www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:Both Biological and Chemical weapons are considered WMDs by the US government and included in the definition of "weapon of mass destruction" the vast majority of the time.

I don't give a damn what the US government calls them - I'm talking about what they actually are (or aren't, as the case may be).

Well given that we're discussing US government policy we should probably rely on the definitions it uses for terms.

Tyyr wrote:Well given that we're discussing US government policy we should probably rely on the definitions it uses for terms.

Why, when those terms are demonstrably inaccurate? Especially given that the new policy does not, as far as I'm aware, mention the term "WMD".

The very phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was practically coined to put chemical and biological weapons in with nukes. Most any definition you find of the term anywhere puts them all together; wikipedia does, for instance. It's also how most people understand and use the term.

I have to agree with Tyyr and GK on this one. Factual interpretation of wheter or not B/C warfare weapons actually cause mass destruction is somewhat tangential. The very term WMD was coined in order to include those weapons.

They probably figured that Weapons of Mass Destruction sounded terrifying enough, but not as silly as something like Weapons that'll fuck up a bunch of people really bad.

Lighthawk wrote:They probably figured that Weapons of Mass Destruction sounded terrifying enough, but not as silly as something like Weapons that'll f**k up a bunch of people really bad.

They should have it renamed by the Dept. of Homeland Security - we could just call them "aquamarine weapons."

GrahamKennedy wrote:The very phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was practically coined to put chemical and biological weapons in with nukes. Most any definition you find of the term anywhere puts them all together; wikipedia does, for instance. It's also how most people understand and use the term.

Mikey wrote:I have to agree with Tyyr and GK on this one. Factual interpretation of wheter or not B/C warfare weapons actually cause mass destruction is somewhat tangential. The very term WMD was coined in order to include those weapons.

If you want a collective term then NBC(R) or CBRN work fine. They're almost as common and far more accurate.

Lighthawk wrote:They probably figured that Weapons of Mass Destruction sounded terrifying enough, but not as silly as something like Weapons that'll f**k up a bunch of people really bad.

Yeah and salt the Earth for a hundred years afterwards.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Lighthawk wrote:They probably figured that Weapons of Mass Destruction sounded terrifying enough, but not as silly as something like Weapons that'll f**k up a bunch of people really bad.

Yeah and salt the Earth for a hundred years afterwards.

Ah yes, the salting of the earth. The original giant middle finger of warfare.

Modern persistent agents are basically an extension of that concept. Though I disagree with lumping BC weapons into WMD's, I get why it happens.