5 ms·

When did "WMD" go from describing something intended to kill thousands or millions of people to an IED? Both are bad, but it seems like a dilution to make "WMD

by gknoy 14y ago

When did "WMD" go from describing something intended to kill thousands or millions of people to an IED? Both are bad, but it seems like a dilution to make "WMD" effectively synonymous with "bomb".

josh2600 14y ago
I find it disturbing that under this definition of WMD, what the US does with Drones almost each day is certainly also massive. Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction? Why not?
- bryne 14y ago
  Because the NRA.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  Its probably more about the anonymous killing of multiple random people vs the actual number of people killed. A gun may kill many, but the shooter must do some selection of each one.
  - josh2600 14y ago
    This isn't true with a high-powered rifle being shot into a crowd... I think an assault rifle would've done a lot more damage than the pressure cooker.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
He allegedly made a bomb, or bombs, and maybe shot a policeman. The bombs killed a few people, including a child. He apparently had intent to set off another bomb or two. There's enough to put him away for the rest of his (useful to him) life. No need to make him any more important than he is, and no need to cheapen the acts of real honest-to-goodness war criminals.
- manicdee 14y ago
  You forget that use of WMD means you can be subjected to "enhanced interrogation" (aka torture) to extract "actionable intelligence" (aka "whatever nonsense we make them say, such as 'Obama is not American'"). Therefore adding charges of WMD opens up new doors for prosecution and sentencing.
sehugg 14y ago
There's a Schneier post about this from 2009: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_w.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_... Here's the legal code which describes a "destructive device" (passed in 1968 and amended several times): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 Note that it is so broadly written that it has to specifically exclude antique muzzle-loading rifles.
- abecedarius 14y ago
  Ha: "the Reagan administration's long-misnamed WMD-for-Hostages deal with Iran."
anigbrowl 14y ago
The law defining 'weapons of mass destruction' was written in 1994, but does in fact reference pretty much any 'destructive device.' That latter term was first defined in 1968, and includes things like hand grenades or things with as little as a quarter-ounce of explosive material. The 'mass' part reflects the principle of damage radiating outward from the origin and affecting whoever/whatever happens to be in proximity, as opposed to the more targeted destruction caused by a bullet or handheld weapon. Of course you could kill multiple people with a handheld weapon or (rarely) hit several people with a single bullet, but in general such attacks involve one-on-one interactions even if there is a series of them in rapid order, as with automatic gunfire. hitting multiple individuals from a single shot or manual attack is considered a fluke. See notes on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 Note that the law is not necessarily drafted to reflect the actual probability of injury, but to dissuade any use of the method; explosive, chemical, biological and radioactive attacks are by nature indiscriminate. That's considered much worse than an attack on a particular individual (you could launch an indiscriminate attack by, say, firing a gun into a crowd. But that lack of care about who you hit would itself attract a higher sentence). Furthermore, it radiates temporally; if you plant a device and then drop dead of a heart attack, the device remains dangerous even though you are no longer capable of forming criminal intent. It presents risk from when it's emplaced to when it has finished releasing, a period which could last years. In similar fashion, using a bomb or poison to kill someone automatically makes the offense into Murder in the First Degree, negating defenses like 'crime of passion' or 'heat of the moment'.

by gknoy 14y ago

When did "WMD" go from describing something intended to kill thousands or millions of people to an IED? Both are bad, but it seems like a dilution to make "WMD" effectively synonymous with "bomb".

josh2600 14y ago

I find it disturbing that under this definition of WMD, what the US does with Drones almost each day is certainly also massive. Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction? Why not?

bryne 14y ago
Because the NRA.
noonespecial 14y ago
Its probably more about the anonymous killing of multiple random people vs the actual number of people killed. A gun may kill many, but the shooter must do some selection of each one.
- josh2600 14y ago
  This isn't true with a high-powered rifle being shot into a crowd... I think an assault rifle would've done a lot more damage than the pressure cooker.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

He allegedly made a bomb, or bombs, and maybe shot a policeman. The bombs killed a few people, including a child. He apparently had intent to set off another bomb or two. There's enough to put him away for the rest of his (useful to him) life. No need to make him any more important than he is, and no need to cheapen the acts of real honest-to-goodness war criminals.

manicdee 14y ago
You forget that use of WMD means you can be subjected to "enhanced interrogation" (aka torture) to extract "actionable intelligence" (aka "whatever nonsense we make them say, such as 'Obama is not American'"). Therefore adding charges of WMD opens up new doors for prosecution and sentencing.

sehugg 14y ago

There's a Schneier post about this from 2009: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_w.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_... Here's the legal code which describes a "destructive device" (passed in 1968 and amended several times): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 Note that it is so broadly written that it has to specifically exclude antique muzzle-loading rifles.

abecedarius 14y ago
Ha: "the Reagan administration's long-misnamed WMD-for-Hostages deal with Iran."

anigbrowl 14y ago

The law defining 'weapons of mass destruction' was written in 1994, but does in fact reference pretty much any 'destructive device.' That latter term was first defined in 1968, and includes things like hand grenades or things with as little as a quarter-ounce of explosive material. The 'mass' part reflects the principle of damage radiating outward from the origin and affecting whoever/whatever happens to be in proximity, as opposed to the more targeted destruction caused by a bullet or handheld weapon. Of course you could kill multiple people with a handheld weapon or (rarely) hit several people with a single bullet, but in general such attacks involve one-on-one interactions even if there is a series of them in rapid order, as with automatic gunfire. hitting multiple individuals from a single shot or manual attack is considered a fluke. See notes on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 Note that the law is not necessarily drafted to reflect the actual probability of injury, but to dissuade any use of the method; explosive, chemical, biological and radioactive attacks are by nature indiscriminate. That's considered much worse than an attack on a particular individual (you could launch an indiscriminate attack by, say, firing a gun into a crowd. But that lack of care about who you hit would itself attract a higher sentence). Furthermore, it radiates temporally; if you plant a device and then drop dead of a heart attack, the device remains dangerous even though you are no longer capable of forming criminal intent. It presents risk from when it's emplaced to when it has finished releasing, a period which could last years. In similar fashion, using a bomb or poison to kill someone automatically makes the offense into Murder in the First Degree, negating defenses like 'crime of passion' or 'heat of the moment'.