Talk:Weapon of mass destruction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I don't think that the part about the propaganda and the White House is neutral

The part of the article that discusses propaganda and the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is definantely not neutral. It obviously accuses the current government of the US of using propaganda. Not only is this a completely unbacked claim, it actually states this as fact and not as an opinion of someone else and/or themselves. This needs to be either changed or removed, who agrees?

(I'm the one that marked the article for being in congradiction of neutrality).

I don't happen to like how that paragraph reads, certainly. And the relationship of its content to the issue of the term "WMD" is too small. But I think locking the entire article becuase of that piece is bad form. Change it as you wish; discuss it here as you wish. Here I will start discussing.

• The editor of that paragraph added a reference, re: the use of propaganda. So it is not unbacked. Can someone provide a counter reference?
• Sure, it should be changed from appearing as fact to opinion.
• You may not like the claims, but that doesn't mean the claim is POV (or more precicely, that the claim is false). NPOV requires a fair balance of competing positions, presented impassionately. The paragraph's content can change to be more impassionate, but that's separate from the content. And your POV claim that the content of the paragraph is incorrect must also be presented in a NPOV manner.

As the paragraph remains while the article is locked, no amendments can be made. I hope it will soon be unlocked for changes to proceed. Daniel Collins 18:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While interesting, i see no real reason that the information about WMDs in relation to the so-called "big lie" behind the present invasion of iraq to be included in this section. Shouldn't it be entirely seperated from the article and just linked insted? It just seems to be peripheral to the topic, more just a product of our current focus. 144.131.172.151

I just made substantial changes to the section on propaganda, to a significant degree by deleting it. But its gist was moved to the politics section in a context where it is perhaps more fitting and with content that is perhaps more true to the article. More relevant supporting references were found, replacing the previous one; I include three because I think contentious issues call for it. I think, then, that the original call for a POV check has been made moot and so I deleted the flags. I do hope more people will edit it though.

PS. So the talk page doen't devolve into an amorphous mess, could people please sign their contributions with four tildas? eg. ~~~~. It adds your user name or IP address, and the date and time.

Cheers, Daniel Collins 16:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Call for focused effort

After reviewing the discussion archive from the last 2+ years, I see a few very tangible gaps that can be filled in with a little effort:

1. satisfy the NPOV requirement of the propaganda paragraph
2. elaborate on the nature of the weapons that comprise WMD
3. explore the differences between the terms WMD, ABC, NBC
4. expand the section on international and national law
5. clarify/expand the info box on the right
6. re-compose the introductory section

I propose this list to re-energize contributions and to focus on the more important needs. Cheers, Daniel Collins 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Text relocation

All such weapons, save nuclear, are banned in the United States, Yemen and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. This includes the samples (such as Anthrax) that had previously been created by the US in germ warfare experiments earlier in the 20th Century, and subsequently destroyed.

The above text was removed from the main article because it is not quite complete and lacks references. I copy it here so it may not be lost, and reincorporated when polished. Daniel Collins 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not 'fictional'?

We have a section here called WMD in art and literature...are we not calling it 'references to fictional WMD' in case someone gets the wrong idea? Or is to avoid the jokes that would result from it?

Pydos 13:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fictional aspect in this context is implied. Perhaps grammatically it is not so - a heavy metal band may well make guitar strings out of depleted uranium for all I know - but I'd like to think the text clarifies that this is not actually the case. If potential confusion remains, change away, but I'd suggest it doesn't go overboard in its clarification (eg. "references to" and "fictional" play the same role). I don't think it's been sculpted since I penned the text, and some evolution would be in order - or even some intellegent design. Daniel Collins 03:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

All nations have/can have WMDs

You can make chemical weapons from simple household and commercial chemicals Don't try it at home! Dudtz 9/6/05 7:24 PM EST

Australia

It might be worthwhile having an article on Australia and Weapons of mass destruction. Australia Special Weapons Guide (FAS) mentions some details on chemical and biological programs. Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet's advocation of diseases to destroy tropical crops may be especially noteworthy. Talk:List of countries with nuclear weapons#Australia? has some discussion of "Fortress Australia", a documentary arguing that Australia took an interest in nuclear weapons. Andjam 15:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Incendiary bombs

Why is it that Incendiary bombs are never considered as WMD? Unlike biological and chemical weapons the ability of these weapons for mass destruction were well proven - as far back as WW2 - deaths of 20,000 in a single bomb-run were achieved multiple times?

I think this is quite a good question, more so given the 1937 coining of the WMD term, though their use against civies was banned in 1980. If you find some Wiki-worthy sources on the issue, add away. And then if sources can be provided to quantify the number of dead from each weapon type through history, that too would be a valuable contribution to the article. Daniel Collins 16:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I started training firefighters in WMD two or three years ago. WMD was always divided into three areas: chemical weapons, biological weapons, and radiological weapons. I went to a new training seminar this year, and the Dept of Homeland Security added explosives as a fourth category. The US government, apparently, did not consider explosives a form of WMD until 2005 for some reason. I had wondered that myself for some time and thought it odd, especially since explosives are the most likely WMDs to be used by terrorists. I'll see if I can add anything myself.Rt66lt 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

First responders' perspectives would be a good addition. I would be particularly interested in the rationale behind the DHS definition, even going so far as to mention what magnitude of explosion constitutes WMD, if such a threshold was considered. Cheers, Daniel Collins 21:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Classification of conventional explosives as WMD is silly. If you think you can name an instance where explosives were used to create mass destruction, aside from strategic use (i.e. military carpet bombing), you must have a very different definition of "mass" than I do. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dresden, February 1945. --24.95.50.22 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PIPA, media sources and WMD perceptions

The newly added bracket regarding the PIPA survey in the media section is confusing. The survey asked about Iraqi WMD in general, not about stockpiles. The respondants answered accordingly. They knew nothing about the subsequent reports on the existence of WMD in Iraq. Do note that the word "misperceptions"vhd jfcmvcmkh grktugvfhgdsytrwu66rdyitfoutritugfiughvbjhgjtyte4edrcj96 5y4e nfb 66 rjb has been removed. Shall we discuss? Daniel Collins 17:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Countries suspected of having-developing WMD

In the article the section on Countries suspected of having or developing WMD, it says : "States currently suspected of possessing and developing nuclear capabilities include: Iran; and North Korea."

The words Nuclear capabilities are very vague. My presumtion that an article about WMD, means that that "nuclear capability" in this case means a weapon, rather than power generation facilities. I understand that many countries are concerned about Iran enriching Uranium, because, the enrichment facilities/capabilitiesthis/processes could lead in the future to the development of weapons grade material. But, I believe the practical reality is that Iran currently doesnt have such capabilities in development.

Perhaps changing the words "nuclear capabilities" for the reasons cited above and a citation of who is suspecting such posession and/or development of nuclear capabilities, i.e the UN or someone else.

Many thanks, and my congratulations for your approching a subject frought with complications.

Ï would sign this, but a keyboard with a Spanish layout doesnt allow for the characthers required.... Best regards Richard

WMDs?

"The terms ABC [and] NBC ... have been used synonymously with WMD". And what about Fox? Surely they've done more distruction than the two of them combined! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Har, har, TBSDY! And it's not even April Fools Day yet! – ClockworkSoul 15:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists of used, possession, suspicion, etc

I think the new list of which nations have used what type of WMD could seem a bit bulky. If it has to be done, do a table. I would actually recommend that the details be added to the particular WMD pages, and have just an overview here. Cheers, Daniel Collins 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Consistency

Forgive this if this is a naive misinterpretation of what Wikipedia is striving for, but the following text seems completely bizarre. The text is arguing with itself:

..Those who incorrectly believed WMD had been discovered were three times more likely to obtain their news primarily from Fox News than from PBS and NPR.

(snip)

It is therefore a sign of intelligence among Fox viewers since WMD have been found in Iraq, though not the "stockpils" that were advertised...

This seems to be a strange way to be NPOV.

Quite. The above was added in the last day, and has since been reverted. It's a sign of something, all right. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Relocated text

The following "notes" are relocated from the main article. Too rough for inclusion.

===Countries known to have used chemical weapons===

rough notes

United Kingdom

WW II use...

Germany in WW I...

Iraq

Daniel Collins 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Section on media coverage very biased

---

This entry is unfortunately biased against the Iraq war and the United States (a little too much propaganda inserted to be taken seriously). I edited parts to make them more balanced, but the edits were quickly deleted obviously by someone with a bit of a lean to the left (and yes, I lean to the right). For instance, I edited this portion as follows:

"Results showed that US citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions, <added> implying that Americans are generally less discerning than their European counterparts."</added>

(What is not factual about my addition?)

What the verifiable facts imply is open to interpretation. A more in-depth discussion of the topic might include additional facts, like how the vice president still claims that WMDs were in Iraq, and that Saddam had "Al Qaeda links", despite both claims being widely known to be false. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And I added this part in the criticism of Fox News:

"Interpretations of the polling data implied that Fox News misled its viewers and was less credible than other news sources, even though Fox News never reported that WMDs were found in Iraq."

(What is not factual about this? Fox News never said WMD was found in Iraq, and this study does not state this fact.)

George Bush may have stood in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign, but he never said the phrase, and never told anyone that the troops would be home any time this decade. See how that works? Fox News did everything it could to sell the war, and pointing out one thing (out of many possible) that Fox News has never reported serves to mitigate that fact. Diluting something already labeled as "interpretation" with modifiers adds nothing of value, and does the reader a disservice. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And I added the following when discussing the study on why Americans might have "false memory":

"This study did not address the fact that Iraq had possessed, hidden, and used WMDs in the past, nor did the study attempt to address how these facts might have affected intransigent American sentiment following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

I think its clear to the reader what the study is or is not addressing. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, those moderating this entry (like hawks judging by how rapidly my additions were reverted) don't wish to illustrate both sides of this issue with Iraq, even though both sides can offer factual opposing arguments. There's an attempt here to clandestinely pass off politics as real history, which is unfortunate.

--Shanesd 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is unfortunate is that you think your pathetic defense of the undefendable is a 'side'.

The entire discussion of perceptions attributed to what news outlet you get your news from does not belong here at all. If you are going to do an analysis of media bias, it has to be a full analysis, not limited to WMD's. The analysis also has contracting statements of 'fact'. There is statement to the effect of those who beleived WMD's were discovered, "when in fact they were not." and another statement pointing to the left over WMD's that were discovered. The fact is WMD's were discovered. They weren't the ones we were looking for, but it invalidates the '...when in fact they were not' statement.

Also, the false implication of the incomplete media bias analysis is that fox is less responsible than other news organizations in its reporting on Iraq. That cannot be stated or even implied without a FULL analysis of media bias, including the impact it would have on the demographics of viewers. It does not belong in this discussion UNLESS Wikipedia is a bias organization. SpencersDad

yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Marine's Definition

I don't care what the "official" definition is, but as a Marine, a WMD is any weapon that has the potential to cause severe loss of life. By this definition, any weapon is considered a WMD, rifles, rocket propelled grenandes, regular grenades, Mortars. So those people who say they are no WMDs found in Iraq can see by Marine standards we have already found plenty.

I think its pretty well understood that the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction implies a device that can inflict thousands or at least hundreds of casualties/fatalities with a single use. By your own definition, you cary a weapon of mass destruction, making you a 'terrorist'. ~~Anonymous Coward

Libertarians On WMDs

I myself am a libertarian, and some would consider me a rather radical minarchist as I support the legalization of just about anything (all drugs, nearly all weapons, ect.). But I still think Weapons Of Mass Destruction should be illegal for civilian use (the only items to me that should be illegal). What is the general stance on WMDs with other libertarians and minarchists? I have personally never read a single article from libertarians on it but I assume most libertarians are for at least this limited government regulation. I don't know for sure though. Does anyone know or have any good articles that explain the libertarian stance on the issue (not that I would support it if other libertarians did support it, unless they used hard logic and reason that convinces me). Zachorious 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be what you are looking for. Deleuze 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Perception

According to a Harris Poll released July 21 found that 50% of U.S. respondents said they believe Iraq had the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003. This was reported in numerous news articles, such as The State (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15215272.htm) and The Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/08/do_you_believe_in_wmd.html). PJ 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Sounds like WMD is a pretty generic phrase.

You also might want to check this out.

I think that they do have WmD's--and if they have the gumption and the "deadly weapons" to blow up stuff in midair, then that, in my book, is a WMD.

Sorry; WMD's.

--JJ

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The doomsday calander at religioustolerance.org[1] may provide a good source for research into this list. Uriel-238 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Weapons

As part of my current adds, I redirected “Strategic Weapons” to here, noting the Cold War term was a precursor to the modern use of WMD, and the nature of Strategic Weapons in military doctrine. Should it be a separate article that would link to this one?

Also, should there be anything on the difference between a weapon of mass homicide (i.e. high-casualties) and a weapon of mass devastation (i.e. lots of wreckage)? EMP devices could topple an infrastructure while leaving everyone alive, whereas bio-weapons would kill (or at least incapacitate) by the droves while leaving buildings and systems intact. The latter is considered a WMD if its effects are extreme enough (i.e. it takes out a community, or requires intervention from the CDC). What about the former?

Uriel-238 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Coverage

From the article:

Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence confirming WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on more liberal news outlets like PBS and NPR for news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.

The current text of the article makes no reference to the relative conservatism/liberalism of Fox News or CBS. I think it might be unfair to characterize PBS and NPR as liberal. It seems like it is unnecessary to include this comment and is potential POV. There is certainly no agreement on whether or not PBS and NPR are "liberal". I would propose changing this section to read:

Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence confirming WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.

If there are no objections, I will make this change in a few days.

Verybigfish86 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Daniel Collins 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would concurr. The McNeil Lehrer news hour (when it was the McNeil Lehrer News Hour) was moderate conservative when I watched it. Uriel-238 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire discussion of perceptions attributed to what news outlet you get your news from does not belong here at all. If you are going to do an analysis of media bias, it has to be a full analysis, not limited to WMD's. The analysis also has contracting statements of 'fact'. There is statement to the effect of those who beleived WMD's were discovered, "when in fact they were not." and another statement pointing to the left over WMD's that were discovered. The fact is WMD's were discovered. They weren't the ones we were looking for, but it invalidates the '...when in fact they were not' statement.

Also, the false implication of the incomplete media bias analysis is that fox is less responsible than other news organizations in its reporting on Iraq. That cannot be stated or even implied without a FULL analysis of media bias, including the impact it would have on the demographics of viewers. It does not belong in this discussion UNLESS Wikipedia is a bias organization. SpencersDad

This is hysterical! There is not bigger a bias in media than the NPR. And the CBS Memogate doesn't show the bias, you people are fooling yourselves. Ymous

Is it not possible that the reason people who rely on Fox News are less informed about WMDs in Iraq is not due to Fox News itself, but to the fact that its viewers are less informed generally? --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Sections

The last sections, external links etc. were missing from the last few versions, I'm not sure why. - raptor 14:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Should the appearance of the phrase in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955) be mentioned? -- KSchutte —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.176.12 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Broken links

Some of the external links were broken. I edited them so that they link to the correct url. It's the same site but they changed the url.

These are the links I edited:

• Nuclear Weapons Effects

• Biological Weapons Effects

• Chemical Weapons Effects

Please change this back if I made any errors for some reason.

I'm editing this from a school, and some more immature students have made some unserious edits in the past. This is not one of those occasions though. I just thought you all should know this in case I made any mistakes in my edit. 62.65.77.155 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Resources about the Iraq CW

[2] [3]

Because the "ironically, sold to him by many of the same countries now arrayed against him" is unsourced seems to be doubtful (Germany wasn't particularly involved in the war on terror at this time), and his of course harmful. Until sources are given I took the liberty to delete the above statement (which also delete the "ironically" which is npov). Added an inappropriate tone in the section for the moment (due to the lack of time to finish the correction of the pov of the Post-cold war and War on Terror section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esurnir (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The United States was unquestionably a source of WMD for Saddam Hussein, specifically chemical weapons that he used against Iran. While I don't have exact sources, it's a detail practically in our history books, and (I believe) is pertinent to the topic. While this element may imply incrimination of the US for starting the gulf war (The US attacking Iraq for possession of WMD the US sold to Iraq) facts, in and of themselves, are not a point of view. Uriel-238 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Being the one who added "Ironically", I'm not sure how the term is npov. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia, perhaps, but I don't see how the indication of irony pushes a spin. Uriel-238 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Extremely weak citation (and possible error) on important point

The claim that the term originated in a Times article about the bombing of Guernica seems to me to be very weakly cited. We cite Will Mallon's History News Network article that says that historian Robert Whealey, writing on H-Diplo (but in an article that Mallon doesn't cite clearly), in turn said that the phrase came from a 1937 Times article that is also not clearly cited. Even though one would expect H-Diplo to be well indexed, a Google search on '"Robert Whealey" "mass destruction" "h-diplo" -wikipedia -mallon' turns up nothing. With some further searching just now, I came across a discussion of this on Google Answers; it first cites both the same Mallon page we cite and further cites http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorw.htm, which says it was a Times article on December 28, 1937. However, if you read through to the bottom of the the Google Answers exchange, it raises serious question about whether such a 1937 Times article existed, and no one has been able to produce the Times article. So this may not just be weakly cited: it may be wrong.

William Safire ("Weapons of Mass Destruction", New York Times Magazine, April 19, 1998, p.22) writes that the term probably originates from the Russian oruziye massovovo porazheniya. He credits James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use (although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a November 15, 1945 meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush - or so Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction". That exact phrase, says Safire, was also used by Bernard Baruch in 1946 (in a speech at the UN probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope).

I have a PDF of the Safire article; for copyright reasons I can't post it on line, but if someone wants to verify that I have paraphrased accurately from Safire's rather more detailed remarks, email me and I will send you a copy.

Unless someone can actually identify and quote the supposed Times article, I believe that our article should be changed accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been 18 days; no one has responded; I am editing accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found the 1937 article. The original information from Mallon is partially correct. The date and source is correct; the phrase does not originate with a reporter, however, and does not specifically refer to the bombing of Guernica. The first to speak the phrase was the Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang, whose 1937 Christmas sermon was printed by the Times. I have erased the section on the "controversy", cited Lang and added a citation which can be confirmed by anyone interested. -- Darel E. Paul, 23 May 2007

Is Nuclear bomb of High Altitude Nucler Explosion Weapons of mass destruction ?

I'm writing Japanese Page of HANE (High Altitude Nucler Explosion) now. I'm wondering a word definition. What do you feel when you hear "Nuke of HANE is Non-leathal weapon and it's WMD." (FYI, HANE doesn't kill human basically, just electrocute electric goods.)

In other words, Can we add the name HANE on the list of WMD?

HANE makes large scale distruction without direct human attack. But here says "Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons which can kill large numbers of human beings" I feel HANE is WMD, but .... Pleae give me your idea, thx Tosaka

EMP is not directly lethal, but most of the population of an affected area will die within weeks due to infrastructure collapse. Humanitarian efforts would be impossible on the scale necessary to provide for an entire geographical region. HANE is deffinately a 'strategic weapon' (one designed to kill large numbers of people), so yes. BlackFlag30 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a question of definitions. If EMPs by themselves are considered WMDs, then you'd have to consider a Electromagnetic bomb a potential WMD. I don't think that's likely—they don't produce a lot of destruction at all, not on the level of death and carnage as other WMDs. I wouldn't consider an e-bomb a WMD; I probably wouldn't consider a nuclear-driven e-bomb a WMD either, though obviously you'd have to know for sure that that was the only property of the nuke being utilized. But again, it is a question of semantics to some degree: if someone possessed a nuclear weapon in any capacity they'd be guilty of possessing WMDs, for one never can trust how they'd be used (India's original "peaceful bomb" is as much a WMD as any other nuke, in my opinion). --Fastfission (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AHEM...

Weapons of mass destruction don't exist and it was an excuse to enter Iraq!!! Eenyminy 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Say what?--J-Star 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, chemical weapons were found in Iraq, and by the wiki definition, there were WMDs in Iraq.[4]Merechriolus (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Saddam's boasting, planning, preparation, actual production apparatus, use of and training of scientists in programs to produce them, and mass buying of materials, (all this is proven fact) ad libitum, etc., etc. was so successful that his own generals believed they existed and were still in Iraq, and the CIA was foolish enough to believe that they must be right. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Calling anything found in Iraq a 'weapon of mass destruction' is such a massive exaggerative lie. I mean nothing there remotely threatened America. The only real weapon of mass destruction is the nuclear bomb; which Iraq/Saddam self-evidently didn't have.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with WolfKeeper...the citation of US Code in this article, regarding "weapons of mass destruction" for one, would include conventional weapons like laser guided bombs, aircraft guns (such as the usual 20mm autocannon), infantry grenade launchers, and artillery pieces. Hand grenades and 40mm launchers are hardly "mass destruction" weapons. The citation of US Code regarding the National Firearms Act is irrelevant, as a "destructive device" (such as a sawed-off shotgun or automatic rifle) is not a "weapon of mass destruction". I think an overly liberal interpretation thereof yields the conclusion that WMD's were found...but some buried, degraded chemicals, Castor bean husks, and sealed-up-and-accounted-for un-enriched uranium hardly constitute a WMD program, much less material possession. 63.252.23.200 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thermobaric weapons

considering that Russia has just demonstrated the "dad of all bombs", should thermobaric bombs be added to Weapons of Mass Destruction?(discuss here)--190.74.124.4 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ................................................................................................................................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.253.181 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. They're just very efficient conventional bombs. --Fastfission (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "mass destruction" based on the amount of destruction, rather than the nature of the weapon? I don't really know anything about thermobaric bombs, but if they produce mass destruction then I'd say they're WMDs. LachlanA (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)