6 ms·

Since it strangely difficult to look up, I'll leave this here for reference: The acronym ABC stands for Atomic, Biological and Chemical. It's a cold-war term

by 3JPLW 12y ago

Since it strangely difficult to look up, I'll leave this here for reference: The acronym ABC stands for Atomic, Biological and Chemical. It's a cold-war term that has since been updated twice — first to NBC (nuclear), and then to CBRN (adding radiological). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense

bane 12y ago
and now CBRNE (explosives)
- Retric 12y ago
  <sarcasm> Soon to be CBRNEP (pointy) Because clearly explosives or pointy sticks are just as bad as nuclear or biological weapons. </sarcasm> PS: I thougt about saying heavy or fast, but that can still be scary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
  - BenTheElder 12y ago
    What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs
    - Retric 12y ago
      A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs is less dangerous than you might think. Lots of energy sure but it’s poorly directed and there is no poison afterward. Cluster bombs’ are generally a bigger threat vs people. (ex: football stadium) Bunker busters are more useful vs. hardened structures. (Command center) I have heard a suggestion that the world trade center would have likely survived a hit from a Father of all Bombs. Though the building would likely need to be condemned afterward. PS: Aparently they are vary useful for cave systems though.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  Orginally Weapons of Mass Destruction was specifically defined under US and International law (by treaty) as NBC Weapons only (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.) Gradually, the definition has become a bit wobbly, with some attempting to include any weapon that could be used in a terror attack (domestic law enforcement) and those seeking to include portions of their enemies arsenals (e.g. SCUD missiles) under the term WMD. "In the Butler Review, the official UK report on intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the definition of WMDs included Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities. Thankfully the term WMD has fallen out of favor, but the point the Butler Review makes clear is that it is an inherently Orwellian term. Its Orwellian not in the sense of dystopian, but rather that it is a deliberately ambiguous term used to obfuscate the underlying reality. It is the politician's version of "hook up." Completely descriptive while so ambiguous that it could be describing anything at all. Creating terms like WMD, CBRNE, NBC, only serves to undermine the underlying weapon. Like most people, I believe ordinary explosive ordinance deserves far less attention than rogue nuclear weapons.

by 3JPLW 12y ago

bane 12y ago

and now CBRNE (explosives)

Retric 12y ago
<sarcasm> Soon to be CBRNEP (pointy) Because clearly explosives or pointy sticks are just as bad as nuclear or biological weapons. </sarcasm> PS: I thougt about saying heavy or fast, but that can still be scary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
- BenTheElder 12y ago
  What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs
  - Retric 12y ago
    A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http:/Father_of_All_Bombs is less dangerous than you might think. Lots of energy sure but it’s poorly directed and there is no poison afterward. Cluster bombs’ are generally a bigger threat vs people. (ex: football stadium) Bunker busters are more useful vs. hardened structures. (Command center) I have heard a suggestion that the world trade center would have likely survived a hit from a Father of all Bombs. Though the building would likely need to be condemned afterward. PS: Aparently they are vary useful for cave systems though.
s_q_b 12y ago
Orginally Weapons of Mass Destruction was specifically defined under US and International law (by treaty) as NBC Weapons only (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.) Gradually, the definition has become a bit wobbly, with some attempting to include any weapon that could be used in a terror attack (domestic law enforcement) and those seeking to include portions of their enemies arsenals (e.g. SCUD missiles) under the term WMD. "In the Butler Review, the official UK report on intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the definition of WMDs included Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities. Thankfully the term WMD has fallen out of favor, but the point the Butler Review makes clear is that it is an inherently Orwellian term. Its Orwellian not in the sense of dystopian, but rather that it is a deliberately ambiguous term used to obfuscate the underlying reality. It is the politician's version of "hook up." Completely descriptive while so ambiguous that it could be describing anything at all. Creating terms like WMD, CBRNE, NBC, only serves to undermine the underlying weapon. Like most people, I believe ordinary explosive ordinance deserves far less attention than rogue nuclear weapons.