Talk:Weapon of mass destruction/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rename to NBC Weapons

Wouldn't it be better to rename this to NBC Weapons, as that is what the military calls them?--219.79.73.249 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

there's an article about NBC weapons already, and the two are different. A WMD is a weapon of mass destruction, so for example, an antimatter bomb would count as a WMD but not as an NBC weapon. Conventional bombs the size of skyscrapers might count as well. RowanEvans (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

US Politics Sections

Not this may have been changed by the time you read this.

Sections 4-13 are all 'United States politics." All of the sections start out the same, and appear to have the same content. I have not gone through to verify that they are the same though, which is why I did not delete them. Does someone want to look into this?

(Please delete this if the problem has been resolved.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IKrolm (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Also if you want to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.163.135.62 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does the poll belong

Moving text from the article (where it didn't belong). This came immediately after a paragraph saying many members of the public believed WMD had been discovered in Iraq.

This poll really does not belong in this article. Whether or not people believe that WMDs were found in Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened historically. Either the weapons were found, or they were not. Take the opportunity to educate your readers here, not skew the facts with media opinions. If one chemical agent was found in Iraq, then that needs to be in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

My view is that this discussion of the poll would be more appropriate in an article on Iraq and WMD, though a brief mention of the Iraq issues should be in this article. NPguy (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadam's Nuclear Material Removed from Iraq

In 2003 an IAEA team removed 1.8 tonnes of low enriched uranium and 500 tonnes of natural uranium which had been stored under IAEA seal since 1991. On July 5, 2008 a top-secret shipment of 550 tonnes of concentrated natural uranium [enough to make 142 nuclear warheads] arrived in Montreal from Iraq, depleting the last major stockpile of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, the Associated Press reported. "Yellowcake," the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, was sold to Canadian uranium producer Cameco Corp. by the Iraqi government. The deal is said to be worth tens of millions of dollars.

I've just added the above for discussion and input from all interested. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This addition to the article has since been (overzealously, in my view) reverted. The facts are mostly correct, but the link to WMD is over the top and the headline is completely wrong. These materials pose minimal proliferation concern by themselves. They might have been used as feed stock for an enrichment program, but without an enrichment program they pose relatively little risk. Their removal was a matter of prudence, particularly considering the risk of theft by factions supporting Iran, which does have an enrichment program. Where does the number 142 come from? NPguy (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly belongs in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (and I see that it has been added to that article), but in the form written above, it doesn't make clear that the uranium is what remains from Iraq's 1980s atomic program. Ideally, a short summary of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction should be included in this one. I doubt this particular news item would fit within a couple of paragraphs' summary of the long and convoluted history of Iraq's WMD programs and the US's stance toward and interactions with such programs.--Father Goose (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding NPguy comment: while yellowcake is highly unrefined, the AP source notes there were other radioactive materials along with the yellowcake. The article also implies the material was difficult to move perhaps due to its radioactivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The removal of yellowcake and radioactive sources has nothing to do with "discovery" related to WMD. The materials were known and declared and removed primarily because of the security risk (attack or sabotage), not WMD potential. NPguy (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That Tuwaitha was known about by the UN is established. It was of coursed bombed by Israel in 1981 so it has a history. That the UN understood something was there is established. But do you have a source that states the UN was aware there was 1) an amount the size of 550 metric tons and 2) associated radio active material? I just hope for the truth. If you have a source I'll be glad to learn about it. If not, I respectfully submit there appears to be bias in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think the burden of proof would fall on the person asserting a WMD link. And don't forget the first rule of Wikipedia: assume good faith. Don't bandy about charges of bias, particularly when you clearly don't know the subject. Here is a link to a 2003 IAEA report on yellowcake at Tuwaitha. Note that it refers to looting at Tuwaitha, which had created cleanup problems and security concerns. That's why the yellowcake and radiation sources were removed. NPguy (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I apologize if you took the bias statement the wrong way. No harm intended at all. Second, thank you for the IAEA report as a source. I'll clarify my point and intend to end here. The point is not to say the 550 metric tons were the smoking gun. Attaching the Associated Press article on the 550 metric tons of yellowcake was just an apolitical addition to the site. This wiki site currently reads as if there were hardly any or zero WMD materials in Iraq. That in and of itself is not bias. But if someone posts a credible source (AP) that describes 550 metric tons of yellowcake being removed from Iraq, and that source is removed from the site, it gives the appearance of bias. The IAEA report does not say how much was there per se; just what was missing from their last visit. A wiki reader may wish to have a balanced perspective that, known or unknown beforehand, 550 metric tons of yellowcake were removed from Iraq. Barring that source of information from this wiki entry just begs questions. All the best and good to reason with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The text I deleted suggested that the yellowcake represented a secret stash of WMD material. It was not secret and not really WMD material. You can't make a nuclear weapon out of yellowcake. Yellowcake is a raw material - essential feed material for producing high-enriched uranium or plutonium - but itself fairly far from weapons-usable. Saddam Hussein had undoubtedly acquired the yellowcake as feedstock for weapons production, but had not used it for that purpose. NPguy (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A few points of clarification. The text you removed said nothing about the yellowcake being a secret stash. Nor did the text you remove claim that yellowcake is the step before a nuclear weapon. You are adding issues to this discussion which I did not add. You also seem to be excluding the dirty bomb potential of the associated radioactive material but that is not why it is important to include the Associated Press source. It is important because it is apparently false to assert that Iraq had no raw materials for WMD production. That is where the Wiki text currently leaves a reader because you are removing a legitimate source of information for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits essentially said that no WMD were found until 550 tons of yellowcake were removed. That implies that the yellowcake was both "found" and "WMD." It was neither. End of story. NPguy (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it read that way thanks for the feedback. What the associated press re-teaches is that Iraq had WMD material. From what I'm reading and the source you provided it suggests that the IAEA may not have known the exact amount of WMD material at Tuwaitha but there is no need to make that stretch. Further, that material, if you research, could be used in a dirty bomb but there is no need to make that stretch either. But here is the simple truth before you. The AP source reaffirms that Iraq did have WMD material; known or unknown it not the point. The reader of this entry on WMD should know that and if not, this section of the site is imbalanced. Not the end of the story by a long shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The IAEA has made clear that the yellowcake removed was precisely the declared yellowcake stored at Tuwaitha. Though a bomb containing yellowcake would cause contamination requiring cleanup, such a device would barely qualify as a dirty bomb and certainly not as a weapon of mass destruction. And though it can be used as feed material to produce fissile material - and this was why Iraq acquired it - the process is lengthy and demanding. Yellowcake itself is not "WMD material." In the immediate aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was required to eliminate material and equipment of high concern for WMD. This yellowcake was well known at the time. The UN could have decided to remove it from the country, but chose instead to place it under seal. NPguy (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, two counter-points and an attempt to help you see the main point again. First, you authoritatively state yellowcake would "barely qualify" as a dirty bomb but it is not clear what standard you are using since the AP article states the following. "Exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say. "The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine". Second, the AP article notes there is "remaining radioactive debris" at Tuwaitha. I'm not sure if you've been on the ground (I leave that possibility open) but unless you have a source to back up your point, the AP article reads like there is other material there that is radiological (waste I assume). But if we are actually reasoning together you will see that is not my main point about why we should post the AP article. The AP source reaffirms that Iraq did have WMD material; known or unknown it not the point. You claim yellowcake is not WMD material but the Canadians bought it to make nuclear energy so your definition of WMD material seems personal. The reader of this entry on WMD should know that Iraq had this material and if not, this section of the site is imbalanced. That is my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.219.216 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The uranium mentioned is not a WMD. It is WP:OR to claim otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed but that is not the claim. The AP source informs that there was WMD material in Iraq. If we don't accept reasonable sources about WMD material in this section it is imbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Still WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yellowcake is not WMD material either. NPguy (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked up OR and it states "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." I'm unsure why you regard the Associated Press as an unreliable source. Regarding the definition of WMD material, this discussion would benefit from a definition from a source. Since yellowcake is both a step toward the production of uranium fuel and associated with radiological byproducts that can be used in other ways, I'm unclear why that does not meet your definition for potential WMD material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You've not provided sources supporting your viewpoint, hence WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion so far has not provided any sources for a distinction that's been around since the U. S. Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Here's the distinction made in that law:

Sec. 5(a)(1): DEFINITION.-As used in this Act, the term "fissionable material" means plutonium, uranium enriched in the isotope 235, any other material which the Commission determines to be capable of releasing substantial quantities of energy through nuclear chain reaction of the material, or any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing; but does not include source materials...

Sec. 5(b)(1): DEFINITION.-As used in this Act, the term "source material" means uranium, thorium, or any other material which is determined by the Commission, with the approval of the President, to be peculiarly essential to the production of fissionable materials, but includes ores only if they contain one or more of the foregoing materials in such concentration as the Commission may by regulation determine from time to time.

More recent refinements of those definitions are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (10 C.F.R., 40.4):

Source Material means: (1) Uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form or (2) ores which contain by weight one-twentieth of one percent (0.05%) or more of: (i) Uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) any combination thereof. Source material does not include special nuclear material.

Special nuclear material means: (1) Plutonium, uranium 233, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of section 51 of the Act, determines to be special nuclear material; or (2) any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing.

It is quite clear from these texts that Yellowcake is not the fissionable material of the 1946 Act or Special nuclear material of the more recent regulation, but is clearly a source material of more than 0.05% Uranium. This distinction seems relevant to any discussion of WMD material. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I found similar IAEA definitions on a British government web page. Their similarity to the definitions in the 1946 US Atomic Energy Act indicates the international acceptance of this standard:

Source Material Uranium containing the mixture of isotopes occurring in nature; uranium depleted in the isotope 235; thorium; any of the foregoing in the form of metal, alloy, chemical compound, or concentrate; any other material containing one of more of the foregoing in such concentration as the IAEA Board of Governors shall from time to time determine; and such other material as the Board of Governors shall from time to time determine. The Euratom definition of source material is identical.

Special Fissionable Material (or Special Fissile Material) Plutonium-239; uranium-233; uranium enriched in the isotopes 235 or 233; any material containing one or more of the foregoing; and such other fissionable material as the IAEA Board of Governors shall from time to time determine. The term ‘special fissionable material’ does not include source material. The Euratom definition of special fissile material is identical, apart from the addition of ores/ore wastes to the exclusions.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RonZ regarding WP:OR here is my source that was removed incase you did not see it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ . Mr. McCluskey, thank you for such clear sources regarding our WMD material definition discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Maykish (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War and the War against Terrorism

In 1990 and during the 1991 Gulf War, WMD was resurrected and used widely by members of the Clinton Administration, including Madeleine Albright, Samuel Berger and William Cohen,[4] by other western politicians and by the media.

Interesting claim. Cited even? The simple fact is the Clinton administration WAS NOT IN OFFICE in 1990/1991. The claims that the terms were used by the Clinton administration in 1990/91 is absolutely bogus right wing propaganda AS THERE WAS NO CLINTON ADMINISTRATION in 90/91. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, along with a whole lot of other shit... but the article still needs a tremendous amount of work.--Father Goose (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering: do something like kamikaze planes fall within WMD .. or weapons of mass terror? The WTC attacks pretty much fall into the initial definition in this article, as causing mass damage to structures and human life on a scale disproportionate to the size of the attack. =8)-DX —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dresden

I reverted the addition of a reference to the firebombing of Dresden. It does not fit the definition of WMD used in this article (nuclear, chemical, biological and maybe radiological).

Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to adding a discussion of what might be considered WMD. it's just that this offhand and misplaced phrase is not the way to do it. A history of firebombing ought to include other examples besides Dresden (e.g., Coventry, Hamburg, Tokyo and other Japanese cities). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented only 2% of the explosive destruction of WWII. NPguy (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific information

An editor is placing specific information about yellow cake being found in Iraq into this article. One other editor and I have removed this information. I believe it is not appropriate information for this article. It appears to be a coatrack for the information. This article should be used to further the understanding of WMD, not to continue the arguement that the Iraq war was or was not justified. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The information also happens to be both inaccurate and irrelevant. There is an erroneous claim that 550 tons of processed uranium ore ("yellowcake") were recently "discovered" and secretly removed from Iraq. The yellowcake was not discovered but had been under IAEA seal since the early 1990s. It is not WMD but one of the most basic feedstocks for a nuclear program. It was not removed earlier because of its relatively low significance. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Has that editor been reprimanded about inserting the information? I noticed that it has been put on and off several times. He only had a uw-test warning, and those 550 tons were already discussed in one of the above threads. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New Military Definition Inbound

The new JP 3-40 Combating WMD (CWMD) will change the JP 1-02 definition for WMD. The term will no longer cover high-yield explosives. This page's Joint Publication quote should be updated when JP 3-40 CWMD is signed.

The reason for the change is that the National Military Strategy for CWMD does not address high-yield explosives. Kevin CBRN Defense (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The military definition has been updated, as well as the reference link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavsnarp (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bioweapons as nuclear replacement

Perhaps it can be described that strategic long-range missiles (eg low cost ones as those of Bruce Simpson) with bioweapons (eg Botulism, Anthrax, Lassa fever, cheap neurotoxins (which is concentrated) extracted from eg Botulism bacteria, ...) aimed at some 150m? just above large cities can serve as a replacement for nuclear weapons. Reason to include this (probably very insensitive remark for the peace-community) would be in order to presevere life (silly enough). This as it allows the nuclear material from the nuclear weapons to be reused for nuclear energy facilities. This would make a jump possible to lower co² emissions of energy production (if more nuclear plants are built). The resulting lower amount of environmental disasters will decrease mortility (as weapons of mass destruction are never used anyhow, but environmental disasters do occur). Extracted neurotoxins instead of bacteria may decrease cost further as they may require less maintenance (and are more humane than true bacteria aswell as nuclear weapons; which kill or may kill slowly). Biological weapons can also be incinerated quickly when the facility is at risk of being hijacked (especially an advantage eg for Pakistan). It would also decrease the costs of maintaining a (small/reduced) arsenal of WMD-weapons. Also, bioweapons are non-hazardoes to the planet; a nuclear war would eradicate the planet due to dust and its resulting solar shielding where a biological one would not.

Perhaps these arguments can be mentioned in article or comparisation table between biological and nuclear weapons can be given—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.185.80 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.188.188 (talk)

Request for comments on edit

I propose changing the text in the text from:

The first use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" on record is from The Times (London) in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

“ Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction? ”

to

The first use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" on record is from The Times (London) in 1937 in reference to the aerial |bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

“ Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction? ”

Any comments? Opposition? Please let me know. Kushal (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Superweapons

Why was a whole section on "superweapons" added to this article? I think it is a bad fit. It consists of weapons considered impressive in their day and fictional weapons. They do not have significant substantive overlap with the main subject of this article. NPguy (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does not belong. It is outside what I believe to be the scope of this article. I have removed it and it should be discussed to get consensus before anyone reinserts it. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Countries Possessing WMD

This section doesn't even try to discuss which countries possess WMDs! Per the intro:

the term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and radiological weapons. Additional terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical warfare (ABC) and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) warfare.

This section discusses nukes only! what about biological chemical, radiological, etc? --RhoOphuichi (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Automobiles?

What about automobiles, aren't they Weapons of Mass Destruction? Pollution of air, water, soil, noise, light, heat pollution is mostly caused by automobiles, isn't it? And crashes kill almost 50,000 people in US alone every year. Stars4change (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying cancer is a weapon of mass destruction. Accidental car crashes is not something that can be wielded or directed, unlike actual weapons. Any other bright ideas? 68.84.6.98 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The car is designed to be as safe as possible; the nuclear weapons is designed to be as destructive as possible. Fatal car accidents are an unintended consequence; total destruction of a city was/is the intended consequence of nuclear weapons. (One unintended consequence is nuclear famine/winter, which means everyone, even those who possess nuclear weapons, are vulnerable to the global consequences of use by any possessor. Deterrence does not help deter others.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Tovish (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WMD is a term in search of a definition

Unless somebody improves the definition of WMD (and I don't see who in the world could adequately do so), I think Wikipedia makes too much of the term. A minimal history of the term might be worthwhile and a brief discussion of the need for better definition. Two paragraphs tops.

I ascribe little significance to the term on the following grounds:

1) how big is necessary for a weapon's effects to be called "mass destruction"? a qualitative definition is useless. a quantitative definition is time-dependent. dynamite was a WMD when it was first discovered.

2) combining nuclear, chemical and biological weapons under WMD is a conceptual nightmare. for example, when has mass destruction been demonstrated with biological weapons? missile delivery seems problematic. similar problems with chemical weapons. how many people can be killed with an existing chemical weapon? is it different from a conventional explosive in terms of destructive power?

3) the term is emotionally loaded in the wrong way. instead of inspiring fear of these weapons, which I would count as a good thing, the emotional baggage is all about bad intelligence, possible lying, and an error in judgement that led to a war being started on false premises.

I think the term is best buried for 50 years or so. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of term in JFK's televised speech of 1962-10-22

As he revealed the Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy made reference early on to "offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction", but whose usage informed his use of that terminology is unclear. knoodelhed (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Was the phrase already widespread after first use in 1946?

I only ask because in an pamphlet on Film Music published in 1947, The Need for Competent Film Music Criticism, the musician, critic and broadcaster Hans Keller used the phrase 'film music is capable of becoming a weapon of musical mass destruction', which can hardly be a coincidence. Cenedi (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Application to small improvised explosive devices

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's Grand Jury indictment reported at BBC News includes 'attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction'. As far as I know, he was attempting to use a small improvised explosive device, possibly the equivalent of a couple of hand grenades. Surely if any explosive device capable of bring down a civil airliner is a WMD, then this extends the classification to include every anti aircraft missile, which is imo plain stupid. I think the term is being applied so ridiculously that it's ceasing to have any meaning. Should the entry comment on the application of the term to such weapons that would not normally be considered as true WMD? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You've put your finger on an interesting extension of the term that's been troubling me for some time; it comes from the United States Code.

118 U.S.C. § 2332a : US Code - Section 2332A: Use of weapons of mass destruction spells out the penalties for "A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction"

It then defines some terms as follows:

"(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...."

All this is pretty much in line with the discussion in this article until we turn to 18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code - Section 921: Definitions, which defines destructive device as follows:

"(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...."

It looks as if US criminal law defines any bomb or grenade as a weapon of mass destruction, which explains the charges against Abdulmutallab, and the similar charges against Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. I agree that this significant extension belongs in the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that these references are cited several times in the article, although not clearly. There is special need for some editing to tidy up the strange section entitled "Note:" that quotes the USC and was first inserted about two years ago. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently "weapon of mass destruction" now also applies to IEDs made out of pressure cookers, seeing that the Boston Marathon bomber is charged with using a “weapon of mass destruction”.

- This bending of the definition is interesting because the Americans have now used the term "WMD" for their reason for going into Iraq, with it being well known that no WMD were found (despite reports of IEDs going off all the time), and now for their reason for sentencing someone who set off a non-nuclear, non-chemical, reasonably small explosive. Could they now claim that they did find WMD in Iraq? If a firework lands in children's hospital is it considered a WMD?

Off topic: According to this definition there actually were WMDs in Iraq as there were a lot of IEDs (i.e. weapons of mass destruction") /off topic.--Soylentyellow (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal Definitions

I've provided several different definitions of WMD from the US Code. Similar examples from the legislation of other countries are needed to obtain a broader perspective. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the definition of WMD in the US code entries cited. RichardLetts (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What about stories like http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/article_bce53c4c-d7ea-5d6f-a030-9455f8f2a68c.html or http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2002/unpub/010651-1.htm where a Molotov cocktail is as an incendiary device is a WMD. Drf5n (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

unlisted countries; comparision table

Currently the "by country" part has countries with current WMDs (announced or alleged); no WMDs, but past WMD programs (announced or alleged); no WMDs, but current WMD programs (announced or alleged); no WMDs, but having such in the past. I am not sure if the template is the right place to separate these groups, but maybe some table (like that here) could be added to the main WMD article.

Regardless, if we keep the "by country" part of the template as a single list without separations there are some issues:

• Ukraine, Swedish, Saudi Arabia, Libya link only to respective country nuclear weapons article instead of country-name general WMD article, where Libya also had other programs (Biological, Chemical) and Ukraine has long range missile/space launch capabilities
• missing from the template, but Biological: Egypt, Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, South Korea; Vozrozhdeniya (former Soviet site currently in Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan)
• missing from the template, but Chemical: Egypt, Libya, Vietnam, Serbia (Yugoslavia and weapons of mass destruction), Sudan
• missing from the template, but Nuclear: Spain, Switzerland, Belarus, Kazakhstan; plus the Nuclear capable states without current/past WMD programs
• I assume that country-name general WMD articles cover all related issues (nuclear, biological, chemical; missiles/indivisible means of delivery), but I haven't checked them all.

That's why I added the lists at the bottom of the "by country" part, but maybe we should make individual entries for these that are currently missing (especially Libya, Egypt, Vietnam that fall into more than one category).

About the general WMD table here is one proposal:

Nation	Nuclear	Chemical	Biological	Missiles >150km
United States	Current, Acknowledged	Current, Acknowledged	Current, Acknowledged	Current, Acknowledged
Russia	Current, Acknowledged	Current, Acknowledged	Current, Acknowledged	Current, Acknowledged
Libya	Past program, Acknowledged	Past, Acknowledged	Past, Alleged	?
South Africa	Past, Acknowledged	Past program, Alleged	Past program, Alleged	Past program, Acknowledged

plus color coding for: current possessing, current program, past possessing, past program; and/or acknowledged/alleged/technical possibility (maybe one of current/past/program and acknowledged/alleged/capable should be as text and the other as color coding).

Similar table could be made for participation in the Arms control conventions (IAEA/NPT/CTBT, CWC, BWC) and export control groups (nuclear, chemical/biological, missiles).

See also here. Alinor (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Janet Reno's definition?

Janet Reno said:

(...)there are new criminals out there who do not have guns. They have computers, and they may have other weapons of mass destruction. The use of weapons of mass destruction or cyber attacks on infrastructures that could lead to events like power outages or telecommunications breakdowns are not hypothetical. They are not speculative. They can happen.

source: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ag_nipc.htm

What is her definition of WMD? is it in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.168.111 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This would actually be a good addition for the article since it's not all with nukes that people can destroy each other. A Weapon of Mass Destruction is meant to cause massive damage, and cyber warfare should probably fit in here. 79.112.55.97 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

N-gram?

Would this article benefit from a Google N-gram of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.180.99 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Use by Reagan in 1977

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but at approximately 2:00 into this clip of Reagan speaking during a Dean Martin Celebrity Roast TV special, Reagan uses the term "weapons of mass destruction" in the context of a joke.[2] 68.146.80.110 (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"WMD use, possesion and access" category.

The "WMD use, possesion and access" category only on nuclear warfare and does not point out radiological, biological, or chemical warfare. 79.112.55.97 (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Change to the Russian transliteration

I don't know if it's worth noting, but in case someone was wondering I made the change to "Оружие массового поражения" – oruzhiye massovovo porazheniya which originally said massovogo. If you are transliterating the Cyrillic alphabet letter-for-letter into the Roman alphabet, that might be correct, the г does typically make the G sound. In the Russian language, however, the -ого ending is indicative of the genitive case for an adjective and is pronounced like -ovo. As an FNG, I just wanted to document this so no one thought some moron was doing this for no reason.

Thanks for letting us know indeed. I don't know anything about cyrillic, but found this page: Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian, which suggests to use the g anyway (propably as consistency trumps the quality of the pronunciation). L.tak (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage

I am considering moving most of the Media coverage section over to the article on Iraq and WMD. Almost all of the section deals with media presentation of the WMD "threat" prior to 2003 and the coverage of the WMD in Iraq (or lack thereof) afterwords. Very little is about WMD in other countries. It would make sense to move it, if that is OK with everyone.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Plural of WMD

Unlike say RBI and POW, for whatever reason there seems to be a common insistence in American media to pluralize WMD as if it's some sort of unique category of abbreviation. According to most style guides from Hart's Rules to Wikipedia (WP:ACRO), an s is simply added to the end of an acronym to make it plural. Because of this perceived special case for WMD, this article contains both usages which is not very encyclopedic. Since 'WMDs' is apparently a point of contention for some I thought I'd bring it up before editing the article. There are many articles on the subject, for instance No Plural Shifting Term and Word Court. AveVeritas (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason "WMDs" appears incorrect is that the term is almost always used in its plural form. Common usages have the form "Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction" or "Iran is suspected of pursuing weapons of mass destruction." It is far less common to see "A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction." Although this is true for nuclear weapons (a single one can cause massive destruction) it is generally not true of other forms of WMD (a single chemical shell or biological agent dispenser generally does not). That is, the "mass destruction" generally comes from multiple weapons, not a single one. NPguy (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that addresses the issue of whether or not to add an 's' to pluralize the acronym. There are many examples of acronyms that are commonly plural and they generally end in 's'. The US military uses them all the time; POWs, MREs, MPs, and GIs to name a few. Most style guides and linguistic scholars note that an acronym is a word in and of itself, and should be treated as such. AveVeritas (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't really comparable, because they are also commonly used in the singular form. WMD is not. NPguy (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that this article is titled "Weapon of mass destruction", my point was that it's considered proper writing style to always put an 's' on the end of a plural acronym, according to every source I've seen including Wikipedia's style guide. If there's a published rule excepting terms that are 'almost always plural', I think it'd be in this article's best interest if that was referenced here, since right now both versions are used. AveVeritas (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)