How powerful(?) does a weapon have to be to qualify as a WoMD?
Any bio, chem or nuclear weapon are generally considered WMD, but specific long range missiles and other weapons are also included in specific agreements.
In the broadest sense, it’s any chem/bio/nuke, but in a case like Iraq, it includes some missles.
I’ll try to find a great link I had the defined the very specifics.
Good reading
The anthrax in the US was weaponized. It only killed a handful of people. Would it count as an WMD?
Is “Weapons of Mass Destruction” a new phrase? I don’t believe I’d heard the phrase used before a couple of years ago. If it is older, how far back does its usage go?
To my way of thinking, a WMD is one that can reasonably be expected to cause massive casualties in a very large area, with aftereffects that linger for a prolonged period of time.
IOW, a 200-pound bomb wouldn’t be one because once it blows up there’s no fallout or lingering chemical/biological material afterwards.
Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons aren’t automatically considered to be WMDs they are usually defined as unconvential weapons. A WMD is usually an unconvential weapon though (the US army have several very powerful bombs which utlize chemical explosion bu they aren’t usually regarded as WMDs).
Usually a WMD is indiscrimant and in any practical use likely to cause HUGE civilian casulaties.
Well, the U.S. military and and cabinet considers bio and chem weapons as weapons of mass destruction, even if directed at troops, and reserved the right to retailate with WMD (nuclear) if attacked with WMD (bio/chem).
“Weapon of Mass Destruction” isn’t a new phrase by any means. It has only recently reascended to popularity, however.
Infact Philster your defintion does seem to be the offical one, accepted by the UN too:
http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/
When was “WMD” used the first time?
I have a (probably crackpot) theory that its increasing use in the 1990’s over the more descriptive term “NBC” (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) was a bit of minor Republican spin.
(Sort of like Fox News’ recent switch to calling Palestinian suicide bombers “homicide bombers” … .)
“Mass Destruction” is really only an accurate description of the effects of a nuclear blast. (“Weapons of Persistent Effect” would better cover all three. Of course that would include landmines as well … .)
So calling NBC weapons “WMD” has the effect of subtly attaching the lesser (but not insignificant) dangers of chemical and biological weapons to the very scary idea of nuclear holocaust.
It’s a bit like the “a rat is a dog is a monkey is a boy” argument used by PETA.
“Ricin is sarin is anthrax is smallpox is a dirty bomb is a crater where Manhattan used to be.”
Is there any clear indication of why everyone started using “WMD” instead of “NBC”?
Perhaps the folks that brought you such programs as the Today show, Cheers, and Seinfeld had some input in it…
“Another NBC attack last night in Somwheresville…” I can’t see Ann Curry rolling that one out too easily.
The first Emergency Response to Terrorism class I took (which was in 1995) referred these things as NBC warfare. The jump seemed to be, in my hazy memory, around 1999/2000ish. I don’t know 100% for certain why the name change, though.
KCB615…QUOTE
The first Emergency Response to Terrorism class I took (which was in 1995) referred these things as NBC warfare. The jump seemed to be, in my hazy memory, around 1999/2000ish. I don’t know 100% for certain why the name change, though.
I took a class in 1989 relating to your basic, every day hazardous materials. At the end of the 80 hour class, we had more notes than you would believe, attending to the fact that mankind would be turning these materials into weapons before we new it.
I checked the UN site.
I didn’t find where the definition was listed.
I mean, a crop duster loaded with weaponized smallpox IS a WMD. But an envelope with some weaponized anthrax seems to certainly NOT be a WMD. The anthrax envelopes killed 5 people, IIRC. Five people seems to definitely fall beneath the qualification of “mass destruction.”
Earlier thread on weapons of mass destruction.
MEBuckner supplies a pretty comprehensive definition.