Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Napalm is nasty stuff..

As long as hairs are being split
Fox — (archived)

As tired as I am of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", I need to ask for clarification of its meaning. I understand, of course, that certain individuals in the government will give a different definition depending on the day, the questioner, and the region of the world under discussion. On the other hand, I trust the US military to be slightly more consistent, in spite of their tendency to call a spade an entrenching tool.

Specifically with reference to chemical and biological weapons, what is being destroyed? Not objects (like buildings or bridges), not materiel (though residues may be toxic for a while, depending on the agent) - merely human lives.

The more correct phrase is Weapons of Mass Death. Pending a consensus definition of "mass" - i.e., more than one? more than ten? (cf. Abraham's argument with God in Genesis) - the term would include all of the alleged but still unverfied posessions of the former regime in Iraq, plus the arsenals of all current and former superpowers and/or their successor states, plus the arsenals of other second-tier nations who may or may not be considered allies (a.k.a. "The Nuclear Club", which, never forget, includes France). You wouldn't even have to change the acronym WMD.

Thus: napalm is a WMD. So is any other weapon theoretically capable of killing more than one person per use, whether or not any "destruction" occurs. A case might even be made for inclusion of assault rifles on full-auto.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)