Please define a WMD

B

butch50

New member
Is it chemical agent?

Is it a biological agent?

Here is baseline definition to get you started:

A WMD (in this context) is a weapon that can be obtained by terrorists, transported to the USA and utilized by a team of three terrorists, and will kill at least 1,000 people each time it is utilized. Or in other words, what were the WMDs that George was afraid that Saddam had at hand?

Ultimately I am going to argue that WMDs are actually only WMDs when utilized on a large scale by a miltiary equipped to do so, and that the WMDs that we have seem to be so afraid of terrorists using on us just don't exist.

I will certainly stipulate to portable nuclear devices however.
 
Last edited:
Hi Butch50, good starter for discussion. I don't think the size of the group deploying it needs stating- one man could deploy it and it would still be a WMD.

Secondly, why 1000? why not 500. I think 500 people taken out by a device would qualify as mass destruction???
 
How about a box cutter???

After all, it is the sole weapon that caused the tragedies during 9/11 wasnt it??

Or does a jet aircraft count, as it was more directly the weapon??

I dont think there can be any definition. As I say, even a god dam box cutter can cost the lives of so many if used well.


*looks at his own box cutter in disgust*
 
A WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) is, as I understand the current political definition, with my own spin.

A weapon or weapon system that creates large amounts (1000 is fine for a base line) of casulties in a manner considered 'barbaric'.

For examples:

A 2000lb 'block-buster' or 10000lb 'Daisey Cutter' dropped on a troop concentration is simple warfare. Causes death/injury via projectile and over-pressure wounds.

A napalm bomb dropped on exposed, unprotected troops is a WMD. Causes death/injury via severe burns.

A napalm bobm dropped on pillbox, dug in, especially concealed troops is simple warfare. Still causes death/injury by severe burns, but the main goal of employment is to expose or drive-off said troops.

A nerve-gas (VX, Sarin, etc) used in anyway is a WMD. Causes death by convulsive means. Broken bones, liquifaction of internal organs, just plain bad news.
 
The WMD I would be afraid of is a single individual infected with the 1918 influenza strain. A few sneezes and we cannot stop it. AIDS is a psuedoWMD in Africa. Mad cow prions, bird flu and other natural diseases of man would be far more dangerous than cultivated or technical weapons. Hydraulic fluid was recently used in place of soap in several surgical procedures. A human error or accidentally on purpose WMD?
 
As I understand/interpret it, a WMD is taken to mean a nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapon. However, I'm sure a conventionally armed SCUD could achieve MD...
 
Within the US military, WMDs have traditionally been defined as chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons. Obviously, you can kill many people with conventional ordnance or, for that matter, with unconventional approaches (such as the use of fuel-laden wide-body commercial jets on 11 September 2001). It is probably worth remembering that the incendiary bombing of Tokyo killed over a hundred of thousand, and it employed conventional weapons only.
 
I really think they need to redefine WMD's to WMC's Weapons of mass destruction should be anything designed to level huge amounts equipment or many buildings. Even though the loss of life can be the primary goal of such weapons, targeting a population without destroying buildings is better acomplished useing other payloads. Weapons of mass casualty need their own class as they target thousands people+ and should consist of chemical or biological. They generally do not destroy structures or equipment.
 
1 Person with the proper tools can be a WMD in my opinion..
Doesnt even have to kill anyone, because one doesnt have to kill to destroy.
 
I am going to edit the opening question to narrow this down a bit.

What is a WMD that we need to fear that terrorist can obtain, bring to the USA and use on our soil? Or in other words, what were the WMDs that George was so afraid that Saddam had at hand?

My ultimate point being, with the exception of nukes, that WMDs are only WMDs when deployed by a military organization using massive amounts of men and equipment. But that a WMD does not exist that can be deployed by a small team of terrorists and do massive damage.
 
To me, a NBC agent.

To the media, pretty much whatever an assualt weapon is. Ask 1000 people, you will probably get 999 different answers. It is whatever someone is campainging against at that particular point.
 
Wmd

Nuclear: causes moderate to catostrophic damage. Most deaths result from the fallout. A small yield weapon will not cause as much structural damage, but still disperses iradiated particles, which will cause more deaths and genomal deficiencies.

Chemical: Nerve agents, asphixiating gases, etc. Localized area, but very small amounts can be lethal. Highly dependent upon atmospheric conditions (wind, temperature, humidity, etc) to be effective. Saddam had them, and used them.

Biological: The worst. Military grade anthrax, small pox, even virulant strains of influenza reach way past ground zero. These agens often take time to incubate and effect the carriers. Often, the carrier may not immiately die, but will spread the disease everywhere and with everyone that he comes in contact.

When the term WMD is used, these are generally the categories referred to.
 
Fine analyses by all.

However, the term "WMD" has now come to include .50 BMG rifles, the semi-auto's described under the now-sunsetted AW ban, and anything else the gun-banners can latch the term onto.

The term "WMD" has been robbed of its true meaning, and is now just a political divergency phrase.
 
Shotguns keep popping up as WMD.

A technique of propaganda is to introduce into common usage a term seldom seen prior to introduction. Over time infuse that term with whatever definition media handlers desire. After a while the term is now defined in politically expedient terms to suit those controlling the agenda.

Classic example is "Assault Weapon". Term created by Josh Sugarmann and defined by by a bootlicking media. Deliberately created to sow confusion in the minds of the public and thereby permit the crackdown on heretofore legitimate weapon categories.

WMD is undergoing the same kind of definition manipulation. Technical or military definitions are irrelevant. The definition will be what sticks in the public's mind. That's why I perk up anytime I hear the term refer to a .50 cal or a shotty.
 
Waitone has a point. I think WMD has become like 'Saturday Night Special' or 'Assault Rifle' as an expression and is thus pretty meaningless.

Just about anything- including a sack of Fertiliser and some Distillate is a potential WMD.
 
Only WMD when deployed by a military organization? How bout the two man portable "backpack" nuks the Russians are missing? About 10 or so they say. Don't think it would take a military to use them, they are still WMD's or am I reading the question wrong?
 
No, you are reading the question right. Nukes are stipulated as being WMDs.

But chemical and biological weapons I am saying require a massive and well orchestrated implementation to effect massive deaths. And that can not be achieved by a small terrorist cell.

The whole WMD argument for going into Iraq was fallacious from the beginning NOT because Saddam didn't have them, but because they don't exist, other than nukes, that can be snuck into the US and implemented by terrorists. I state that the whole concept was misdirection from the beginning. The fact that none have been found is a further embarassment only.
 
And that can not be achieved by a small terrorist cell
Click to expand...
Butch, that is not true. Bio agents (once garnered) only require one person to disperse. That can be done by setting off a small amount or bringing in one "suicide" jihadist already infected. If this jihadists carrier is infected with an agent that incubates for a few weeks, he can easily come into the country and spread the disease around a large area. The domino chain then carries from one person to the next, creating an epidemic (i.e Ebola - though Ebola had an outbreak in VA, it didn't spead well. But you get my drift).
 
Breacher:

Given our state of alert to such threats it would have to be a very long incubation period with a very high contagion rate and with a very high mortality rate. I am not aware of any biological agents that will fit the bill.

I think that an epidemic would be impossible to start, unless you have several hundreds or possibly thousands of terrorists spreading the agent in large density population areas simultaneously.

I am willing to be corrected on this, if anyone has information to the contrary.
 
It is widely studied and published that new strains of small pox would have a huge impact on lives. That's why the government was giving those shots to deployed personnel.There is no specific treatment for small pox disease, only vaccinations. It is highly contagious and serious.
Pneumonic plague. Also very contagious and deadly.
Here is a link to discuss some of the baddies:
http://www.health.state.nd.us/EPR/public/OtherAgents.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top