Military bases getting protection against WMD attacks.

Up to 200 U.S. military bases will be equipped with chemical and biological detectors during the next several years, under a program that could cost as much as $1.3 billion.

The plan is to use existing off-the-shelf detectors, rather than try to develop new technology. The Pentagon's Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense recently awarded a three-year $117 million contract to Science Applications International Corp., of san Diego, Calif., to oversee the integration of multiple types of detectors. The contract has options for another three-year $390 million extension.

SAIC will manage a team of contractors. Johnson Controls Inc., of Cape Canaveral, Fla. will support installation, fielding and upkeep of the equipment. Midwest Research institute, of Kansas City, Mo., will evaluate and test biological detection systems.

Although biological detectors need to be improved, current technology for the most part can do the job, said Michael Helmstetter, director of technical operations for MRI. "The best thing to do is make the current system better until the next generation arrives," he told National Defense.

The Defense Department expects the contractors to employ current technology but to gradually incorporate next-generation systems as they become available. "Existing technology gives us a considerable capability in conjunction with well-thought-out operational concepts and well-trained personnel." an Army official said.

Securing military bases is challenging especially for smaller installations that rely on local first responders, said retired Army colonel Ted Newing, a security expert. "The smaller installations are dependent on outside help. The larger ones have memorandum of understanding and reciprocal agreements with local authorities on the other side of the fence," Newing said. "The mega-installations, the ones that are capable of handling themselves, are in the minority ... They make up only about 10 percent [of all military installations.]"

Interoperability between civilian and military assets becomes critical, Newing said. "It's not going to be the military [assets] that will be the savior here. It will be off-the-shelf equipment that will be interoperable and able to be networked," he said. "People are saying, 'When we buy stuff, let's make sure it's compatible.'"

"Effective communication both on-base and with the surrounding communities is essential in providing the best protection," said the Army official. "Within the family of systems approach, while detection systems differ, the warning and response systems are for the most part the same for chemical, biological or radiological events."

One dilemma for base commanders is the delicate balance between resuming critical functions while protecting staff. By prioritizing functions, leaders can try to remain functional in the face of a mass-casualty event, Newing maintained. A great deal of a base's challenge is to simply survive the first 12 to 18 hours after an attack-the accepted time it takes for state or federal assets to arrive.

"Most of them can continue at some level of mission-critical activity," Newing said. "They need to find a balance between protecting their people and performing their mission. They can't do it all."