What is the difference between a “weapon” and a “weapon of mass destruction?” I understand why a nuke would be the latter and a gun be the former, but it seems as though the military would have guidlines for categorizing them as such. I’m thinking something like “x casualties in y radius,” but that’s just a guess. if I’m right, what are x and y? If the measurment is just based on power, how do chemical weapons fit in?
sorry for the double post. i know its not kosher
Humungus:
You beat me to it. I was just coming over to this forum to post the same question. I gotta say that I cringe everytime I hear someone say this. It seems like it has come to mean “any weapon I don’t want you to have”.
Clearly nukes fit the bill. Chem and Bio weapons are, to me, beyond that category and are simply beyond ethical use. Esp as they are meant to 1) target civilians and 2) cause suffering rather than death. It’s hard to applaud weapons that kill quickly but there is something inumane about weapons designed to mame.
Just a quote from one of my teachers, who often makes many somtimes non-PI jokes. A great guy…anyway…
“Give a crazy a-rab a firecracked and it’s a weapon of mass destruction”
i think the term is pretty subjective.
and i wish they’d quit saying it.
firecracker…jeez
Basically, WMD is a phrase coined recently, because nukes during the Cold War weren’t called WMD’s. It’s probably a form of propaganda.
Also things we discussed in class (It’s an English class btw).
It dates back to at least the original Gulf War cease fire agreement: Resolution 687.
That essentially defines “weapon of mass destruction” as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, in the sense that ridding Iraq of those three “represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.” (Measure 14)