What exactly constitutes a WMD?

[zappaman]

Got into an argument with a freeper who refused to listen to anything I said after I proclaimed that the only WMD is a nuclear weapon. I know I read something recently that suggested a dirty bomb's capabilities have been widely exagerated and chemical weapons seem to be unrealiable at best.
Please help me out with this. I'm gonna be seeing this guy again this thursday and want to be prepared.
Thanks.

[Skinner]

1. My understanding is that WMD means...

...nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Conventional weapons, including explosives, are not included.

[meow2u3]

2. The so-called NBC weapons

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Should be called weapons of mass murder.

[aden_nak]

3. This administration has framed it in a certain way.

To be anything nuclear, biological or chemical. I think that's a bit broad. Obviously, all nuclear weapons fit the definition. Most biological agents do, and many chemical agents do, as well. However, some of them cannot be deployed in significant enough quantities to really be considered a WMD. In other words, it would require a relative amount of conventional explosive to create the same amount of damage. But it's not like I have a list or anything.

[Parche]

4. WMD

Its only a Nucoolar Weapon

As chemical weapons can be easily dispursed once exploded

[Streetdoc270]

5. US code

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, Title XV of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, P.L. 102-484 (enacted October 23, 1992), relates "to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and their related technology . . ."

The definition in the U.S. Code, Title 50, "War and National Defense," includes radiological weapons. It defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity."



(provided by NTI)http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

[Hatalles]

24. Perfect definition. n/t

[Rjnerd]

6. Something that can be transported in one vehicle

And packs a bang large enough to take out several city blocks at once. Nuclear is the most compact, but some of the fuel-air explosive devices could also do a good job -- say five or so tons of LNG, with a mechanisim to quickly disperse it into a large cloud, then ignite it. Fits into the sort of truck that makes home deliveries of propane or fuel oil. All you need is a supply of gas that doesn't have the artifical stench leak warning additive.

[pelagius]

7. At this point...

...I suspect a WMD in Iraq is anything US forces can find and secure that might hurt people and comes in a quantity great than, say, three.

In all seriousness, since WWII "weapons of mass destruction" has understood by most of us to refer to various types of nuclear weapons. Part of the brilliance of BushCo's rhetoric was to link this common understanding with his case for the war.

"Weapons of mass destruction" is linked to nuclear weapons inextricably in most of our minds. Even though BushCo was talking about chemical weapons -- which even at their worst can kill in the low thousands, not millions like nuclear weapons -- most of our brains are wired to leap to the nuclear connection upon hearing the phrase.

[southern_librul]

8. I agree with you

I suppose it comes down to definitions. If the "D" in "WMD" stands for "Destruction", then yes, nuclear weapons are the only weapons that fit the description.

Chemical and biological weapons are intended to create panic more than anything else, and are generally only effective over a (comparitively) small area for a short period of time. Unlike the residual effect of a nuclear weapon, chemical weapons disperse fairly quickly. Chemical and/or biological weapons could only be considered "WMD" if the "D" stands for "Disruption" or something similar.

It's a technical distinction perhaps, or maybe I'm just over-analyzing the term.

[karlrschneider]

16. Good analysis and welcome to DU!

:toast:
:D

[newyawker99]

19. Hi southern_librul!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cat Atomic]

9. Nukes. Only nukes.

The Bush Admin. blurred the definition, but chemical weapons aren't WMDs.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. Negative. Some chem & biologics are so potent that a single drop...

...absorbed through the skin will result in almost instantaneous death. When sprayed as an aerosol over a city or battlefield, the death rate can be enormous. Some of these weapons will continue to work long after being delivered.

Nuclear weapons range in effect from small neutron bombs that will kill all living beings within a certain radius and leave structures standing, to massive city-busters that will destroy everything, living and non-living, for a radius of up to 20-30 miles. Radiation in the form of fallout is an additional killer that can last thousands of years depending on the type of bomb material used.

[TahitiNut]

10. Indiscriminate killing tool - entire populations rather than combatants.

Conventional weapons have "collateral damage" but WMDs are used when even that nicety is abdicated and the purported bullseye of the target is essentially inconsequential. Despite the insanity of war, we hold onto some shred of rationality (a moral fig leaf, so to speak) when we use conventional weapons We go screaming naked into the fray when WMDs are being used - abandoning even the fig leaf. The objective in using a WMD is 'how many' rather than 'who.'

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Nearly 30 yrs ago, I trained for operating under this environment...

...WMDs are the old NBC weapons...Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical.

Any other weapons are considered to be conventional in nature.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Depends on who has them. Blessed by God if they're ours.

If it's the United States or any of it's client states they are known as "Weapons of National Defense". For those who don't subscribe to American hegemony, they are known as WMD. Of course, ignoring the fact that only one nation has ever used nuclear weapons.

Not to mention that we managed to kill 3 million SE Asians without resorting to "WMD".

[karlrschneider]

13. You are correct...only nukes are true WMD. Bio & chem agents are

capable of killing a lot of people but are notoriously difficult to use without huge risks to the deployer.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. That's incorrect...read my posts #11 and #14.

[karlrschneider]

23. I did read those posts and I respectfully disagree.

Yes, it is possible to kill a lot of people with bio or chem agents. Nobody denies that, but killing humans is not, by definition, "destruction". I know there is a tendency to conflate the results into a simplistic acronym, but words do mean something (if the people reading them understand what they actually do mean.)

[nine23]

15. Where do cluster bombs fit in...

when dropped onto the main street of a desert village in the Middle East? Or, what about Agent Orange and "carpet bombing" from B52's during the Vietnam War?

They all seem to cause "mass destruction" to me...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. An apropos quote from Gandhi.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi

If I may add, What difference does it make to the dead, if they're killed by a nuke or a machete?

[greekspeak]

20. Republicanese for "poltical football"

[SlavesandBulldozers]

21. According to Rudy G,

Saddam Himself was a WMD.

One of the funniest rationales Ive heard thus far.

[vetwife]

22. According to my husband If one bunch has rocks and the other

bunch has big sticks, guns and knives, then they have the weapons of mass destruction.
Perception. Thats the way we see it. We had the WMD's in Iraq. They had the rocks.

[Zayin]

25. Anything Bush says