Comments on: WMD

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

There was a New Republic article a few months back which said that we shouldn’t be calling chemical or biological weapons “weapons of mass destruction,” and that we should only reseve that description for nuclear weapons. I tend to agree.

But I also know that the work of the UN’s First Committee (as well as human rights NGOs) has tended to force all of the above weapons into the “WMD” category along with such weapons as cluster bombs, long-range artillery, and ballistic missiles. Land mines, which, in my opinion, should be banned for export, are even hyperbolically described as WMD.

An honest revision about what really counts as WMD needs to be done in Washington, but it can’t end there. The UN itself needs to stop blurring the lines of concern.

By: mitch

mitch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The Office of Technology Assessment issued a report in 1993 estimating that anthrax sprayed from a small plane over a large city could kill hundreds of thousands.

By: Rick DeMent

Rick DeMent — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

On a good day a truckload of Fertilizer can kill as many people as the 9/11 attacks. But your right about the WMD category. Its bogus and was cooked up exclusively to link saran gas and anthrax to nukes and high-level bio weapons.

By: Educated Guesswork

Educated Guesswork — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

What is a WMD?

Kieran Healy quite correctly points out that the term Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is a silly term: Not much, but it’s a start. As I’ve argued before, Weapons of Mass Destruction is a gerrymandered category. Although it lends itself…