What if, in the aftermath of Sept 11, 2001, America had said that thisconstituted a WMD attack? Suppose further that once OBL had been determined to be the source, America had given Afghanistan an ultimatum which was ignored and America reduced Afghanistan to radioactive rubble.
And then America announces the Axis of Evil and turns its eyes on Saddam …
I think Libya would have caved sooner and North Korea been much the same.
If Bush tried to classify aeroplanes as WMDs, the rest of the world would have laughed themselves silly.
My guess is that much of the rest of the world would consider our current administration to be even less sensible than they think it is at present.
My guess is that much of the rest of the world would consider this one of the most outrageous acts of genocide in history, and utterly disproportionate to any sensible response for the 9/11 attacks.
Actually, so far as I know, the US did in fact give Afghanistan an ultimatum that was ignored. The response that did take place so far seems to have been reasonably effective in preventing further terrorist acts on US soil, without resorting to an entirely excessive nuclear option.
Two questions for the OP: a) do you personally feel that a major nuclear response by the US is the only justifiable response to a non-nuclear terrorist attack? b) How would you feel about nuking Saudi Arabia instead, since the hijackers, and, apparently, much of the financing for their action, came from that country?
Is there a working definition of WMD? Does it state how many people must potentially die from the weapon for it to be a WMD?
I believe WMD’s are defined as Nuclear Chemical or biological weapons, AKA Unconventional Weapons.
This always seemed a little arbitrary to me since I don’t see why chemical weqapons are any more “mass” destructive than, say, fuel air explosives, but that’s the accepted definition, IIRC.
What if GWB was an alien android? :rolleyes:
I would say a plane could be a WMD, but a nuke is a WMD. In The same way a brick could be a weapon, but a machine gun is a weapon. So if we were to go with a policy of WMD-related intervention, you’d have to show some pretty good evidence of intent with regards to planes, whereas a nuclear weapons program would just have to be demonstrated as extant.
No doubt Bush would think the definition was brilliant though.
No, why should I? Bit of a straw man here.
The IRA are from Ireland. We didn’t retaliate against Eire for the Baltic Exchange bombing.
The closest thing I’ve seen to a WMD in this whole mess is Dubya hisself…
Well, airliners slammed into buildings aren’t exactly conventional weapons, ya know?
I think that laigle’s nailed it pretty well.
Disregarding the shot at President Bush I agree with you. I mulled over this idea a couple of weeks ago. There is still an ongoing surveillance of large aircraft by Al Quada as well as potential targets. The target most obvious for this discussion is a nuclear power plant.
A meltdown caused by an airplane strike would make it a weapon of mass destruction.
Good point, but I was only saying that the conventional definition of WMD’s refers to Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons.
Personally I would like the list to be restricted to biological and Nuclear weapons as gas is a pretty poor weapon. You may recall the Aum Shinryko (sp?) attack where sarin released in a subway only managed to kill a dozen people. With Nukes and bio-weapons tens–if not hundereds–of thousand of people can be killed with a very small package
True, and there was a cult living in the western part of the US who firmly believed that the world was going to end, or collapse into choas and they’d supposedly stored enough propane that if it went up, it’d rival the destruction at Hiroshima. I bring this up because of how poor a term WMD really is. Biological weapons only kill people (though I suppose you could genetically engineer something that ate rubber or something else), and gas weapons are pretty piss poor method of killing people, yet even ordinary weapons can cause “mass destruction.” A bomb placed at just the right spot on a dam will burst the dam and send a wall of water down river that will cause more death and destruction than the bomb could have if it were set off in a football stadium filled with people.
Nobody (okay, almost nobody) thought of airplanes as WMDs until after 9/11, and had the planes hit the Towers later in the day when more people were at work 50,000 or so could have been killed or injured. To put that into some perspective, that’s roughly the number of American servicemen killed during the entire Vietnam War.
I asked on this board many moons ago what does WMD mean, as I was aware what NCB’s (Nuke, Chem, Bio) were. It seemed pretty certain that WMD would indeed inculde planes used int he way they were on the attackes on our country.
Bush, et al, should be thinking that true terrorism is a most malevolent form of judo, in that it uses the enemys’ strengths against them.
The current definition of what constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction originates back in 1991 following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, five countries were acknowleged as nuclear powers and most of the other countries in the world agreed they would not develop nuclear weapons. The carrot for this was a series of separate agreements that the nuclear powers would not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power unless the non-nuclear power was fighting in alliance with a nuclear power.
In 1991, the United States, along with a number of other countries, was preparing to go to war with Iraq to liberate Kuwait. Iraq was not allied with any other nations and did not have nuclear weapons (although it did have a nuclear weapon development program). Iraq did have chemical and probably biological weapons that were capable of being used against Coaltion troops.
Under a strict interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its attendant undertakings, Iraq was not a valid target for a nuclear attack. However if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against Coalition forces, these forces did not have the equivalent weapons available to retaliate. So Iraq could conceivably have used these weapons with impunity.
The American response to this was to declare that biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons were Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that if any of them were used first against American or American-allied forces, the United States would respond equivalently. Basically, if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against us, we would use nuclear weapons against them.
Well, sorry you don’t like my response, but I haven’t posed any such thing. I asked you a simple question in an attempt to better understand what your point is. As the thread already seems to have bogged down in a semantic discussion of what constitutes a “WMD” rather than addressing your rather obscure thesis, however, I will therefore cease wasting your time, and mine. Carry on.
Something to consider. Depending on the definition of mass destruction you could still clasify the 9/11 attack as such, based on intent. The WTC had more office space than all of Cincinnati when it was built. If the buildings were full when they collapsed it would have been a much higher death toll. Not to mention the Pentagon and either the White House or Congress. And if it can be proved that there were supposed to me more aircraft involved then ou have to figure in targets (like the Sears Tower in Chicag).
My apologies for the crappy typing.
