[jaguar]

For a change this isn't a thinly vieled political attack but an honest question.

Does everyone here agree with the way Weapons of Mass Destruction is defined? I mean lets look at this:


Nucelar weapon - wipe out an enitre city - yup

Biological Weaponary - wipe out signifigant proportion of world's population if lucky - yup

Chemical weapons - possibly kill most things in limited raidus.

Is it me or is a 10ton fual-air MOAB more of a WMD than a chemical shell? Should small-arms type chemical weapons really be called weapons of mass destruction?
Even small tacticial nukes are questionable when all conventional weaponary seems immune from a weapons of mass destruction listing. How about Unconventional Weapony or something similar?

Thoughts?