How do you define a "Weapon of mass destruction"?

How many planes would he have to bring down to meet your criteria?

As a kind of Scarlet Pimpernel. They seek it hear they seek it there, that darned elusive pimpernel.

Gas from my border collie. its a real killer.

@ragingloli Well, by that definition Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction! Seems if that bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, then what are the bombs we drop on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? Weapons of really, really, super awesome mass destruction?

Seems to me the term was intended to lump nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons into a single category. A simple bomb would not qualify by any stretch of the imagination. But since it’s a made up word in the first place, I guess they can do whatever they want with it in the name of propaganda.

What do you suppose constitutes a mass?

Wikipedia has some interesting information on the background of the term.

wmd is more a political term than anything so putting a solid definition to it is a bit like holding a politician to their campaign promises, they change with perception and circumstance. But, generally speaking, thermonuclear, aerosolized or water table chemical, or propagating biological weapons things that can wipe out proportionally large populations in relation to their overall target would, I guess, be my core definition. You could extend that to something like this, but only if you consider the idea of detonation over a large population center, thereby maximizing (or at least willfully attempting to) it’s impact far beyond the device’s normal capability but that’s a slippery slope to easily used for political gain/justification to have much legal appeal for me.

yes it has the whiff of; lets blow this whole incident out of proportion (if you’ll excuse the pun) in order to justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. and hope no one will notice, English speaking news coverage has an amazing capacity to focus our attention on a detail, exaggerate it’s importance whilst simultaneously reducing other global crimes of a far greater scale, to complete anonymity.

if a plane crashed into a suburban area, or a mall, or a stadium, it would indeed be a weapon of mass destruction. particularly on a holiday where many people are at home.

that’s probably the thinking on using that terminology.

fyi: ive got a weapon of mass destruction in my undies, too. boosh!

I would say more then one is a WMD. Or having the potential of destroying more then one.

With the intent to kill many.

As soon as the planes that flew into the WTC were taken over, they became WMD’s.

@eponymoushipster the point is that how is that more destructive than a cruise missile or virtually any of the medium sized ordinance, routinely deployed by the British and Americans during the course of the middle eastern conflicts over the past decade.

It says that attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction is the legal charge. I never knew there was a specific law against attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. That means there must also be a legal definition of such a weapon, doesn’t it?

I just think in this image obsessed world we live in someone somewhere came up with a snappy tagline that stuck. WMD is simply a generic term for the majority of armaments at mans disposal. Each taking their destructive toll on the world.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense:

“Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.”

Which interestingly contradicts the definition given in Wikipedia with this as the source.

@mammal probably that those are developed to be used against the military, whereas blowing up a plane takes civilian lives.

@ucme there are lots of snappy sound bites, `Shock and awe’, for example, they are not as innocuous as they appear, in fact they are a little too much like catchy marketing slogans, i still to this day can’t rid my self of `do the shake n vac and put the freshness back.’ They have a similar, all to sinister, psychological purpose, to sell you the war.

That shake n vac woman was well fookin scary!

fixed the Wikipedia entry

@ucme depends upon the context, i think one Admiral used the term `it’s Hammer time’ before blasting his woefully armed Iraqi counterparts. `Can’t touch this.’ and then proceeded to shuffle accross the deck MC Hammer style. (not really) Just one more thing to add, When will you people ever learn? we (America) are never outgunned.

I would define a WMD as something that can kill a mass of people. I think that’s what the term originally meant. Has it changed? Or am I wrong?

I’m trying to find the U.S. law that defines the charge of “attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction”. I haven’t found it yet, but apparently it’s a pretty common charge.

O.K., found the law, if anyone is interested.

§ 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction

(c) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—
...
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life”

The problem here is that ”(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title”:

§ 921. Definitions

(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

So while the military and most of the world means nuclear, chemical, radiological, or biological when they say WMD, the U.S. law says anything that goes boom. Anything at all.

@Snarp So by that definition our government uses weapons of mass destruction everyday?

@benjaminlevi, by any definition, yes.

@CyanoticWasp Arrest them!

@benjaminlevi Interesting, isn’t it?