Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to As long as hairs are being split

re: As long as hairs are being split
gbaikie — (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."

I would say it was used mainly to describe nuclear weapons. And other weapons were tacked on to the definition such as a biological weapons, and chemical weapon. If you want a more exact definition I would say there is an UN treaty, which I don't think the US signed, which included a list of weapons that should be banned. But in the context of war against Iraq, part of cease fire agreement defined WMD- nuclear, chemical and biological, plus the scud missiles which was capable of a range of over 150 miles. Obviously a rocket isn't really a WMD, but it was included in agreement, and therefore as far as this agreement goes it is defined that way.
In othere words you could define WMD in a specific way as described by some treaty type document.
Or in a general sense, I would describe it as a weapon system which could "potentially" distroy the entire world- assuming this weapon was part of arms race, like US vs Soviet with nuclear and chemical & biological weapon programs- see the MAD doctrine.
In context of War Against Terrorism, I would describe a WMD has a weapon which a terrorist could use that kill or maim say +10,000 people. But this implies potential multiple uses in same sense as states engaged in a arms race. The importance of 911 is it showed the intention of group of people to commit large scale type mass murder. Which leads one to assume that if these terrorist had the capablity they would not be restrained in their use for killing more people and and perferably often. It wasn't terror to send a message, it was terror as a form warfare- the hoped for result being millions of people dying and destruction global economy. It's similar to terrorism used against Israel- with the ultimate purpose is to kill or at least drive off all the Jews from the Middle East.
Now, the accepted wisdom is that Terror used as warfare does not really work- if you are trying to win a war- at least in terms of conventional warfare. And I don't think it works in this unconventional war, all it does is cause people to become more focused. I think people who are going to regret 911 the most will be these stupid terrorists.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)