When the gummint and press started talking a lot about Weapons of Mass Distruction, particularly after 9/11, I noticed that there was some side discussion that searched for a better, less cumbersome term than Weapons of Mass Destruction. Apparently, the term WMD’s gained purchase and that’s the shortened term we see most frequently. But I’ve always thought that a much better shortened version would be WeMads. It’s a lot shorter than the full phrase and it’s certainly got some meaningful connotations. I think the print media would like the absolute shortest version (WMD’s) but in spoken language, WeMads seems to have a lot of potency. I continue to think it’s a more useful shortening of that longer term, 1) because it’s easier to say than Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMD’s, and 2) because of the implication of the expression - we’d have to be mad to use them. Given my pride in this invention (probably invented by lots of other people, too), how can I promote this version?
WeMads is pretty goofy sounding - not what you want for a serious subject.
It is too late now. Even the ‘global war on terror’, or its much preferred cousin ‘The War Against Terror’ is becoming passe.
The iron on WMADs is no longer even luke warm. Few people are using the term, so fewer still will embrace a change in it anymore.
You should’ve bombarded us all with a sensational blingee and booty filled YouTube tune back in '03. That could’ve done the trick.
There was, and is - NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) Weapons. A far more accurate term as well.
It’ll never take. As others have said, events have moved on.
And, as you said, others have come up with the same word. Here’s one from 2005.
The best way is to groodle it in all the fibberslews.