So, whether or not a weapon is one of mass destruction is, then, to be based
on what?

- the number of people killed/injured initially?
- the number of people expected to be harmed/killed eventually as a result
of its initial use?
- the amount of damage caused to the location of initial use?
- the time necessary to make the site of its use "reusable"?
- the likelyhood of its use having secondary effects (winds/genetics
delivering additional damage)?

In all these discussions, were I pressed, I would have defined a WMD
generally as one which does damage to a large group of people.  I recognize
that a hand grenade could qualify under that definition, and by today's
standards, or in these discussions, it would not count; but the fact remains
that using a hand grenade (unlike firing a pistol or throwing a knife) can
in a single stroke kill a large group of people.

Is there a set number of people who must be killed by the use of a weapon
for it to be given the WMD monicher?

To quote Denys: "there are enough military types on this list" for me to
expect some simplistic distinction.

Rs~

Russ Smith
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not meant to reflect
those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is intended solely for
the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.  Your mileage
may vary.  Look both ways and hold hands when you cross the street.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *