# Definition of the phrase - weapons of mass destruction ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 14, 2001, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378 "2001-05-14T03:47:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/1 "2001-05-14T03:47:17Z")
Definition for the phrase weapons of mass destruction ? The term “weapons of mass destruction” has been getting a lot of use lately; yet a concise definition of the what the phrase means is hard to come by. When the subject is “star wars”, the term seems to include only chemical biological and nuclear weapons (see sec 1403 of [http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996/pl104-201-xiv.htm](http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996/pl104-201-xiv.htm)) but when the subject is limiting Iraqs’ ability to make such weapons, airplanes, cannon, lasers and missiles also seem to be included in the mix. So, is there a single internationally agreed upon definition of the term, or is it merely shorthand for “weapons we don’t like, and want to make sure can’t be used against us” ? ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/2 "2001-05-14T03:58:03Z")
Big dangerous things that blow up, usually emitting all sorts of icky toxic crap in the process. ---
**Author:** ![catmandu42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ab097/32.png) [@catmandu42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catmandu42)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/3 "2001-05-14T04:27:08Z")
When I was in the Army, “Weapons of Mass Destruction” were pretty much defined as any one weapon that could arbitrarily kill, maim, or severely injure large numbers of people, and cause widespread and total destruction or denial of territory, facilities, and equiptment. This is a Nuke, for the most part. However, some extremely persistent nerve gasses and bio-weapons also can fall into this category. Note that destruction or denial of things is a part of it. If it wasn’t, then an ordinary .45 caliber pistol could be defined as a “weapon of Mass Destruction”. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/4 "2001-05-14T04:37:10Z")
> [@](#): > > © Definitions. - For purposes of this section - > … > (2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means - > (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title; > (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; > © any weapon involving a disease organism; or > (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life. – from [18 U.S.C. 2332a](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332a.html) From [18 U.S.C. 921](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html), cross-referenced above: > [@](#): > > The term “destructive device” means - > (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - > (i) bomb, > (ii) grenade, > (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, > (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, > (v) mine, or > (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the > preceding clauses; > (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and > © any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. So, for the purposes of U.S. laws against terrorism, the term is pretty broad. Thus, Timothy McVeigh was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. In terms of international arms control agreements and non-proliferation treaties and the like, the term would probably be restricted to nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical weapons, and would not include truck bombs or grenade launchers. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/5 "2001-05-14T05:26:43Z")
Hmmm…this [U.N. press release](http://www.un.org/icc/pressrel/lrom14.htm) seems to include land mines as WMD as well: > [@](#): > > The United Nations Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court heard this morning several calls for the inclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, anti-personnel mines and other weapons of mass destruction under the Court’s definition of war crimes. ---
**Author:** ![SACLOS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@SACLOS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SACLOS)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/6 "2001-05-14T09:45:30Z")
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned “virtual” attacks as weapons of mass destruction. Communication and “jointness” is emphasized in Western militaries more and more each fiscal year. The smaller forces get the more they will rely on the ability see everything and communicate with everyone to survive. As a weapon that can “result in the total destruction of a combatant force”, “cyber attacks” (I hate that term)might be included. While these attacks couldn’t cause real “structural” damage to civialn targets, they have the potential cause financial havok. it doesn’t take much to get large groups of people to panic far in access of warrant. The fall out of a series of concerted attacks could indirectly result in massive tangible destruction. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/7 "2001-05-14T13:54:37Z")
MEBuckner,Thanks for the links. It appears that the phrase is a bit of legal shorthand that caught on, and is now being used in fuzzy and mysterious ways. Everyone seems to agree that nukes and plagues are included, but beyond that things get sortof squishy. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/8 "2001-05-14T14:18:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*MEBuckner,Thanks for the links. > > It appears that the phrase is a bit of legal shorthand that caught on, and is now being used in fuzzy and mysterious ways.\*\* That’s pretty much how I see it. It’s used in the same way as “liberal”, “conservative”, “radical left”, “religious right”, “assault weapons”, etc. These are all terms that used to have meaning but now just sound vaguely distasteful or frightening and are used as sound bites to brand a group of people or things that the narrator doesn’t like; this being done for the purpose of generating a prejudicial emotional response based, not on facts, but on the “scariness” of the label. ---
**Author:** ![Milton\_De\_La\_Warre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Milton\_De\_La\_Warre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milton_De_La_Warre)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/9 "2001-05-16T11:23:21Z")
Seems to just me that landmines would be mass weapons of destruction, not weapons of mass destruction. This is because landmines can only cause mass casualties when they’re grouped together. For military medical purposes, “mass casualties” or a “mass casualty” situation occurs when the number of casualites increases so suddenly as to potentially overwhelm the medical facility’s capacity to triage and treat them. MASCAL exercise scenarios do include biochemical attacks, but also bus wrecks and tanker truck explosions. As was said, the definition of WMD is foggy. But given the idea of mass casualties as an overwhelming or potentially overwhelming number of casualties, a WMD would be one (a singel device) that causes (or can cause) destruction on a scale that is overwhelming or potentially so. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-the-phrase-weapons-of-mass-destruction/65378/10 "2001-05-16T19:32:34Z")
I think one common theme to “weapons of mass destruction” is a certain degree of indiscriminate killing. ABC (Atomic/Biological/Chemical) warfare counts because for all three there is no way to limit how far the death and destruction goes from the original target. Anti-personnel land mines are also counted because many or most of them aren’t used in classic marked “minefields” anymore. Instead they are strewn randomly, often from the air, simply to cause entire regions to be hazardous to civilian populations. They can inflict casualties for years after the end of the conflicts that they were originally used in.