It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a WMD?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I am curious as to what you consider a WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction)? I always thought that a WMD was a Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapon that has the potential to kill large numbers of people if deployed. Lately I have been hearing the term "WMD" thrown around by the media, politicians and posters on the internet. All of whom have a different meaning. I guess I should clarify my question to "What were the WMDs that Iraq was supposed to have that would have justified the US invasion?"




posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


While in US civil defense, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. (18 U.S.C. Section 2332a)


wat the heck does dis mean of more than 4 ounces? dat would be considered WMD? is dis a mistype or a mistake by the civil defense?

i usually view WMD as unconventional weapons design to kill inflict massive casualties. nuclear, biological and chemical.


[edit on 10-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Actually I cringe a little when I hear WMD. It's so conveniently vague and imposing.

It's become such a catch phrase. And, being this vague acronym, the weight behind it has become greater than the sum of the whole.



"We believe that that phrase [WMD] confuses officials, befuddles the public, and justifies policies that more precise language and more accurate assessments could not support," Joseph Cirincione, one of the nation's leading experts on weapons proliferation.

He says that talk of WMD by public officials and others should be replaced by more-specific references to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in order to better reflect the unique aspects of each of those threats. "That phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' conflates threats from very, very different weapons, weapons that have differences in lethality, consequence of use, ease of acquisition, and the availability of measures that can protect against them," says Cirincione, senior associate and director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Can propaganda be a WMD ?

I mean enough lies are spread on a mass scale can lead to all sorts of mischeif ?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Can propaganda be a WMD ?

I mean enough lies are spread on a mass scale can lead to all sorts of mischeif ?


The current in vogue phrase in political and military circles (as opposed to civilian ones) is WME or Weapons of Mass Effect. The gist of this is that the motive and potential for the creation of a WMD is sufficient to cause enough widespread fear and panic to have an effect on national security, i.e. the weapon does not have to physically exist. So I suppose that propaganda is a WMD to an extent.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
specific definitions aside, I think most of us agree on chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons all being WMDs.

In this regard, Saddam was known to possess chemical weapons and biological agents. We know this of course, because we kept the receipts...
Thing is, as a condition of his defeat in Gulf War I...he was to disarm these.

As the US basically gave an ultimatum...this allowed Saddam the time to get any remaining ones out or bury them, etc., just as he did many other weapons of war, such as planes in the sand, sending them to Iran, etc.

Saddam is blamed for using gas on his own people (or at least countrymen, the Kurds), during an uprising a while back, so the use of such weapons by his forces was not an unreasonable expectation.

However, the US failure to find ANY substantial WMDs basically means the US justification to the world for invading Iraq is null and void, and all the leader of the free world says is "oops....well, needed to be done anyhoo...." While I was all for going into Iraq, I assumed we were doing so based on at least SOMETHING we could back up to the world. There were plenty of reasons not related to WMDs to go into Iraq, but when this was the ONLY primary reason given to the world as justification, and it fell flat, the war was then essentially made into an illegal action.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
www.cursor.org...

Here is more information available than just a receipt.

And why do you think they haven't found any WMD's in Iraq yet?
Because! they still intend to use them on us.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join