Brice, et al,

> 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.

Yeah, like a jet plane?

I reiterate that I was trying to have the people who are arguing
about weapons of mass destruction define what they were
arguing about.  My personal definition of the term is irrelavant
because I am not arguing about weapons of mass destruction.
I included it because I consider the ammonium/nitrate "bomb"
described in an earlier post which blew a plume of smoke
10,000 feet in the air, would be something I would cover in
any definition I made of the term.

Having said that...

I am not forming an opinion.  I am not making a stand.  I am
not choosing a side.  I am not in the debate whatever the debate
is about.  I really, truly, and sincerely, AM NOT!

This all started because I couldn't figure out what the argument
was because statements made by persons on this list caused
me to wonder if they had the same idea in their heads as to
what a WMD is.  I don't remember the statements.  I don't
remember the persons.

If I promise to keep the acronym "WMD" out of any of my
future posts, will those interested in debating about weapons
of mass destruction please stop debating with me as to whether
or not I was debating when I asked what people were debating
about?

If you don't like the definition I extracted from Cortlandt's post,
take it up with him.  If you don't like my personal definition of
the term, feel free to rewrite it and pretend that I've taken it
to heart.

Back to my java script, but I do take exception to your taking
exception to my debating whether or not I was debating.

Rs~


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brice Yokem" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 12:39 PM
Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: WMD again and a bit of a rant


> Russ -
>
>
> 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 *
>

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