Cortlandt,

I've been swamped and had not been able to finish my reply until
this morning.

On April 05, you wrote:

> Russ,
>
> >At any rate, I am sticking to the position that you cannot argue a point
if
> >the subject of the argument is not understood by all participants.
>
> Of course but this problem is easily solved.  One only needs to define
one's
> terms.   The problem can be made to disappear so I don't see this is a
> barrier to serious people.

Exactly, we can decide on a definition then continue with the debate.

My personal definition of the english words "weapon of mass destruction"
would encompass ANYTHING capable of throwing something 10,000 feet
in the air.  [Please don't make me get out my old physics book to calculate
how much energy it takes to propel a one pound item up to the 10,000 foot
mark.  Instead, suffice it to say that I would not want me or anyone I love
to be anywhere near its point of detonation.]

But, I was not trying to "inflict" my definition on others.  I was asking
what the definition of the term was/is.

> I have watched this "how can we have a
> discussion when we don't know what a WMD is" line used by people who are
> losing an argument even though they previously put up a spirited argument
of
> their position about WMD.

a) I know you don't mean me, personally.  Rather, you are just noting that
in other venues you have seen people arguing some point about WMD
give up their arguments in favor of attacking the term.  Since (and feel
free to
check the archives) my only participation in the discussion has been to ask
(and then defend my asking the question) "what is a WMD", I can't be said
to have abandoned my argument in favor of this diversionary tactic.

b) If person A is arguing for X, and person B is arguing against X, and
at some point during the argument, Person A starts to suspect that
Person B is actually arguing against Z, not against X...  If Person A
asks "what do you think X is?", why would you think Person A was
losing the argument?  Admittedly, if you think person A is arguing in
favor of Z and Person A thinks he is arguing in favor of X, then your
assessment of his position and the strength of his argument would
be skewed, and it might appear as though he were losing the debate.

> > I found links to various "official" sites
> >with definitions that match some of your post to a tee, and others which
> >contradicted your post word for word.
>
> So where are the URLs for these sites?

On the google search page for "weapons mass destruction definition".

Do you need me to quote them?  My point, identical to yours, was that
the sites provided different definitions for the term.  And while all had
common threads, there were differences and extremes could be shown
to exist.  As an example, I then linked to ONE of the sites, saying....

> >http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/019.htm
> >is a link to a site which describes a WMD in such a way that most weapons
> >could be counted.
>
> I earlier noted that such definitions would be mostly relevant to a
> terrorist use rather than to a weapon in a military arsenal.   In other
> words domestic laws designed for protection against terrorism or rouge
> criminal use define WMD more widely than does the US military, the UN, and
> NATO.  In fact the URL you site is one of a collection of pages of
> background material for a debate on the subject of WMD.
> http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/toc.htm
> The page you site is for broad definitions.   All but one of the broad
> definition come from state laws and all relate to domestic security rather
> than international relations.
>
> There is also a page for narrow definitions which is the traditional
> nuclear, chemical, biological one.   The US Department of Defense, NATO,
and
> the UN WMD body follow the traditional definition.
>
> The glossary for this debate defines WMD in the traditional way:
> "WMD weapons of mass destruction: Nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons;
> sometimes called ABC or NBC weapons for atomic or nuclear and biological
and
> chemical weapons."
> http://debate.uvm.edu/handbookfile/WMD2002/011.htm
>
> After looking at these references and others it still seems to me that a
> educated person should know the traditional definition of WMD.

Would a person asking the question "what is the definition of X" to a
person or group arguing about X be considered a person attempting to
educate themselves?  Or possibly be a person trying to better understand
what is being argued since to his ear there didn't seem to be any real
debate going on?

> While it is
> recognized that there can be other definitions especially for purposes
other
> than international relations

Meaning that there are multiple definitions of the term, and that a
spectator to the debate might be interested in knowing how the persons
conducting the debate had defined it.  Possibly that person should ASK A
QUESTION like "What is item X?".

> ... I do not believe one can consider him or her
> self as a informed person without understanding this.

Um, yeah.

> All that said the term NBC -- nuclear, chemical, biological -- is
certainly
> more clear and precise.

Actually, I would say that switching from WMD to NBC would be a perfect
answer to my original question about what is a WMD.  To wit:

"For the purposes of this discussion, a weapon of mass destruction shall
be defined as a Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapon".

Thank you for answering my question.  Feel free to argue whatever it
was you were arguing about them.

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 *