What exactly is a WMD

[KensPen]

Bush kept asserting that Iraq was close to being able to develop a weapon....

I kept waiting for Russert to ask what KIND of weapon....

The whole concept of WMD is a goofy one. In a war don't you want most weapons to create "mass destruction"?

[adriennel]

1. the bombs we dropped on Nagaski/Hiroshima

the US is King of WMD.

[AZCat]

2. Ahhhh, but you're missing the point

The whole reason the * Admin uses "WMD" instead of specifying WHAT kind of weapons is so they can create "definition creep".

Edited: for clarity

[RobertSeattle]

3. WMD = The Greatest WEASEL Acronym of all time

WMD can mean anything from a Multi megaton Nuke that could level an entire city to a thimble of Ricin.

The administrations know that the poorly educated public thinks "nuke" when they say WMD even though they themselves are referring to much less dangerous things.

"WMD" really should be banished from lexicon.

[indepat]

5. Right on, WMD are what GWB's minions say they are and they are

where they say they are.

[KensPen]

6. exactly

After WWI we noted two things about gas attacks,

1. they are horrible,
2. they are not very effective, or controllable.

the stocks of mustard gas etc. listed could never pose a credible threat to americans on American soil, it's just silly.

[Silverhair]

9. Mustard gas would make a very good terror weapon against civilians.

Mustard gas is not militarily effective against troops in the field, and tends to linger in the area, which denies use of the effected terrain to your own troops. And if you use it, your own troops are subject to retaliation. So as a combat weapon, it isn't that great.

But as a weapon of terror against civilians it would work great. As a terrorist you don't have a state or military formations that can be subject to gas attack in return, and you aren't worried about occupping the gassed terrain.

The stuff was discovered in 1860 so it isn't exactly cutting edge technology. The formula is easily found on the internet. Any moderately competent chemist can oversee the manufacture. The materials are common and easily available. (Same for Sarin too, although it is more recent.) A light plane flying low over a crowded freeway could cause thousands of horrible casualites. You don't die instantly from mustard gas - you suffer great burning pain, blindness, and huge blisters. After an attack like that, every city would be sacred of getting hit next.

[Bandit]

10. Sounds just like something the BFFE would do.

You are absolutely correct. As a weapon of terror it is very effective.

[mike1963]

4. The only real WMD is a nuke. Chem & bio agents are effective in small

areas but aren't easy to use on a lot of people at once (and have enormous potential to 'backfire'.)

[Bandit]

7. I wouldn't necessarily say biological weapons are not effective

You must remember viruses are mutating into things we may have no control over as yet. Remember Smallpox in the 18th century killed far more people than any nuclear event in our history. Literally millions upon millions of people died in early 1700s and in fact entire peoples were killed off. Chemical weapons though are not very effective at all other than to scare the crap out of people.

[rock]

8. Well, I think the critical characteristic is the ability to do damage

on a large scale, with the implication that it does not require many soldiers to accuate. Also I think the term should be "weapons of massive destruction". Literally, a weapon of mass destruction would be one which can destroy matter. (Mass used for massive sounds odd to me.)

[baldguy]

11. Whatever Bush says it is.

At this point, a slip of notebook paper with a cartoon of a missile is a WMD.