Russ -

I have to take exception to your definitions, as they are not clear enough,
since they encompass devices which you and I both know are not WMD's.

Here are some examples -

My personal definition of the english words "weapon of mass destruction"
would encompass ANYTHING capable of throwing something 10,000 feet
in the air.

That makes the space shuttle a WMD.

A 16in Gun might also qualify, also some seige peices.  These existed
before the A-bomb.

Also -

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

Nope.

There are tactical Nukes which have less exposive power than many chemical
explosive based bombs, including some bombs which existed before 1945.

Many people want to try to define TNT as a member of the NBC group, since
it is a 'chemical'.

Also biological research specimens can qualify as 'biological weapons'.

Insecticide is a 'nerve gas'.

Industrial chemicals are poisonous chemicals and thus a 'chemical weapon'.

This might seem ridiculous, but there are people in this discussion who
try to define WMD or NBC or ABC to encompass as much as possible in an
attempt make difficult to say what someone opposing them wants to say.
This is similar to the concept of an 'unword' as used in the 1984 story.
I know what a WMD is, and you know what it is, defining it is the issue.

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