Russ,

>What I believe a weapon of mass destruction to be and what the President
>believes a weapon of mass destruction to be and what the UN inspectors
>believe a weapon of mass destruction to be are ALL DIFFERENT THINGS.

I could define green eggs and span a WMD so I guess you can define it anyway
you want.

I don't recall a significant difference between Bush and UN inspectors over
what counts as WMD.

> I am not "ignorant of the meaning" of the phrase.
> In fact, since there seems to be no textbook definition, my
> connotation of the word is the most valid
>one to me and therefore *is* the meaning.

Why let a textbook get in the way?  (I'm half serious)

So how many textbook definitions would you need to see?   I suspect that a
search of a university library could come up them.

A search of the internet shows me that international agencies, treaties, and
international, national, and regional government laws define WMD.  Military
forces also employ definitions of WMD which closely match the legal ones.
The definitions seem to be fairly consistent.   In law and treaty there
seems to be a general pattern of definition.  It appears to me that you
still claim ignorance of this general usage.
(I used the search: weapon mass destruction define definition)

For example:
Traditionally, WMD have included nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Missiles are
often added to this list, due to their effectiveness at creating terror,
even if they may not be militarily effective without WMD warheads. Since
1987, the Missile Technology and Control Regime has sought to prevent
proliferation of missiles capable of delivering WMD over theater ranges.
Basic research programs that do not result in weapons are not considered
proliferation, although such “dual-use” programs are problematic, due to
their utility in creating a covert WMD capability.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/99-014.pdf

A Urban Emergency Management project defines WMD for their purposes as:
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
 1. A classification that includes all nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons/agents, and radiological dispersal devices (US Army Field Manual).
 2. Any device, material, or substance used in a manner, in a quantity or
type, or under circumstances evidencing an intent to cause death or serious
injury to persons or significant damage of property. (Landesman definition).
(It appears to me that the second definition would be mostly relevant to a
terrorist use rather than to a weapon in a military arsenal.)
http://www.ben.edu/semp/htmlpages/glossaryw1.html

There are those who suggest:
"light weapons, such as land mines and hand weapons, are now
deployed/available in such quantities that they add up to weapons of mass
destruction."

When a definition becomes so expanded that it covers nearly everything it
loses it's value so most people tend to resist excessive expansion.  The
comment above makes sense only when all the weapons are considered in
aggregate which complicates such definitions.   Even the author of that
comment doesn't so far claim that a single rifle or land mine is a WMD.
Sure I can see the point but I don't think its a good basis for a useful
definition.   It seems to me that people who push such ideas as serious
definitions don't help to advance their cause.

Having some imprecision at the edges in not all unusual.   One can always
challenge the definition of terms like war, terrorism, religion, and law.
Such imprecision often invites what I would call crass and sophomoric
manipulation.

>I believe that something that can kill "a group of people" (let's grab the
>number ten out of the air) may not be a weapon of mass destruction; but
something
>which can cause the level of damage which accompanies a plume of smoke
>rising 10,000 feet in the air DOES qualify.

I think the "plume test" is a rather rough approximation but I'll assume
that I understand where you are going with it.  It would seem that burning
oil in a trench as has been done around Baghdad could qualify under the plum
e test as a WMD.   (Does anyone know why US briefers keep referring to this?
Other than the air pollution I don't get the harm in this)

As I recall one key consideration is the element of indiscriminate killing.
NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) are indiscriminate because
the spread of the effects are nearly impossible to control.   The long term
effects of radio active fallout for instance is also relevant.

A cruise missile has a 1,000 lb warhead which is certainly capable of a lot
of damage.   I would assume that a air burst over a dusty area would be
capable of raising quite a plume of dust.   Dust in this case rather than
smoke.  Yet the use of cruise missiles in Iraq clearly don't have the
indiscriminate effect even of a nuclear bomb of the same yield.

I am aware that some people want to define all large explosives as WMD so
they can then charge that the US uses WMD, is no better than Saddam, etc.
I regard that kind of thing, that kind of sophomoric moral equivalency
reprehensible.  I feel fairly sure that most of us are aware that these
arguments are out there.  Frankly when I read your comments all kind of
alarms go off in my mind.  I don't know where you are going with your
personal definitions but in general, please no pretense of ignorance of this
argument either.

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of Russ Smith
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:50 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: War again and a bit of a rant
>
>
>Cortlandt wrote:
>
>> Some on this list seem to claim ignorance of what WMD means.   This is my
>> bias but I find it hard to believe that someone interested in peace would
>be
>> ignorant of it's meaning.
>
>
>Since I am the person who posted the query to the list for a definition of
>the
>phrase, I will respond:
>
>What I believe a weapon of mass destruction to be and what the President
>believes a weapon of mass destruction to be and what the UN inspectors
>believe a weapon of mass destruction to be are ALL DIFFERENT THINGS.
>
>I believe that something that can kill "a group of people" (let's grab the
>number
>ten out of the air) may not be a weapon of mass destruction; but something
>which can cause the level of damage which accompanies a plume of smoke
>rising 10,000 feet in the air DOES qualify.
>
>The website you included lists nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,
>and the general category "missiles".  There is no mention of conventional
>weapons capable of destroying city blocks and killing thousands of people;
>and in the debates of our current sociopolitical climate, "they don't
>count";
>but I believe they are weapons of mass destruction.
>
>I am not "ignorant of the meaning" of the phrase.  In fact, since there
>seems
>to be no textbook definition, my connotation of the word is the most valid
>one to me and therefor *is* the meaning.  Whether or not I am interested
>in peace has nothing to do with it.
>
>Further, from the range of posts that followed my query, I would say that
>there are many others on the list who also have their own meaning for the
>phrase.  I was merely the one who pointed out there seemed not to be a
>standard definition.
>
>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 *

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