What are Weapons of Mass Destruction
 

I came across something quite interesting, quite by chance... ok, I'll admit I was reading Fox News and they referred to a rocket launcher of some variety as a WMD.

United States Code, Title 18, Part I covers off crimes. Specifically, Chapter 113B details terrorism. Section 2332a covers "Use of certain weapons of mass destruction".

(B), (C) and (D) are pretty straightforward - but what is (A). From Section 921:

Err, is it just me or is that an awfully wide definition? I'm sure that being at war gets around it too ("without lawfully authority"), but the way I read that it would apply to (for instance) a US citizen outside the US who lobbed a grenade (eg a mercenary).

It just seems silly.

WMD? bovine flatulence

but seriously. broad-based rules like these are de rigeur in the legal field. it does make it a bit difficult to make cogent arguments to support one's position one way or another, as they can be just as easily countered by the other side. I suppose that's how we keep ourselves fed ;)

WMD ? .... The stuff that we have in someone elses hands.

hey, hasn't the US just in the past 2 years used WMDs to kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq under the W administration?

goes to show you who has the WMDs and who's using them.

:rolleyes:

Cam,

You can call our laws "silly" all day long, but I don't think it's much of a leap of logic or military reality to call an explosive bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine or other weapon meeting those criteria a "weapon of mass destruction." What is NOT listed there are small arms, etc. that generally have the potential to kill a SINGLE individual per use.

Bush-hating fanatic lobs a hand grenade into a crowd. WMD? Bush-hating fanatic throws an improvised pipe bomb into the schoolyard. WMD? Bush-hating fanatic fires a rocket or missile, plants a mine in an attempt to kill US nationals. WMD?

I don't even want to get into the moral relativism that suggests that the US Military is equivalent to terrorism due to our use of weapons that fall under these categories. EVERYBODY knows we are the only nation to ever have used nuclear weapons in warfare, OK? And the result was the most significant transformation of war and politics since the invention of the freakin' crossbow.

There are more fertile grounds for criticism of the current administration in my opinion.

I think Republican rhetoric might also qualify. . . Then again, that just puts people to sleep, maybe it's okay then. . .

It's those really teeny-tiny hard-to-find thingies that Saddam Hussein really really really has. . . or had. . . really. . . but they're invisible. Which is why we haven't found them yet.

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

Both are WMD
This was reported on Monday, May 17, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Their definitions of Weapons of "Mass Destruction" are pretty pathetic. First off, I can see how (if you're the government) you'd want to outlaw destructive devices, but I think calling a pipe bomb a weapon of "mass" destruction is a bit of a stretch.

Furthermore, we have since the Treasury Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 (I'm pretty sure it was one of those) outlawed these devices anyway. Mere possession of something like this will get you tried in both Federal and most State Courts with the Fed sentence being a nice 20 year trip or something to that effect.

I'm alarmed for example, that "incendiary" is included in the def. since having components for a molotov cocktail would be covered under this legislation. You don't actually have to use it, just "conspire" to use it, according to the regs.

Poor Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

JCM

Why is calling a pipe bomb a weapon of Mass Destruction a "stretch?" Isn't the intention to send fragments of the pipe casing in all directions?

Or put another way, how many people have to be threatened by something for you to determine that it's a "Weapon of Mass Destruction?"

And the definition pretty clearly includes the kind of ordinance found in Iraq. I find it nothing short of amazing that people are willing to engage in apologist rhetoric when CBW weapons are found in Iraq. "Oh, those aren't really WMD, they're just LEFTOVERS from the previous chemical war a decade ago, those can't be used!"

And the greatest apologist/ego of all, Hans Blix! Oh, THAT old thing! Never mind that it's a chemical agent in violation of the UN Sanctions! I have NO idea how THAT got in here!

And the world is DUMB enough to believe it. WMD or no, justified or otherwise, Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant who was a potential threat to the free flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.

Did HE say OIL? Yes, I said OIL! Black Gold! Texas Tea! (somebody strike up the banjo).

WHAT is the USE of this discussion ANYWAY?

You'd find it pretty difficult to kill more than a person or two with your garden variety pipe-bomb, even in close quarters. They're pretty ineffective.


NOT that I advocate building or using this type thing, but my point is that there are already laws in place banning the use of destructive devices and their posession, in addition to the normal attempted murder, murder, assault, conspiracy, etc. I do support the inclusion of chem/bio and nuclear weapons in legislation of this type.

Just like the kid who got kicked out for the pocket-knife in the recent school thread, I think that the debate over terrorism and the resulting legislation could benefit from some sense of scale IMO, c.f. the paragraph above.

JCM

I deliberately avoided the moral relativism - that is why I talked about a US citizen mercenary, etc.

I guess it just struck me as odd. That is all - there is no real point to this discussion (other than to highlight that sooner or later someone is going to get caught by this definition who it wasn't intended to catch).

By the way - I agree with Blix totally. If the terrorists in question knew it was sarin, they would have detonated it differently. They didn't, no further shells have surfaced, and this suggests to me that it was an overlooked shell out of the ones they had destroyed.

You disagree - that is cool.

Yea, right. Fox news. There's a credible news agency, even not considering the fact that they're partially owned by one of Bush's cousins. Give me a break.

Sarin: 1st WMD found in Iraq
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

That pre-dated the inspections and was believed to have been an inventory loss - in other words the people that had the round didn't even realize what they had. Still hardly enough to call a "WMD" - that thing might have killed a dozen or two people tops if used properly and effectively - which it wasn't. Hardly worth the price of a thousand American lives, our international credibility, and the deaths of thousand of Iraqi citizens as "collateral damage".

If Saddam had been any kind of a real threat and had had any kind of WMD at his disposal, he'd have used them against us when we attacked him.

Period.

End of story.

Well then, I guess your job is done! Thanks for everything....really.

OK. You can be on the subcommittee that drafts the amendment to the legislation.

Agree.

You're right. There's a direct pipeline from the Bush-led vast right-wing conspiracy to Fox News. We can't believe ANYTHING they say. Thank G_d for NPR and the New York Times.


If this thread has a point, which I doubt, I think it is whether the law adequately captures what it's designed to capture. Just because YOU don't think the war was worth it, just because YOU buy into the SPECIOUS explanation that a gas shell was just "old inventory," has nothing to do with the fact that Sarin Gas is a Weapon of Mass destruction, in any quantity, under the law.

How many people would have to be killed in a choking, spasmatic cloud of CBW for you to acknowledge that deposing Saddam Hussein was the right move from a military and political perspective?

Well there you have it folks, right here on the Pelican Board, Techweenie has declared the entire debate OVER!

You can all go home now, there's nothing to see here.

So, we invaded Iraq because they might have grenades?

Can't you READ?

The story is OVER. We can now divert our attention elsewhere.