3 ms·
No, there's a pretty stable presumptive meaning of "weapons of mass destruction". It means radiological, biological and chemical. There are always people tryin
by elefanten 5y ago
No, 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)