I thought I heard that tons of dynamite and nerve gas was found in Iraq* but I hear one side saying it is and side saying that it is not WMDs. What is the official definition?
*I don’t want to start a debate, just a little more clarification.
We’ve done this before, but it’sbeen awhile. A little searching might turn it up.
The short version is that there are several different & contradictory definitions of WMD used in various Federal laws. Any of those could have a claim to be A (not THE) Official Definition, at least in the US.
What does “WMD” mean in the popular media and to the public at large? Anything the speaker wants it to mean.
Some folks argue that anything more destructive than a couple sticks of dynamite, or anything less conventinal than dynamite or a gun constitute a WMD. Others consder nukes to be pretty much it.
I’d say these days the term mostly means whatever will most advance the tiresomely tendentious position of the person using the term. In short, it’s bordering on meaningless.
It is not a strict legal term, and was first used to describe the conventional “blitz” bombing of Guernica in 1937 (which Picasso painted in remembrance). Nowadays it refers to non-conventional weapons such as biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological agents or devices. So, nerve gas would count (although the handful of sarin-residued shells found in Iraq were decades old and ostensibly left forgotten), but not dynamite.
What it doesn’t mean are the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads kept by the major nuclear powers.
What it does mean is some third world country’s attempt to build a crude nuclear weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction has a pretty good summary.
Only 4.5 years:
Definition of the phrase - weapons of mass destruction ?
I’ve never heard a government official make that distinction. Nuclear weapons, along with chemical and biological weapons, are weapons of mass destruction. The country of origin is irrelevant.
All of this goes back to policy concerns raised by the United States’ decision to forego the use of biological and chemical weapons. To provide a deterrent against the use of biological and chemical weapons by other countries, the United States reserved the right to respond with nuclear weapons if it was attacked with biological or chemical weapons. This led to the concept of weapons of mass destruction. All weapons in that class were considered equivalent for purposes of policy.
Actually it was more recently than that, October a year ago. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283616 I recall posting in it.
What? we found tons of nerve gas in Iraq? Last I heard It was a few empty drums and a handfull of rusty French artillery shells. Did I miss something?
I don’t want a debate either, but if we uncovered tons I’d like to read the article.
They found tons of pesticides that could be used to make chemical weapons, but no actual weaponized chemicals.
Apparently, however, Dr. Germ and the other weapons experts all say that Saddam was planning to start making chemical and biological weapons again after the sanctions got lifted. One of the news articles about the recent prisoner releases mentioned this.
Ah, ok that I heard. I just thought I missed some ground breaking revalation.