# Why the hell are ordinary bombs called WMDs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 27, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894 "2014-01-27T22:30:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/1 "2014-01-27T22:30:46Z")
I was watching a clip on CNN [http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/01/26/dnt-russian-teen-wmd-in-home.wtaj.html?hpt=hp\_t3](http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/01/26/dnt-russian-teen-wmd-in-home.wtaj.html?hpt=hp_t3) wherein they relate the case of a 19 y.o. arrested for making a bomb. Apparently, one of the pending charges is “possession of a weapon of mass destruction”. Wouldn’t such a charge be a bit prejudicial? Why not simply charge him with possession of a destructive device? (Unless, of course, the bomb is a radiological weapon) Thanks, Rob ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/2 "2014-01-27T22:48:35Z")
I don’t know what the Pennsylvania law is, but there is a Federal law against the use, threat, or conspiracy to use a WMD. In a different part of the law, a WMD is defined as including a “destructive device” that would be like a conventional bomb, PLUS chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons. One statute prohibits all those weapons as WMD; it doesn’t seem like there’s another more specific statute that only covers conventional explosives. Perhaps Pennsylvania’s code reads similarly. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/3 "2014-01-27T22:52:21Z")
No radiological elements. From the story, just atomized magnesium, potassium perchlorate, and potassium nitrate. Not exactly harmless stuff but not a nuke or dirty bomb. ---
**Author:** ![TheSeaOtter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ed655f/32.png) [@TheSeaOtter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSeaOtter)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/4 "2014-01-27T23:08:09Z")
Here’s the relevant law: [18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a) To summarize: According to federal law, a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ is a device that is any of the following: [ol] [li]designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals[/li][li]a weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector [/li][li]a weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life OR[/li][li] any ‘destructive device’ - anything designed as an explosive, or a weapon with a bore greater than 1/2" diameter (excluding shotguns)[/li][/ol] There are a number of specific exceptions for stuff like flare guns, pyrotechnics, etc, and a general restriction that the item in question must be ‘designed or redesigned’ to function as a weapon, but according to the law, any sort of bomb qualifies, even if it doesn’t contain nerve gas or nuclear material. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/5 "2014-01-27T23:14:17Z")
So, Saddam had WMDs after all? IMHO, this is sort of like Godwinizing in the sense of rhetorical escalation. Bombs, while bad are not on the scale of CBRN weapons. Curiously, that definition does not include nuclear weapons. Guess they are ok. Back to my original question though, namely wouldn’t such a charge be a bit prejudicial? Rob ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/6 "2014-01-27T23:15:46Z")
Seems to me like Law Enforcement has adopted and adapted a Military/Diplomatic term for it’s own use. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/7 "2014-01-27T23:23:36Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > So, Saddam had WMDs after all? > > IMHO, this is sort of like Godwinizing in the sense of rhetorical escalation. > > Bombs, while bad are not on the scale of CBRN weapons. **Curiously, that definition does not include nuclear weapons. Guess they are ok.** > > Back to my original question though, namely wouldn’t such a charge be a bit prejudicial? > > Rob How does rule 3 above not qualify? ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/8 "2014-01-27T23:25:04Z")
I suppose it does, but that is hardly the big deal when it comes to nukes. It occurs to me that if the authorities thought you had a nuke, they wouldn’t try to arrest you. ---
**Author:** ![TheSeaOtter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ed655f/32.png) [@TheSeaOtter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSeaOtter)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/9 "2014-01-27T23:29:48Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > So, Saddam had WMDs after all? > > IMHO, this is sort of like Godwinizing in the sense of rhetorical escalation. > > Bombs, while bad are not on the scale of CBRN weapons. Curiously, that definition does not include nuclear weapons. Guess they are ok. > > Back to my original question though, namely wouldn’t such a charge be a bit prejudicial? > > Rob Nuclear weapons would qualify under either the ‘harmful radiation’ or the simpler ‘explosive’ conditions. The law defines the device he is accused of having as a weapon of mass destruction, so he’s charged with the possession thereof. That’s pretty much all there is to it. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/10 "2014-01-28T00:04:34Z")
Suppose we defined a crime called Destroying the Innocence of Youth as possession of more than 4 oz. of cocaine. Would the charge be in anyway prejudicial to the defendant? Thanks, Rob ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/11 "2014-01-28T00:30:45Z")
I believe the concept of prejudice refers to evidence and testimony that may be accepted in court; not judicial review of whether a legislature named a law “correctly.” For example, you might think that someone being charged with a violation of the PATRIOT Act is “prejudicial,” but that doesn’t give a court the power to rewrite a statute. Only the legislature can change the words that appear in statute. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/12 "2014-01-28T13:52:30Z")
It’s simple; they classify them as WMDs so that they can overreact and scream “WMD!!!” to the sheeple. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/13 "2014-01-28T15:32:09Z")
[Let’s not be so hasty](http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/578553/Officials-working-on-bomb-case.html?nav=742) in judging the cops. > [@](#): > > Vladislav Miftakhov, 18, was arrested Friday by Altoona police after officers allegedly found a small marijuana growing operation in his apartment and\*\* two explosive devices, both with fuses, \*\*as well as suspected raw ingredients used to make bombs. (emphasis added in quotes) > [@](#): > > Miftakhov told police “he was going to blow things up” but didn’t elaborate. Later, when the Russian citizen who lists San Carlos, Calif., as his hometown was interviewed by police, **he claimed he had previously set off a small device in California** but had not detonated anything in Pennsylvania, according to the affidavit of probable cause. Of course, the prosecutor can always drop any charge he deems inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/14 "2014-01-28T15:45:54Z")
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying he shouldn’t be charged with a crime. I suppose I am just ranting about the “WMD” label. ---
**Author:** ![Lungfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d78d45/32.png) [@Lungfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lungfish)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/15 "2014-01-28T18:38:21Z")
When Did IEDs Become WMD? : [Why is the Hutaree militia facing WMD charges when they had only conventional weapons?](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/03/when_did_ieds_become_wmd.html) Weapon of mass destruction charge, explained : [http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/weapon\_of\_mass\_destruction\_charge\_explained/](http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/weapon_of_mass_destruction_charge_explained/) This linky is to a .pdf called Defining “Weapons of Mass Destruction” published by the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University: [http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/CSWMD-OccasionalPapers/CSWMD\_OccationalPaper-8.pdf](http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/CSWMD-OccasionalPapers/CSWMD_OccationalPaper-8.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/16 "2014-01-28T18:41:47Z")
I miss the days when those things were called “infernal machines”. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/17 "2014-01-29T01:08:10Z")
There’s a long tradition of, um, hyperventilation when it comes to naming offences. For example, the offence known as “unlawful carnal knowledge” or “sexual penetration of a minor” in other common law jurisdictions is often called “statutory rape” in the US, even though the minor may have participated enthusiastically in the act. “Kidnapping” originally referred to stealing children for use as slave labour; it now refers to unlawful detention of a person of any age for any (unlawful) purpose. And so forth. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/18 "2014-01-29T02:07:19Z")
> [@TheSeaOtter](#): > > Here’s the relevant law: [18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a) > > To summarize: According to federal law, a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ is a device that is any of the following: > > [ol] > [li]designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals[/li][li]a weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector [/li][li]a weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life OR[/li][li] any ‘destructive device’ - anything designed as an explosive, or a weapon with a bore greater than 1/2" diameter (excluding shotguns)[/li][/ol] > > There are a number of specific exceptions for stuff like flare guns, pyrotechnics, etc, and a general restriction that the item in question must be ‘designed or redesigned’ to function as a weapon, but according to the law, any sort of bomb qualifies, even if it doesn’t contain nerve gas or nuclear material. When was this defined that way? Was it a post-9/11 thing? Timoth McVeigh was not charged with using WMD as far as I know. This seems a badly written law that makes no one safer. Most people would not consider (almost by definition) a regular bomb to be a WMD. As it stands the guy in the OP might as a well have had a go at making an anthrax bomb, as he was going to get the same time anyway. Edit - I stand corrected: McVeigh was indeed convicted of using a WMD. My point still stands though. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/19 "2014-01-29T02:08:26Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Suppose we defined a crime called Destroying the Innocence of Youth as possession of more than 4 oz. of cocaine. Would the charge be in anyway prejudicial to the defendant? > > Thanks, > Rob You could say that any charge could be prejudicial to the defendant. Jaywalking, foppery, murder, etc. The court is supposed to make it clear that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894/20 "2014-01-29T02:11:38Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > Seems to me like Law Enforcement has adopted and adapted a Military/Diplomatic term for it’s own use. I think you misspelled “politicians.” Law Enforcement does not make the laws they just…well it’s right there in the name. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-hell-are-ordinary-bombs-called-wmds/679894.md?page=2)