3 ms·
Of course, because WMD is a manufacturered phrase with tautological utility. A kitchen knife wielded in a sinister way is capable of mass destruction.
by throwawaycuriou 5y ago
Of course, because WMD is a manufacturered phrase with tautological utility. A kitchen knife wielded in a sinister way is capable of mass destruction.
- elefanten 5y agoNo, there's a pretty stable presumptive meaning of "weapons of mass destruction". It means radiological, biological and chemical. There are always people trying to expand the definition, but it's usually from more left-leaning critical schools of thought that want to classify landmines, sanctions or guns as WMD. But in official usage, it's been pretty stable at those three.
- throwawaycuriou 5y agoThe utility is in the muddying. To use the broader term (WMD) instead of the specific (chemical weapons) is to imply the broader abuse. While the specific abuse is something the US turned a blind eye to a generation previously (chemcial weapons by Iraq against Iran)
- jollybean 5y agoIt's not a manufactured phrase. A knife is not generally a weapons. Saddam 100% had WMD's and was capable of making more. But he didn't have an active program, stockpiles were small and there wasn't really a huge risk of him selling to 'terrorists' etc.. The misrepresentation was really one of magnitude and capabilities and especially how the information is presented. "He Has WMD's" is very true and legitimate (different than 'he has a knife'), but obviously the misrepresented context makes it a giant lie. To this end, I suggest that the US would do better in their public communications if they revealed some Twitterable/TikTokable visuals and graphics which highlighted the nature of some of the incursions, so as to more strongly make their case i.e. it's easier to believe 'something material' than accusations.