What exactly are *WMD's*

from JoeUser Forums
Can someone tell me what the definition of WMD's (Weapons of mass destruction) is? Do they HAVE to be nuclear weapons? Or could ricin, biological weapons, etc... be "WMD's"?

Cause, if they could be. Then, technically there *were* WMD's in Iraq. Right?


Just wondering....
4,475 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
When I was in the Army, before the WMD hype, we called them "NBC" weapons: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical.

They were grouped together in our training because they have similar battlefield characteristics, and many of the same countermeasures can be used against all three of them. We were also taught specific information about each of the three types' unique characteristics (how to recognize mild and extreme nerve poisoning, how to react to a remote nuclear blast, etc.).

So yes, "WMDs" includes all three types.

Another way to think of "WMDs" is in terms of their scope. Even the biggest conventional bomb drops in one place, and explodes in one place, and destroys only in one place. A single daisy cutter can't destroy an entire city and all the people in it. But NBC weapons cover a much larger area, and their effects are much harder control. A General can arrange to have a laser-guided (conventional) bomb penetrate a command bunker, maybe killing a handful of important enemy officers with almost no risk to civilians nearby. But he can't control the devastation caused by a nuclear bomb, or by biological or chemical agents in the same way.

While land mines don't really cause massive destruction (on the same scale as NBC weapons), the tendency of combatants to leave them behind after the war is over, so that they end up being an uncontrolled threat to the civilian population, has caused them to fall into disfavor similar to WMDs (but much less hyped right now, obviously).
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the purpose of Iraq's disarmament the UN defined WMDs as including chemical and biological weapons.

And yes, _technically_ there were WMDs in Iraq.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, technically, bush was right in that their were WMD's. But, perhaps he was wrong in letting people think he meant Nukes? (correct me if i'm wrong)
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

But, perhaps he was wrong in letting people think he meant Nukes? (correct me if i'm wrong)

I dont think most people think that WMDs are only Nukes.  Some may argue it, and the whole Joe Wilson snit has made people talk about Nukes, but the reality is that while no weapons per se were found, the evidence of their existance and subsequent manufacturing was found.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
but the reality is that while no weapons per se were found, the evidence of their existance and subsequent manufacturing was found.


per se ? From what i am hearing, technically there *were* WMD's Just not what people were advertised....so to speak. People thought nukes, etc... unholy monstrosities....
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

per se ? From what i am hearing, technically there *were* WMD's Just not what people were advertised....so to speak. People thought nukes, etc... unholy monstrosities....

I have not seen any reliable report stating that Chemical or Biological weapons were found, just the means to make them, and evidence they had been there in the recent past.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm, I remember hearing about US troops finding canisters of mustard gas, things of ricin, etc... (been a while, and can't quite remember where....I *think* CNN, or BBC....)

Anyway, my main point is that (from what has been said) bush's "advertising" of the war was either "misinterpreted", or pehaps he sold it incorrectly...