Definition of WMDs

jaguar · 03-18-2003, 07:56 PM

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?

Skunks · 03-18-2003, 08:26 PM

Perhaps it's more a question of how the destruction occurs? Immediate boom-ness is more controlled/controllable than nuclear radiation, any biological agent, or, even, nerve gas. Wind wouldn't do much to change where the MOAB-thing lands or what it destroys, but it would change who dies from a WMD.

juju · 03-18-2003, 09:37 PM

Personally, I find the term really annoying. It requires so much effort to say, and for so little gain in actual idea transfer. There are too many syllables in it. It just makes the speaker sound intelligent and political, and words like that really annoy me.

Actually, perhaps the real truth is that the phrase seems to have no real use outside of the tired, annoying topic of international politics. Admittedley, I end up participating in the discussions anyway. But I try not to. But if you try to follow the news like I do, you just can't avoid it. Trying to get actual interesting news without stumbling onto the subject of international polics is a constant battle for me, and every time I hear the words "Weapon of mass destruction" (or even 'in the wake of 911 ..' I feel as though I've just taken a causalty.

Er.. but I welcome others to discuss it. :) This whole thread just reminded me of that train of thought. Don't mind me.

elSicomoro · 03-18-2003, 09:38 PM

I prefer "bad motherfucking shit," as opposed to "weapons of mass destruction."

juju · 03-18-2003, 09:40 PM

Hey, that works! Damn, the least they could do is change it up a little. I wouldn't wince every time it's said if they used varying phrases for it.

But then, I am obsessive-compulsive.

elSicomoro · 03-18-2003, 09:50 PM

*does his best imitation of Dubya* "Saddam Hussein possesses some bad motherfucking shit..."

juju · 03-18-2003, 09:53 PM

That'd be awesome! I could totally see him saying that.

Undertoad · 03-18-2003, 10:02 PM

The MOAB might be considered a WMD if it is used to massively destruct. I think some of the bias of what would be mass and what wouldn't, is what kind of death it brings about. Some of that nerve agent stuff is the worst. I'd much rather be instantly vaporized than to spend an hour losing control of various body parts as my spine involuntarily contracts backwards...

Elspode · 03-18-2003, 10:26 PM

Drop a MOAB in Times Square on New Year's Eve and you will most definitely be using a WMD.

I think the term is generally being applied (for purposes of Iraq, anyway) to anything that isn't used in traditional land-based combat, anything that will kill more than a few hundred people in a single delivery/detonation.

Bio, chemical and noo-kew-luhr weapons will, with certain limitations, do that, so that's what they're looking for. If Iraq had a MOAB, they'd consider that to be one too, I'm guessing, as its blast radius is enormous.

Uryoces · 03-27-2003, 05:34 PM

I think the original term was 'NBC', Nuclear/Biological/Chemical, but I believe a certain Cthulu-like media octopus took offense to it.

tw · 03-27-2003, 08:45 PM

I could be mistaken, but i though I read a definition of WMD in a UN resolution or some related document. At the time, was not interested and ignored it. IOW it may not have been actually defined there, but its a good place to start looking. Unfortunately it would be way back in the Resolutions 500s or 600s of early 1990s. They have been busy these last ten years in that Security Council since we are at something like 1500.

Uryoces · 03-31-2003, 02:41 AM

It's late, and I haven't checked, but are the resolutions available online?

xoxoxoBruce · 04-22-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

anything that will kill more than a few hundred people in a single delivery/detonation.

I guess you could include a 757 or 767 with a full load of fuel.

WMD's- I can't define 'em, but I know 'em when I see 'em.

ScottSolomon · 04-24-2003, 02:36 AM

U.N. resolutions 687 siad it first in response to Iraq.

"Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region, "

The military term is Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC). The media probably thought that this was not an ominous sounding threat - at least not as ominous as "weapons of mass destruction".

Nuclear weapons are the only real weapons of mass destruction. The other 2 weapon types are not really millitarily effective - but serve to terrorize civilians.

Chemical weapons are considered area denial weapons. They are effective at killing people but leaving property behind. They require massive amounts of the toxin to maintain toxic levels, and the agents decompose quickly in the environment. Many have toxic byproducts that create cancer clusters in areas where the chemicals were used.

Biological weapons like anthrax and smallpox are treatable and curable in most people. Biotoxins like ricin are incredibly deadly, but once the delivery mechanism is known, minimizing exposure posibilities could keep the damage to a minimum.

Chem and bio weapons - from what I have read - don't seem to actually fit the definition of weapons of mass destruction, but I guess it makes good press.

I am pretty sure a clusterbomb or a MOAB could kill enough people at one time to be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Actually I think the world community is trying to get clusterbombs classified as such.

tw · 04-24-2003, 04:40 PM

Website for UN is http://www.un.int

03-18-2003, 07:56 PM	#1
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Definition of WMDs 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? __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-18-2003, 10:26 PM	#9
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	Drop a MOAB in Times Square on New Year's Eve and you will most definitely be using a WMD. I think the term is generally being applied (for purposes of Iraq, anyway) to anything that isn't used in traditional land-based combat, anything that will kill more than a few hundred people in a single delivery/detonation. Bio, chemical and noo-kew-luhr weapons will, with certain limitations, do that, so that's what they're looking for. If Iraq had a MOAB, they'd consider that to be one too, I'm guessing, as its blast radius is enormous. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

03-27-2003, 05:34 PM	#10
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	I think the original term was 'NBC', Nuclear/Biological/Chemical, but I believe a certain Cthulu-like media octopus took offense to it. __________________ The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out.

03-31-2003, 02:41 AM	#12
Uryoces 2nd Covenant, yo Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Pugetropolis Posts: 583	It's late, and I haven't checked, but are the resolutions available online? __________________ The party's over ... the drink ... and the luck ... ran out.

04-24-2003, 02:36 AM	#14
ScottSolomon Coronation Incarnate Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: On the skin of a tiny planet in an obscure galaxy in a lackluster corner of the universe. Posts: 94	U.N. resolutions 687 siad it first in response to Iraq. "Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq, Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East, Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons, Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region, " The military term is Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC). The media probably thought that this was not an ominous sounding threat - at least not as ominous as "weapons of mass destruction". Nuclear weapons are the only real weapons of mass destruction. The other 2 weapon types are not really millitarily effective - but serve to terrorize civilians. Chemical weapons are considered area denial weapons. They are effective at killing people but leaving property behind. They require massive amounts of the toxin to maintain toxic levels, and the agents decompose quickly in the environment. Many have toxic byproducts that create cancer clusters in areas where the chemicals were used. Biological weapons like anthrax and smallpox are treatable and curable in most people. Biotoxins like ricin are incredibly deadly, but once the delivery mechanism is known, minimizing exposure posibilities could keep the damage to a minimum. Chem and bio weapons - from what I have read - don't seem to actually fit the definition of weapons of mass destruction, but I guess it makes good press. I am pretty sure a clusterbomb or a MOAB could kill enough people at one time to be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Actually I think the world community is trying to get clusterbombs classified as such. __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

03-18-2003, 08:26 PM	#2
Skunks I thought I changed this. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: western nowhere, ny Posts: 412	Perhaps it's more a question of how the destruction occurs? Immediate boom-ness is more controlled/controllable than nuclear radiation, any biological agent, or, even, nerve gas. Wind wouldn't do much to change where the MOAB-thing lands or what it destroys, but it would change who dies from a WMD.

03-18-2003, 09:37 PM	#3
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Personally, I find the term really annoying. It requires so much effort to say, and for so little gain in actual idea transfer. There are too many syllables in it. It just makes the speaker sound intelligent and political, and words like that really annoy me. Actually, perhaps the real truth is that the phrase seems to have no real use outside of the tired, annoying topic of international politics. Admittedley, I end up participating in the discussions anyway. But I try not to. But if you try to follow the news like I do, you just can't avoid it. Trying to get actual interesting news without stumbling onto the subject of international polics is a constant battle for me, and every time I hear the words "Weapon of mass destruction" (or even 'in the wake of 911 ..' I feel as though I've just taken a causalty. Er.. but I welcome others to discuss it. :) This whole thread just reminded me of that train of thought. Don't mind me.

03-18-2003, 09:38 PM	#4
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I prefer "bad motherfucking shit," as opposed to "weapons of mass destruction."

03-18-2003, 09:40 PM	#5
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Hey, that works! Damn, the least they could do is change it up a little. I wouldn't wince every time it's said if they used varying phrases for it. But then, I am obsessive-compulsive.

03-18-2003, 09:50 PM	#6
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	does his best imitation of Dubya "Saddam Hussein possesses some bad motherfucking shit..."

03-18-2003, 09:53 PM	#7
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	That'd be awesome! I could totally see him saying that.

03-18-2003, 10:02 PM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The MOAB might be considered a WMD if it is used to massively destruct. I think some of the bias of what would be mass and what wouldn't, is what kind of death it brings about. Some of that nerve agent stuff is the worst. I'd much rather be instantly vaporized than to spend an hour losing control of various body parts as my spine involuntarily contracts backwards...

03-27-2003, 08:45 PM	#11
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	I could be mistaken, but i though I read a definition of WMD in a UN resolution or some related document. At the time, was not interested and ignored it. IOW it may not have been actually defined there, but its a good place to start looking. Unfortunately it would be way back in the Resolutions 500s or 600s of early 1990s. They have been busy these last ten years in that Security Council since we are at something like 1500.

04-24-2003, 04:40 PM	#15
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Website for UN is http://www.un.int

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)