what exactly constitutes a "weapon of mass destruction"?

here ill show you
::unzips pants::

ass destruction != mass destruction.

A weapon of mass destruction is something that, unlike a bullet, a cruise missile or even a conventional unguided bomb, cannot be aimed at a target with sufficient guarantees that it will not wipe out lives willy-nilly all up and down the boulevard.

Carpet bombing as a technique might resemble the effect of a WMD, but remember that we are discussing the munitions themselves and not the method in which they are used.

Basically, the case is this: Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical and Biological weapons are all WMDs because it is patently impossible to aim one at something and expect to destroy that specific target. There will always be a huge and uncontrollable degree of collateral damage associated with the use of such weapons (something that is not necessarily the case with conventional munitions).

The MOAB and the 'Daisy Cutter', while both are massive and admittedly quite indiscriminate, apparently do not approach the necessary nastiness quotient required of WMDs. One might add that on the bright side, even though you're likely to be deaf, you can still walk around in the crater of a Daisy Cutter blast and not worry about polluting yourself with massive amounts of remaindered alpha particles.

Basically anything that could bring about that one vision of the post-apocalyptic Earth where nearly everybody is dead but most of the structures remain intact is a WMD. Everything else is safe and boring by comparison obv.

thanks, tom.

how are the missiles that the US is employing not "weapons of mass destruction?

I thought it was that they are but iraq weren't allowed to have any and said they wouldn't+didn't.

I think that weapons of mass destruction are any weapons that massively destruct things.

We need to build a neutron bomb, pronto!

are you iraqi?

Well, since I'm anti-war, according to some I'm a "Saddam Lover."

its nice and quick and clean and gets things doooooooooooooone.

if the t-heads have it then it's a weapon of mass destruction.

About 5 years ago I remember signing a petition that stated that the strict sanctions against Iraq were a weapon of mass destruction.

If they were being used with the intended consequence of unsettling Saddam's regime, as was claimed by some commentators at the time, they would certainly qualify under Tom's definition.

huh until recently they were usually called "unconventional weapons," but now that sounds like, oh, a clown flower that sprays purple sleeping gas.