A thought kicked off by a misplaced thread about Iraq in the lounge...
What defines a weapon of mass destruction?
What defines a weapon of mass destruction?
Mass Destruction
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
A weapon capable of killing people in previously unheard of numbers?
During the Civil War, the repeating rifle probably could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). In WW1, the machine gun was a WMD. WW2 saw the V2 missiles and the first atomic bomb. Now we have nukes, bugs, and chems. What's next?
It's a bit vague isn't it?
Previously unheard of numbers? So we look at something more destructive than the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? If that's the case then no one has used a weapon of mass destruction since the end of WW2.
This was all related to the reasons being put forward for military action against Iraq.
That was just my guess. The most widely used definition of WMD in official US documents is "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, Title XV of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, P.L. 102-484 (enacted October 23, 1992), relates "to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and their related technology . . ."
Personally, I think that's a bit narrow. There are numerous conventional weapons capable of causing mass casualties. I like the FBI's definition: "A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders."
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, Title XV of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, P.L. 102-484 (enacted October 23, 1992), relates "to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and their related technology . . ."
Personally, I think that's a bit narrow. There are numerous conventional weapons capable of causing mass casualties. I like the FBI's definition: "A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders."
C
Cheers
Guest
Interesting side note, related to the use of the bombs in Japan....
More people died in the Fire Bombings of Dresden (City in Germany which I may or may not be spelling correctly) then in either of the Japanese cities....also, more Russians died in WWII than all other countries put together. Pretty amazing when you think about it.
More people died in the Fire Bombings of Dresden (City in Germany which I may or may not be spelling correctly) then in either of the Japanese cities....also, more Russians died in WWII than all other countries put together. Pretty amazing when you think about it.
There's more to it than just the WMD issue. It also involves the weapon delivery capabilities of Iraq.
Well I guess using any weapon of destruction en-masse will result in the same effect as a single use of a weapon of mass destruction.
What is even more chilling about Russian casualties is that Stalin killed so many of his own compatriots. There is a book about it by Nikolai Tolstoy (Stalin's Secret War) which claims that Stalin killed nearly as many Soviet citizens (which is actually what we're talking about here) as the Germans did.
C
Cheers
Guest
I can't remember the exact number, but it is unbelievable how many were killed by Stalin. When the Russian Army would train the soldiers for the front they would give them a hoe or shovel to carry as they had run out of guns. Then they would tell them to find a dead soldier with a weapon, pick it up and use it.
Agreed, but the source of both items of propaganda is the same so to all itents and purposes it is the same thing. After all would it be a problem if they had one without the other?
This more apples to your topic in the lounge than the WMD question here, but...
You're correct that the motives for starting a war with Iraq are beyond simply cleaning out any WMDs. The main goal is to finish what was started in the first Gulf War and remove Saddam. For Bush it means the gain in popularity that comes with a war, as well as (with the removal or death of Saddam) better and more stable access to oil, I couldn't give two sh1ts about that. It also would give Israel an additional upper hand in their situation and possibly make Bush's job easier with that dispute. Could be good or bad, as it might bring stability, but I doubt it. Anytime the situation changes over their bad things happen as the two sides struggle to respond.
But on the human right front, Saddam has been systematically killing off segments of his population, specifically the northern Kurds. Those deaths and the conditions those people now live in are far worse than what has been caused by western trade embargos. It absolutely will not stop until Saddam is removed. Those people are suffering now more than ever because in the first Gulf war we helped them to rise up in hopes they would overthrow Saddam... but the war ended quickly and we got our oil back, so we left them high-end dry. Since they revealed to Saddam the magnitude of the threat they posed, he has spent the last ten years ensuring that they can never be a threat again. We still owe it to them to remove Saddam, but we don't assisinate anymore. The US need this war as an excuse to remove Saddam. In some senses it's extremely short-sighted (or maybe tunnel-visioned) to not recognize the danger involved in destabilizing the Middle East, at the same time it might be the only solution since Saddam is not going to die or be overthrown anytime soon. And even if he did croak, he's got his equally evil sons to take his place. In fact given all of the above, I'd bet that Bush is HOPING Saddam won't let weapons inspectors in.
Does that make it right? I haven't decided that for myself yet...
You're correct that the motives for starting a war with Iraq are beyond simply cleaning out any WMDs. The main goal is to finish what was started in the first Gulf War and remove Saddam. For Bush it means the gain in popularity that comes with a war, as well as (with the removal or death of Saddam) better and more stable access to oil, I couldn't give two sh1ts about that. It also would give Israel an additional upper hand in their situation and possibly make Bush's job easier with that dispute. Could be good or bad, as it might bring stability, but I doubt it. Anytime the situation changes over their bad things happen as the two sides struggle to respond.
But on the human right front, Saddam has been systematically killing off segments of his population, specifically the northern Kurds. Those deaths and the conditions those people now live in are far worse than what has been caused by western trade embargos. It absolutely will not stop until Saddam is removed. Those people are suffering now more than ever because in the first Gulf war we helped them to rise up in hopes they would overthrow Saddam... but the war ended quickly and we got our oil back, so we left them high-end dry. Since they revealed to Saddam the magnitude of the threat they posed, he has spent the last ten years ensuring that they can never be a threat again. We still owe it to them to remove Saddam, but we don't assisinate anymore. The US need this war as an excuse to remove Saddam. In some senses it's extremely short-sighted (or maybe tunnel-visioned) to not recognize the danger involved in destabilizing the Middle East, at the same time it might be the only solution since Saddam is not going to die or be overthrown anytime soon. And even if he did croak, he's got his equally evil sons to take his place. In fact given all of the above, I'd bet that Bush is HOPING Saddam won't let weapons inspectors in.
Does that make it right? I haven't decided that for myself yet...
From a Rand Issue paper based on the DOD dictionary of military and associated terms, weapons of mass destruction are also radiological implements (along with chemical, nuclear, and biological) that "are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people or cause massive damage to facilities, infrastructure, livestock or crops".
The former head of DITRA and currently at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (or retired from there)said at a recent conference his biggest fear in order of worst to least is chemical, bio, nulclear WMD while in previous years it was nuclear, bio, chemical. Interestingly, chem and bio weapons are much harder to release effectively. Nuclear will always kill.
Either way, it's scary to think that unpredictable people, like Saddam Hussein, have these weapons. I don't support going to war with Iraq, especially without the support of other countries, but don't know what else can be done. Weapons inspections are probably just as much of a joke as meat inspections in the US. :angry:
The former head of DITRA and currently at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (or retired from there)said at a recent conference his biggest fear in order of worst to least is chemical, bio, nulclear WMD while in previous years it was nuclear, bio, chemical. Interestingly, chem and bio weapons are much harder to release effectively. Nuclear will always kill.
Either way, it's scary to think that unpredictable people, like Saddam Hussein, have these weapons. I don't support going to war with Iraq, especially without the support of other countries, but don't know what else can be done. Weapons inspections are probably just as much of a joke as meat inspections in the US. :angry:
R
RideMonkey
Guest
Horse poop.
Good to see no one round here holds a grudge...
Thank the lord the delivery mechanism is short range.
G
gravity
Guest
it's the redistribution system (ie rear tyres) that cause the problems
