Talk:weapon of mass destruction

I realize that the definition I've given is, at the very least, on the hairy edge of NPOV, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. WMD is certainly idiomatic — I don't believe I've ever seen it used to mean massively destructive weapons in general. In contemporary American accounts it invariably (or nearly invariably) means biological, checmical or nuclear weapons, and I believe I've heard the BBC use it the same way.

Here are the data points as far as I can make them out:

• Any nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapon held by an unfriendly power is a WMD.
• "Daisy cutters" and such, while massively destructive by design, are not WMD.
• I have not seen the American nuclear arsenal described as WMD. Take your pick whether this is because they're not considered WMD or because no one wants to mention it.
• Other incidents involving chemical or nuclear agents are routinely mentioned in the context of WMD, regardless of the number of casualties sustained.

So it's clear that the tag WMD is not to be taken literally, but according to convention. I believe I have documented that convention accurately, but there is probably a better way to phrase it. -dmh 21:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basically a WMD weapon is a weapon that isn't a chemical explosive. It is more or less specifically referring to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. If you're a futurist, some other weapons (nano) might get thrown in. Which is sort of arbitrary. The firebombings of Tokyo were probably more destructive then a large chemical attack could hope to be. But them be the rules. True, Bush doesn't go around calling out nuclear stockpile WMDs. But je wouldn't disagree with that statement. I'm going to pull up Lexis and/or Google and see if I can't find a counterexample to your assertion that the New World Order can't have WMDs. --Eean 07:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not asserting that the New World Order can't have WMDs, or even that no one has used the term that way. I really would like to capture that there is a mainstream, non-literal usage which is narrowly defined. If there is a sizable body of other usages, we should add a second sense. If it's restricted to editorials arguing that the term should apply to our own weapons, I would actually take that as evidence that it doesn't. -dmh 15:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right... I'll be short and sweet on this one.

If a WMD is classified as biological, nuclear, or chemical regardless of destructive capability, I have WMD's all over my house. Like for example, my bottle of ant killer, or the radio active stuff that makes the little hands on my clock glow. Or maybe just the fact that I'm sick makes me a WMD myself. Heck! For that matter, I emit radiation. We all emit radiation. Therefore, we should all go and put ourselves in lead suits, right?

How about we leave it as I changed it?