something else. The third requirement is the develoment of specific intelligence concerning the facility-including its physical layout and size, the number of personnel, the equipment present, and its capability and/or output-whether that be the number of troops that can pass through a tunnel, the number of weapons stored, or the facility's ability to produce enriched uranium or a biological agent. The intelligence developed concerning those requirements can be employed to assess a foreign capabilities, monitor treaty compliance, as well as plan or conduct military operations."
John Pike detailed criteria for assesing a potential weapon lab at the technical level which often poses the most difficulty. I have argued for the use of network analysis in identifying would be weaponeers across a latent infrastructure but Pike's work is truely inspiring. In his work entitled: Biological Warfare Agent Production, see: John, “Biological Warfare Agent Production”, Weapons of Mass Destruction, GlobalSecurity.Org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_production.htm He offers an indepth analysis with rather precise indicators for assessing a biological weapon research and development laboratory and program: .
The following overview provided by Pike in GlobalSecurity.Org., defines at the facility level and laboratory level, quite precise indicators for assessing a biological weapon research and development program:
Dragon voice recognition