Talk:Weapon of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

For most recent comments, see bottom of page

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Contents

[edit] Origin

Where did this term originate? I really only remember it being used in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. --NeuronExMachina 10:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Err... perhaps I should modify my question. Has there been any use of this term since 1937 and the lead-up to the Iraq war? --NeuronExMachina 08:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes: They are mentioned in the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 16:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a problem in the wording of this section. "by thens did not exist at this time". I don't know how to fix it exactly. Please look at it. SadanYagci 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq's WMD

I think it is pretty well established that Iraq does not have WMD. So maybe it should be taken out of the list?

07:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Yeh, Iraq has no WMD (some of us new beforehand...). A few hundred litres of chemicals in oil barrels with rusty lids, with some leakage into the Tigris, no doubt. Chemicals that if deployed would get blown away by the mediterranean winds into the stratosphere :P For the Iraq entry, it may be mentioned only that Iraq was accused of possessing WMD and the U.S.A. found 1 chemical trailer and a few empty dual-use oil barrels...lol... -_-

july 2006. In other words, Saddam killed several thousand Kurds with Nestles quick? And if we don't find something in an area of 170000 square miles (after we've given the enemy months of warning that we're coming) then it obviously was never there? Ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

November2006 To kill his own men with an airplane is something else then to be able to deploy it anywhere else. This discussion is silly: eks Hitler could kill millions of jews with gas, but could he do the same to Britain? NO cause killing people who you can get to is totally different.

Nov 2006 Why is this here? In the section about news coverage I found this line. "A poll conducted between June and September of 2003 asked people whether they thought WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended" Last I checked the war was still going on...

It is very hard to follow the discussion if you do not sign your posts.--Jackaranga 23:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire discussion of perceptions attributed to what news outlet you get your news from does not belong here at all. If you are going to do an analysis of media bias, it has to be a full analysis, not limited to WMD's. The analysis also has contracting statements of 'fact'. There is statement to the effect of those who beleived WMD's were discovered, "when in fact they were not." and another statement pointing to the left over WMD's that were discovered. The fact is WMD's were discovered. They weren't the ones we were looking for, but it invalidates the '...when in fact they were not' statement.

Also, the false implication of the incomplete media bias analysis is that fox is less responsible than other news organizations in its reporting on Iraq. That cannot be stated or even implied without a FULL analysis of media bias, including the impact it would have on the demographics of viewers. It does not belong in this discussion UNLESS Wikipedia is a bias organization. SpencersDad

[edit] Electronic warfare

Electronic warfare is it mass destruction ?

probably - AI to recruit and brainwash lunatics to catch and give others the flu could be considered a weapon of mass destruction, and that is certainly based on electronic media. If you mean mass-signals-jamming and the EMP effect to destroy electronics, then maybe, but most hospitals and such are protected to a degree. Certainly if it renders a civilian emergency response infrastructure useless it should probably be considered a WMD, so electronic EMP weapons, and radiological warfare (which makes everythign radioactive), could likely be WMD if used on a city, although not if used on battlefields, as they are already...
it could be considered WMD, but one would have to ask why anyone would care what a random person might consider. The arguments above seem silly - a weapon becomes WMD when used in one way, but not in another? If you want to make such distinctions, try the word "terrorist". Martin

[edit] Salting farmland

Did Rome salt Carthaginian farmland or did it not?? See Salting the earth

Um, I think not. Salt was quite valuable, and besides, Rome, who completely sacked the city, could now use the farmlands for themselves (and did). I hear the oppression was still pretty bad. See Battle of Carthage (c.149 BC) --Uriel-238 23:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable paragraph

From article:

This term is occasionally used in an emotionally charged and subjective manner, labelling a weapon used by an enemy as a "weapon of mass destruction" in order to rouse negative opinion against them, when in fact the weapon may not be as destructive as those traditionally not included under this category. Since this term is a subjective one without a rigorous definition, it is sometimes hard to determine when this is the case.

well, that vagueness is deliberate, as the article now clearly explains, to avoid developers of hard-to-classify weapons and new-technology weapons from exploiting a loophole.
A loophole in what? Martin

Although technology continues to increase the destructive potential of weapons, military forces in former times could achieve similar results with more laborious methods.

yup. biological and chemical warfare was very common before the modern era, including against civilian populations, e.g. smallpox blankets for natives distributed by the US government.

In the Third Punic War, the Roman Empire, victorious over its enemy Carthage, completely obliterated the city and sowed its farmland with salt to make it unusable.

During WWII, many Japanese and European cities (for example, Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo) were largely destroyed by conventional (especially incendiary) bombing or firestorms started by the bombing, with the number of killed over 50,000 in each attack.

The breaching of dams or dykes can also lead to mass destruction, as in the Dambusters raid. —Anonymous

The above is an argument against using the term "weapons of mass destruction". I guess whoever put it in, feels that the US shouldn't go around labelling various countries' weapons that way.

I think the point is solid and should be included - it's not the results, it's the achievement of the results using cheap high-tech weapons that can be deployed to either completely destroy enemies with no chance of retaliation (like nukes) or conveyed to them untraceably and invisibly so they have no one to clearly strike back at without enraging the whole world.

Well, that's an interesting point of view and deserves to be described. So let's describe it.

agreed.
  • Who says this? names, political affiliation/agenda, etc.
that's a lot of research - let's decide the scope of the article first, then try to attribute all the various claims that we think are worth including - if there's a problem, we'll simply eliminate statements that are both disputed and unattributable.

Rather than use the wikipedia itself to attack the term, let's describe the political, military and/or scientific views of named advocates who agree or disagree with the US view. --Ed Poor 17:11 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

why is the US view the standard? the UN view ought to be the standard.
How about some named advocates who agree with the US view? Don't have a dual standard here... Martin

[edit] False statement, removed

Removed this statement because it isn't true....

The term weapons of mass destruction could be seen as a 'loaded' phrase, and has only become widely used the 21st century. Conventional weapons such as tanks are of course, capable of mass destruction. Typically, the phrase is only used when referring to those weapons possessed or potentially possessed by an opponent. For example, a military commander would not say 'We have weapons of mass destruction'. They would say 'We have a strategic defense force'. Therefore use of the 'WMD' phrase can be considered partly as a psychological tactic, since most reasonable people are opposed to 'mass destruction', but would support 'defense'.
Has the US ever referred to its nuclear arsenal as "weapons of mass destruction"? Has the UK referred to its nuclear subs as weapons of mass destruction? I think it's entirely reasonable to point out that leaders who are eager to point to enemy weapons as being WMD seem reluctant to refer to their own weapons as WMD.

WMD's aren't weapons that the enemy has. WMD's in general are weapons that you don't want the enemy to have.

yes, true, but the semantics of the term 'mass destruction' aren't at issue, since the qualification of the weapon is always deliberately vague.
the semantics of the term are at issue when someone removes a statement because he disagrees with the semantics. You can argue that the statement cites no examples or sources, or that it is not encyclopedic in quality, but calling it untrue reeks of astroturf.BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of examples of military doublespeak, but this isn't one of them.

no, this is diplomatic doublespeak, designed to include anything that can be eliminated from the world scene without a fight. thus the USA has no WMD by definition, although it has a military nanotechnology weapons research program, and regularly kills people with robots (typically Predator drones).
Yeah, which means where the current article says "and hopefully never will be" (used in warfare), robotics ought to be on the list of technologies that ARE presently used in war, not the list of those that "hopefully never will be".
I don't know if you realize this, but Predators are still man-in-the-loop remote controlled vehicles. They certainly don't make autonomous engagement decisions. --The Centipede 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More WMDs

Article also requires links to genetic modification where android potentials are discussed, and to genetically modified insect which has been proposed as a delivery vehicle for agents like Valium (but couuld also be used for more deadly agents) ought to be added. Plus there is insufficient mention of radiological weapons which are now considered a major threat.

As to the electromagnetic pulse issue, natural EMPs from asteroid impact on the atmosphere have taken out huge grids of power/communications in the far North of North America. So this does seem like it could be a threat to civilian infrastructure.

Also the issue of brainwashing humans to carry plague, suitcase nukes, etc., is very cogent and needs more space - the Russian mob in the 90s was apparently able to hire uneducated young thugs to carry plutonium around in suitcases - the CIA and KGB (cooperating for once) caught someone carrying such stuff around in Red Square! Some of these characters actually knew what they were carrying, and didn't care, since carrying it meant a lot of immediate reward - never mind dying of radiation poisoning. So it's not entirely true that one needs a brainwashing technology or technique in order to get this stuff done.

Maybe weapons of mass persuasion is its own category, covering Columbine type stuff, 9/11 type stuff? Right now persuasion technology seems to be restricted to PowerPoint type stuff, but clearly it's more than that.

If brainwashing was science fact rather than science fiction, I'd be more agreeable to including it. As is, the article already talks considerably more about speculative forthcoming weapons of mass destruction than the ones we've already got. Martin

Is anyone else bothered by all these conspiracy theory-level ideas (and yes, I am using 'conspiracy theory' as a cringe word) being unsigned? --The Centipede 01:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Plus there is insufficient mention of radiological weapons which are now considered a major threat." - The problem is, radiological weapons are not a serious "threat" at all. A Boeing 767 is much more "destructive" than any radiological weapon could ever be. Putting them in the same category with biological and chemical weapons, let alone nuclear weapons, is based solely on the panic that that the word "radiation" can induce. The only purpose a so-called "dirty bomb" serves is to frighten people. If one were set off, there'd be vastly greater danger from panicked stampedes away from the point of attack than from the weapon itself. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthrax mechanism

anthrax is due to spore, not a prion issue. Were does that ref about E.Coli being able to synthetise anthrax prion comes from  ? I found http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=98792 as the closest ref, just the expression of one of B. anthracis gene; not a prion.

[edit] Source?

  • One concern met with each of the "NBC" types is that the different treaties applicable had legal loopholes, due to confusion about the line between chemical and biological weapons (e.g. prions which are not organisms but simple single-molecule proteins, and could thereby be considered either chemical or biological), and the spread of "dual use" technology through commercial channels that could easily be put to military use.
  • Another concern was that most "NBC" treaties predated the ability to DNA-sequence and genetically modify biological entities (to be, make or carry poisonous substances, virus or prion), e.g. altering the well-understood e. coli bacterium to generate prions).
  • The early treaties also did not anticipate nanotechnological molecular engineering methods to generate new molecules with lifelike characteristics, or to exude substances useful in chemical weapons.
  • Nor, finally, did it anticipate the danger of efficient and miniature weapons-grade robotics to control all of the above, nor artificial intelligence and computer graphics to train, brainwash, motivate and guide human carriers of such weapons to their targets. Modern video game technology indeed may be sufficient to train such terrorists or suicide bombing kamikazes, including evasion of detection by guards - a classic "dual use" technology.

Very good, but who says this? This sounds like a very specific argument, rather than a generalised list of concerns - is this the arguments of a random Wikipedian, or someone famous? Martin

[edit] Grammar

"United States law defines WMD as 'to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people' using chemicals, a disease organism, radiation or radioactivity": there is a grammatical problem with this sentence. Weapons of mass destruction cannot mean "to cause", &c. -Daniel C. Boyer

[edit] Comparative destructiveness

"modern nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than either biological or chemical weapons". This is far from obvious, at least in principle. Spanish Flu killed more people than World War I. Anyone got evidence to back this claim up? DJ Clayworth 15:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

neither the spanish flu, nor World War I were weapons of mass destruction. In order to be a weapon there needs to be some control of the target and timing - it is dificult to target and time biological weapons, and the power of a nuclear weapon is far greater than either chemical or biological weapons. Trelvis 15:58, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I moved the section on 'new technology' to biological weapons where the information is more appropriate - it did not fit well in this more general article on WMD Trelvis 15:58, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous definition/list

According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), over 30 countries are "possessing, pursuing or capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and missile delivery systems as of 2000". In alphabetical order, they are:

The list omits all the developed nations like Canada, Germany and Japan which are perfectly capable of developing WMDs but don't (currently) want to do so. The list contains those countries that have or want to have WMDs. This list is about political will and ambition, not technical capability.
Change the definition or the list. GreatWhiteNortherner 17:10, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-details

Sample showed that pretty much none of the articles linked by 'details' actually had any details of WMD programmes, so I removed them. Please feel free to add links to any articles that actually contain details. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who has the most WMDs?

It is just redicilous to state that Russia is the country that "holds the most WMDs". Are you totally biased? This article is a very blame for the whole wikipedia project. Sorry. —Anonymous

Agree. According to our own List of countries with nuclear weapons, the United States possess approximatrely 10,640 warheads, Russia 8,600. NTI states: "Currently, the United States has what is believed to be the world's second largest stockpile of chemical weapons, including bombs, rockets, and artillery shells that are loaded with lewisite, mustard, sarin, soman, VX, or binary nerve agents. Under terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which the United States ratified in April 1997, the United States has committed to destroying all chemical stockpiles by April 2004. However, in September 2003, the Pentagon announced that it would be unable to meet this deadline and would ask for an extension at the Fall 2003 CWC meeting." and "The U.S. ratified the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC) in March 1975 ... However, in 2001, the Bush administration rejected an effort by other signatories to conclude a protocol that would provide verification measures. ... A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax." [1] Get-back-world-respect 02:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russia has about 20,00 nukes and the US has about half. Dudtz 9/6/05 7:20 PM EST

I have to wonder what role MIRV (multi-warhead) weapons plays in the count confusion. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq's WMD, take two

Hmmm... I think we should remove Iraq from the list.... Ericd 20:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason why Iraq should be removed from the list. Altought it seems very likely that currently there is no WMD in Iraq, they definitely had and even used them in the past. I also favor suggestion that this series should be expanded to other countries that posses or have possessed WMD. Most obvious examples being nuclear states India and Pakistan.--Kulkuri 12:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree but the title Countries that may possess WMD seems definitely bad to me. Ericd 13:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see your point and I changed the topic. I think this articel needs more editing for example to group this list in different categories. Those nations that have WMD, thos who have had WMD or serious WMD-programs and countries that are suspected of have them. Of course common sense should be used, since many countries have investigated WMD's at least in some level, but never serously produced them. Detailed listing of them all here would make this list maybe too long. Also many numbers and amounts of WMD within possession of dfferent countries are bit confusing. For example Russia and weapons of mass destruction says that Russia has 21,000 nuclear power weapons stockpiled and List of countries with nuclear weapons only 8,600. I know that detailed amounts are very hard to confirm or even to estimate, and different resources have different details, but at least we should have uniform information inside wikipedia and get rid of contradictory details.--Kulkuri 14:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not think we should unify our information just for the sake of not contradicting ourselves. If there are different estimates we should report it. Were there sources given? Get-back-world-respect 15:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

~

It's impossible to know the truth about these subjects. We will have to deal with estimates and to give source and date. IMO opinion NPOV should also conduct to give minimal and maximal figures from credibles sources.
--Ericd 18:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page include the Template:WMD? --Josh Lee 00:49, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text - Old Google Bomb

I removed this today for non-notability, added by an anon user:

A prank error message found via a Google search for "weapons of mass destruction," using the "I'm feeling lucky" button used to bring up this page > http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I'm putting it here in case anybody disagrees with me and decides that is notable enough for inclusion in its present state. -- ClockworkSoul 02:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this Wiki discussion page to see if anyone made a note about this. While you're probably right in thinking it's non-notable, I found it interesting to see that the prank/google bomb was 'defused', likely by the US government. Must've been bothering some people in Washington, eh? --65.92.112.225 03:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WMD phrase

Question: the term may have been coined in 1937; the concept may be referenced prior to 2002; but is it not the case that prior to 2002, Nuclear, Chemical, Biological Weapons were referred to as just that, NBCs? The term may have been wiped from the collective memory of the general public by media saturation of 'WMD', but isn't 'NBCs' still preferred by experts for its precision? I'm concerned that since the widespread use of WMD in 2002 was clearly context-specific POV (to obfuscate differences between the weapons Iraq more provably had, such as missiles, and usable NBCs), we shouldn't use WMD as the overall category - just describe the term. Rd232 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not entirely. The US high school policy debate topic for 2001-2002 specifically used the term "weapons of mass destruction" and was written well before 9/11. The phrase has been dubiously used since then, but it did have some use as a term of art. You're right, though, that NBC or ABC was the preferred term in defense and industry circles.
I also agree that this article would be better off if it included some discussion of critics of the phrase WMD. This has been talked about on this page, but not edited into the main article. WMD is a fairly fuzzy phrase. The currect debates about its political use illustrate that it's inherently POV. If we want to maintain this page, we should make some note of that. Deleuze 12:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Professor Michael MccGwire (previously a NATO war planner, and head of the Soviet naval section of the UK Defence Intelligence Staff) says in this paper WMD took over from NBC in the 1990s:

The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became common currency in the 1990s. There was no longer any danger of war with the Soviet Union and the only real threat to the US projection of conventional force in distant parts of the globe were chemical and biological weapons in the hands of the target state. Both were relatively inexpensive and easy to produce, and both could be seen as the poor man's deterrent. By classifying these weapons as WMD, we paved the way for legitimising nuclear strikes against states that used chemical or biological weapons to resist Western military intervention.

Rwendland 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what your intention was with this quote. Read this carefully and isnt the Professor presaging and proving the criticism that "WMD" and its use by government began as non-NPOV even before 2002? He is saying that by more broadly lumping together the less dangerous wmd with the most dangerous wmd under the umbrella "WMD", "we paved the way" for potential nuclear first-strikes. In the very same way, collective use of WMD can blur the distinctions between the type of wmd at hand and therefore blur, intentionally or unintentionally, the nature of the threat at hand. Frankly, this debate seems to be an exercise in PR (POV-PR) through false logic and semantics. If one says possession of WMD by a tyrant in the middle east poses a threat to the US, and that chemical weapons are a wmd, and that the tyrant has a stockpile of mustard gas, must it then be accepted that the tyrant is a threat to the US? No, but by the bulk of the population not familiar with the facts beyond the PR, it just might be accepted.--JLSWiki 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If this source didn't contradict others, I wondered if a precis of that quote should be added to the article. It comes from someone who should be authoratative (but is now pro UK denuclearisation), but I've not seen a similar comment elsewhere. As well as giving more historical background, it is a crtical view which the article lacks. Rwendland 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NBC has been replaced by NBCR (nuclear, bio, chem, radiological). and then there is the even more silly WME, "weapon of mass effect." and anyway, the whole "WMD" thing is ridiculous, because it's all subjective. if I hit you in the head with a big rock, from your perspective, you've been hit with a WMD (although not an NBCR). The term is a dodge for lazy people who can't be bothered to be specific (or who don't have a clue what they're talking about). Binkymagnus 03:22, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

[edit] the term WMDs

I would favour not calling them WMDs. This is a term which has been overused by the media and George Bush (you can lump in there Tony Blair and all the others). If there is a different word that the UN uses or which has been more universally used prior to the 2nd Iraq war, then I'd prefer that we use that instead. dave 01:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________

"All such weapons, save nuclear, are banned in the United States" This statement is misleading as the US has large well know stockpiles of most chemical and biological agents. While it seems that the US is slowly eradicating these stockpiles, they definitely still have them! Also, the assertion here of the policy of one government seems rather preachy. s-slater

It's not too difficult to conclude that the term WMD was revitalized for propaganda purposes. When we (the US) have them, they're strategic weapons. When someone else whose butt we want to kick has them, they're weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I think the best way to achieve npov is to reframe the WMD article as a discourse on usage of the term as a disphemism of Strategic Weapons, and discuss high-impact ordinance under a separate article. Really big weapons is a military topic. Provoking a war by saying someone else has and will use really big weapons is a political topic.
Before I turn such transformation into a personal project, thoughts anyone?Uriel-238 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We have NO nuclear weapons (Brazil)

Brazil is in the list of countries with WMD. The problem is a diplomatic question, already solved. Brazil started the enrichment of uranium in Resende's (RJ) installations. USA wanted a complete inspection in Resende, stating that UN had to verify if Brazil is producing weapons. The Brazilian Authorities (notice that we have neither a dictactorship nor a war) said that it was not possible, because we want to warranty the possession of our technology. UN inspector should see Resende Installations, but NOT the centrifuges, themselves. It is perfectly possible to find that no uranium is being misused when you see just the in-out of uranium in the factory! The happy end: UN inspectors came to Brazil and said that a inspection in Brazil's way is completely secure. Even if we assume Brazil want to build nuclear weapons, UN inspectors said that we cannot. Brazil enriches uranium to use in Angra dos Reis NPP. This usage needs 5% of enrichment. In order to build a nuclear weapon, more than 90% will be needed. So, including Brazil in the list of countries with WMD is totally foolishness, it was nothing but a diplomatic - uh - inconvenience. Cannot we use this text in a entry about Resende or something else? User:Sanmartin

"A small number of Brazilians fear that this incident may be used by the USA to wage a war against Brazil, as happened in Iraq." <- Bah, this phrase is ridiculous! Should be removed. In every corner of the world there is at least one person that thinks USA want to attack his country...

[edit] Sidebar doesn't mention Italy

It should; Italy used poison gas against Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. 68.40.107.98 22:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First use of phrase

The 1937 date is bandied about but has not been confirmed to my knowledge. Wordorigins.org cites a date of 28 December 1937 in the Times (London) but a colleague who looked it up and couldn't find a the term in that days Times. Of course the day or the month of the year could be wrong, but the paragraph of newspaper quoted: "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" correct, but unless anyone wants to read through a lot of back issues of the Times it isn't confirmed.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 1(1) 24 January 1946 talks of "atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction. The UN has a definition of what WMD means from the 1940s as well although I can not find the precise citation at the moment.

An early use of the exact WMD phrase was in UN General Assembly resolution 1884 (XVIII) of 17 October 1963 [2] calling for no WMD in outer space, which predated the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which also used the phrase. No definition of course. Rwendland 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution of phrase

How about tracking the evolution of the term? Originally, I believe, it only meant nuclear weapons. When and why did the other types get added? And by whom? How does interpretation of legal statutes affect the active definition? I ask the last question because of this example: I understand the Ohlahoma bombing was legally deemed "WMD" but 9/11 was not, and I think it came down to the nature of the "weapon" (i.e. traditional explosive device vs. improvised explosive device). Daniel Collins 03:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think that the part about the propaganda and the White House is neutral

The part of the article that discusses propaganda and the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is definantely not neutral. It obviously accuses the current government of the US of using propaganda. Not only is this a completely unbacked claim, it actually states this as fact and not as an opinion of someone else and/or themselves. This needs to be either changed or removed, who agrees?

(I'm the one that marked the article for being in congradiction of neutrality).

User:65.3.10.203

I don't happen to like how that paragraph reads, certainly. And the relationship of its content to the issue of the term "WMD" is too small. But I think locking the entire article becuase of that piece is bad form. Change it as you wish; discuss it here as you wish. Here I will start discussing.
  • The editor of that paragraph added a reference, re: the use of propaganda. So it is not unbacked. Can someone provide a counter reference?
  • Sure, it should be changed from appearing as fact to opinion.
  • You may not like the claims, but that doesn't mean the claim is POV (or more precicely, that the claim is false). NPOV requires a fair balance of competing positions, presented impassionately. The paragraph's content can change to be more impassionate, but that's separate from the content. And your POV claim that the content of the paragraph is incorrect must also be presented in a NPOV manner.
As the paragraph remains while the article is locked, no amendments can be made. I hope it will soon be unlocked for changes to proceed. Daniel Collins 18:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While interesting, i see no real reason that the information about WMDs in relation to the so-called "big lie" behind the present invasion of iraq to be included in this section. Shouldn't it be entirely seperated from the article and just linked insted? It just seems to be peripheral to the topic, more just a product of our current focus. 144.131.172.151

I just made substantial changes to the section on propaganda, to a significant degree by deleting it. But its gist was moved to the politics section in a context where it is perhaps more fitting and with content that is perhaps more true to the article. More relevant supporting references were found, replacing the previous one; I include three because I think contentious issues call for it. I think, then, that the original call for a POV check has been made moot and so I deleted the flags. I do hope more people will edit it though.
PS. So the talk page doen't devolve into an amorphous mess, could people please sign their contributions with four tildas? eg. ~~~~. It adds your user name or IP address, and the date and time.
Cheers, Daniel Collins 16:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call for focused effort

After reviewing the discussion archive from the last 2+ years, I see a few very tangible gaps that can be filled in with a little effort:

  1. satisfy the NPOV requirement of the propaganda paragraph
  2. elaborate on the nature of the weapons that comprise WMD
  3. explore the differences between the terms WMD, ABC, NBC
  4. expand the section on international and national law
  5. clarify/expand the info box on the right
  6. re-compose the introductory section

I propose this list to re-energize contributions and to focus on the more important needs. Cheers, Daniel Collins 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text relocation

All such weapons, save nuclear, are banned in the United States, Yemen and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. This includes the samples (such as Anthrax) that had previously been created by the US in germ warfare experiments earlier in the 20th Century, and subsequently destroyed.

The above text was removed from the main article because it is not quite complete and lacks references. I copy it here so it may not be lost, and reincorporated when polished. Daniel Collins 19:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Why not 'fictional'?

We have a section here called WMD in art and literature...are we not calling it 'references to fictional WMD' in case someone gets the wrong idea? Or is to avoid the jokes that would result from it?

Pydos 13:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fictional aspect in this context is implied. Perhaps grammatically it is not so - a heavy metal band may well make guitar strings out of depleted uranium for all I know - but I'd like to think the text clarifies that this is not actually the case. If potential confusion remains, change away, but I'd suggest it doesn't go overboard in its clarification (eg. "references to" and "fictional" play the same role). I don't think it's been sculpted since I penned the text, and some evolution would be in order - or even some intellegent design. Daniel Collins 03:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All nations have/can have WMDs

You can make chemical weapons from simple household and commercial chemicals Don't try it at home! Dudtz 9/6/05 7:24 PM EST

[edit] Australia

It might be worthwhile having an article on Australia and Weapons of mass destruction. Australia Special Weapons Guide (FAS) mentions some details on chemical and biological programs. Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet's advocation of diseases to destroy tropical crops may be especially noteworthy. Talk:List of countries with nuclear weapons#Australia? has some discussion of "Fortress Australia", a documentary arguing that Australia took an interest in nuclear weapons. Andjam 15:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incendiary bombs

Why is it that Incendiary bombs are never considered as WMD? Unlike biological and chemical weapons the ability of these weapons for mass destruction were well proven - as far back as WW2 - deaths of 20,000 in a single bomb-run were achieved multiple times?

I think this is quite a good question, more so given the 1937 coining of the WMD term, though their use against civies was banned in 1980. If you find some Wiki-worthy sources on the issue, add away. And then if sources can be provided to quantify the number of dead from each weapon type through history, that too would be a valuable contribution to the article. Daniel Collins 16:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I started training firefighters in WMD two or three years ago. WMD was always divided into three areas: chemical weapons, biological weapons, and radiological weapons. I went to a new training seminar this year, and the Dept of Homeland Security added explosives as a fourth category. The US government, apparently, did not consider explosives a form of WMD until 2005 for some reason. I had wondered that myself for some time and thought it odd, especially since explosives are the most likely WMDs to be used by terrorists. I'll see if I can add anything myself.Rt66lt 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
First responders' perspectives would be a good addition. I would be particularly interested in the rationale behind the DHS definition, even going so far as to mention what magnitude of explosion constitutes WMD, if such a threshold was considered. Cheers, Daniel Collins 21:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Classification of conventional explosives as WMD is silly. If you think you can name an instance where explosives were used to create mass destruction, aside from strategic use (i.e. military carpet bombing), you must have a very different definition of "mass" than I do. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Dresden, February 1945. --24.95.50.22 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PIPA, media sources and WMD perceptions

The newly added bracket regarding the PIPA survey in the media section is confusing. The survey asked about Iraqi WMD in general, not about stockpiles. The respondants answered accordingly. They knew nothing about the subsequent reports on the existence of WMD in Iraq. Do note that the word "misperceptions"vhd jfcmvcmkh grktugvfhgdsytrwu66rdyitfoutritugfiughvbjhgjtyte4edrcj96 5y4e nfb 66 rjb has been removed. Shall we discuss? Daniel Collins 17:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Countries suspected of having-developing WMD

In the article the section on Countries suspected of having or developing WMD, it says : "States currently suspected of possessing and developing nuclear capabilities include: Iran; and North Korea."

The words Nuclear capabilities are very vague. My presumtion that an article about WMD, means that that "nuclear capability" in this case means a weapon, rather than power generation facilities. I understand that many countries are concerned about Iran enriching Uranium, because, the enrichment facilities/capabilitiesthis/processes could lead in the future to the development of weapons grade material. But, I believe the practical reality is that Iran currently doesnt have such capabilities in development.

Perhaps changing the words "nuclear capabilities" for the reasons cited above and a citation of who is suspecting such posession and/or development of nuclear capabilities, i.e the UN or someone else.

Many thanks, and my congratulations for your approching a subject frought with complications.

Ï would sign this, but a keyboard with a Spanish layout doesnt allow for the characthers required.... Best regards Richard

[edit] WMDs?

"The terms ABC [and] NBC ... have been used synonymously with WMD". And what about Fox? Surely they've done more distruction than the two of them combined! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of used, possession, suspicion, etc

I think the new list of which nations have used what type of WMD could seem a bit bulky. If it has to be done, do a table. I would actually recommend that the details be added to the particular WMD pages, and have just an overview here. Cheers, Daniel Collins 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Consistency

Forgive this if this is a naive misinterpretation of what Wikipedia is striving for, but the following text seems completely bizarre. The text is arguing with itself:

..Those who incorrectly believed WMD had been discovered were three times more likely to obtain their news primarily from Fox News than from PBS and NPR.

(snip)

It is therefore a sign of intelligence among Fox viewers since WMD have been found in Iraq, though not the "stockpils" that were advertised...

This seems to be a strange way to be NPOV.

Quite. The above was added in the last day, and has since been reverted. It's a sign of something, all right. Mackensen (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relocated text

The following "notes" are relocated from the main article. Too rough for inclusion.

===Countries known to have used chemical weapons===
rough notes
United Kingdom
WW II use...
Germany in WW I...
Iraq

Daniel Collins 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Section on media coverage very biased

This entry is unfortunately biased against the Iraq war and the United States (a little too much propaganda inserted to be taken seriously). I edited parts to make them more balanced, but the edits were quickly deleted obviously by someone with a bit of a lean to the left (and yes, I lean to the right). For instance, I edited this portion as follows:


"Results showed that US citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions, <added> implying that Americans are generally less discerning than their European counterparts."</added>

(What is not factual about my addition?)

What the verifiable facts imply is open to interpretation. A more in-depth discussion of the topic might include additional facts, like how the vice president still claims that WMDs were in Iraq, and that Saddam had "Al Qaeda links", despite both claims being widely known to be false. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


And I added this part in the criticism of Fox News:

"Interpretations of the polling data implied that Fox News misled its viewers and was less credible than other news sources, even though Fox News never reported that WMDs were found in Iraq."

(What is not factual about this? Fox News never said WMD was found in Iraq, and this study does not state this fact.)

George Bush may have stood in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign, but he never said the phrase, and never told anyone that the troops would be home any time this decade. See how that works? Fox News did everything it could to sell the war, and pointing out one thing (out of many possible) that Fox News has never reported serves to mitigate that fact. Diluting something already labeled as "interpretation" with modifiers adds nothing of value, and does the reader a disservice. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And I added the following when discussing the study on why Americans might have "false memory":

"This study did not address the fact that Iraq had possessed, hidden, and used WMDs in the past, nor did the study attempt to address how these facts might have affected intransigent American sentiment following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

I think its clear to the reader what the study is or is not addressing. BlackFlag30 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Apparently, those moderating this entry (like hawks judging by how rapidly my additions were reverted) don't wish to illustrate both sides of this issue with Iraq, even though both sides can offer factual opposing arguments. There's an attempt here to clandestinely pass off politics as real history, which is unfortunate.

--Shanesd 22:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What is unfortunate is that you think your pathetic defense of the undefendable is a 'side'.


The entire discussion of perceptions attributed to what news outlet you get your news from does not belong here at all. If you are going to do an analysis of media bias, it has to be a full analysis, not limited to WMD's. The analysis also has contracting statements of 'fact'. There is statement to the effect of those who beleived WMD's were discovered, "when in fact they were not." and another statement pointing to the left over WMD's that were discovered. The fact is WMD's were discovered. They weren't the ones we were looking for, but it invalidates the '...when in fact they were not' statement.

Also, the false implication of the incomplete media bias analysis is that fox is less responsible than other news organizations in its reporting on Iraq. That cannot be stated or even implied without a FULL analysis of media bias, including the impact it would have on the demographics of viewers. It does not belong in this discussion UNLESS Wikipedia is a bias organization. SpencersDad

[edit] yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marine's Definition

I don't care what the "official" definition is, but as a Marine, a WMD is any weapon that has the potential to cause severe loss of life. By this definition, any weapon is considered a WMD, rifles, rocket propelled grenandes, regular grenades, Mortars. So those people who say they are no WMDs found in Iraq can see by Marine standards we have already found plenty.

I think its pretty well understood that the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction implies a device that can inflict thousands or at least hundreds of casualties/fatalities with a single use. By your own definition, you cary a weapon of mass destruction, making you a 'terrorist'. ~~Anonymous Coward

[edit] Libertarians On WMDs

I myself am a libertarian, and some would consider me a rather radical minarchist as I support the legalization of just about anything (all drugs, nearly all weapons, ect.). But I still think Weapons Of Mass Destruction should be illegal for civilian use (the only items to me that should be illegal). What is the general stance on WMDs with other libertarians and minarchists? I have personally never read a single article from libertarians on it but I assume most libertarians are for at least this limited government regulation. I don't know for sure though. Does anyone know or have any good articles that explain the libertarian stance on the issue (not that I would support it if other libertarians did support it, unless they used hard logic and reason that convinces me). Zachorious 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be what you are looking for. Deleuze 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Perception

According to a Harris Poll released July 21 found that 50% of U.S. respondents said they believe Iraq had the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003. This was reported in numerous news articles, such as The State (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15215272.htm) and The Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/08/do_you_believe_in_wmd.html). PJ 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Sounds like WMD is a pretty generic phrase.

You also might want to check this out.

I think that they do have WmD's--and if they have the gumption and the "deadly weapons" to blow up stuff in midair, then that, in my book, is a WMD.

Sorry; WMD's.

--JJ

[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The doomsday calander at religioustolerance.org[3] may provide a good source for research into this list. Uriel-238 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Weapons

As part of my current adds, I redirected “Strategic Weapons” to here, noting the Cold War term was a precursor to the modern use of WMD, and the nature of Strategic Weapons in military doctrine. Should it be a separate article that would link to this one?

Also, should there be anything on the difference between a weapon of mass homicide (i.e. high-casualties) and a weapon of mass devastation (i.e. lots of wreckage)? EMP devices could topple an infrastructure while leaving everyone alive, whereas bio-weapons would kill (or at least incapacitate) by the droves while leaving buildings and systems intact. The latter is considered a WMD if its effects are extreme enough (i.e. it takes out a community, or requires intervention from the CDC). What about the former?

Uriel-238 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Coverage

From the article:

Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence confirming WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on more liberal news outlets like PBS and NPR for news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.

The current text of the article makes no reference to the relative conservatism/liberalism of Fox News or CBS. I think it might be unfair to characterize PBS and NPR as liberal. It seems like it is unnecessary to include this comment and is potential POV. There is certainly no agreement on whether or not PBS and NPR are "liberal". I would propose changing this section to read:

Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence confirming WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.

If there are no objections, I will make this change in a few days.

Verybigfish86 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Daniel Collins 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


I would concurr. The McNeil Lehrer news hour (when it was the McNeil Lehrer News Hour) was moderate conservative when I watched it. Uriel-238 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire discussion of perceptions attributed to what news outlet you get your news from does not belong here at all. If you are going to do an analysis of media bias, it has to be a full analysis, not limited to WMD's. The analysis also has contracting statements of 'fact'. There is statement to the effect of those who beleived WMD's were discovered, "when in fact they were not." and another statement pointing to the left over WMD's that were discovered. The fact is WMD's were discovered. They weren't the ones we were looking for, but it invalidates the '...when in fact they were not' statement.

Also, the false implication of the incomplete media bias analysis is that fox is less responsible than other news organizations in its reporting on Iraq. That cannot be stated or even implied without a FULL analysis of media bias, including the impact it would have on the demographics of viewers. It does not belong in this discussion UNLESS Wikipedia is a bias organization. SpencersDad


This is hysterical! There is not bigger a bias in media than the NPR. And the CBS Memogate doesn't show the bias, you people are fooling yourselves. Ymous

Is it not possible that the reason people who rely on Fox News are less informed about WMDs in Iraq is not due to Fox News itself, but to the fact that its viewers are less informed generally? --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Sections

The last sections, external links etc. were missing from the last few versions, I'm not sure why. - raptor 14:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

Should the appearance of the phrase in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955) be mentioned? -- KSchutte —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.176.12 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Broken links

Some of the external links were broken. I edited them so that they link to the correct url. It's the same site but they changed the url.

These are the links I edited:

Please change this back if I made any errors for some reason.


I'm editing this from a school, and some more immature students have made some unserious edits in the past. This is not one of those occasions though. I just thought you all should know this in case I made any mistakes in my edit. 62.65.77.155 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resources about the Iraq CW

[4] [5]

Because the "ironically, sold to him by many of the same countries now arrayed against him" is unsourced seems to be doubtful (Germany wasn't particularly involved in the war on terror at this time), and his of course harmful. Until sources are given I took the liberty to delete the above statement (which also delete the "ironically" which is npov). Added an inappropriate tone in the section for the moment (due to the lack of time to finish the correction of the pov of the Post-cold war and War on Terror section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esurnir (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

The United States was unquestionably a source of WMD for Saddam Hussein, specifically chemical weapons that he used against Iran. While I don't have exact sources, it's a detail practically in our history books, and (I believe) is pertinent to the topic. While this element may imply incrimination of the US for starting the gulf war (The US attacking Iraq for possession of WMD the US sold to Iraq) facts, in and of themselves, are not a point of view. Uriel-238 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Being the one who added "Ironically", I'm not sure how the term is npov. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia, perhaps, but I don't see how the indication of irony pushes a spin. Uriel-238 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely weak citation (and possible error) on important point

The claim that the term originated in a Times article about the bombing of Guernica seems to me to be very weakly cited. We cite Will Mallon's History News Network article that says that historian Robert Whealey, writing on H-Diplo (but in an article that Mallon doesn't cite clearly), in turn said that the phrase came from a 1937 Times article that is also not clearly cited. Even though one would expect H-Diplo to be well indexed, a Google search on '"Robert Whealey" "mass destruction" "h-diplo" -wikipedia -mallon' turns up nothing. With some further searching just now, I came across a discussion of this on Google Answers; it first cites both the same Mallon page we cite and further cites http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorw.htm, which says it was a Times article on December 28, 1937. However, if you read through to the bottom of the the Google Answers exchange, it raises serious question about whether such a 1937 Times article existed, and no one has been able to produce the Times article. So this may not just be weakly cited: it may be wrong.

William Safire ("Weapons of Mass Destruction", New York Times Magazine, April 19, 1998, p.22) writes that the term probably originates from the Russian oruziye massovovo porazheniya. He credits James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use (although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a November 15, 1945 meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush - or so Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction". That exact phrase, says Safire, was also used by Bernard Baruch in 1946 (in a speech at the UN probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope).

I have a PDF of the Safire article; for copyright reasons I can't post it on line, but if someone wants to verify that I have paraphrased accurately from Safire's rather more detailed remarks, email me and I will send you a copy.

Unless someone can actually identify and quote the supposed Times article, I believe that our article should be changed accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been 18 days; no one has responded; I am editing accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found the 1937 article. The original information from Mallon is partially correct. The date and source is correct; the phrase does not originate with a reporter, however, and does not specifically refer to the bombing of Guernica. The first to speak the phrase was the Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang, whose 1937 Christmas sermon was printed by the Times. I have erased the section on the "controversy", cited Lang and added a citation which can be confirmed by anyone interested. -- Darel E. Paul, 23 May 2007

[edit] Is Nuclear bomb of High Altitude Nucler Explosion Weapons of mass destruction ?

I'm writing Japanese Page of HANE (High Altitude Nucler Explosion) now. I'm wondering a word definition. What do you feel when you hear "Nuke of HANE is Non-leathal weapon and it's WMD." (FYI, HANE doesn't kill human basically, just electrocute electric goods.)

In other words, Can we add the name HANE on the list of WMD?

HANE makes large scale distruction without direct human attack. But here says "Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons which can kill large numbers of human beings" I feel HANE is WMD, but .... Pleae give me your idea, thx Tosaka

EMP is not directly lethal, but most of the population of an affected area will die within weeks due to infrastructure collapse. Humanitarian efforts would be impossible on the scale necessary to provide for an entire geographical region. HANE is deffinately a 'strategic weapon' (one designed to kill large numbers of people), so yes. BlackFlag30 (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a question of definitions. If EMPs by themselves are considered WMDs, then you'd have to consider a Electromagnetic bomb a potential WMD. I don't think that's likely—they don't produce a lot of destruction at all, not on the level of death and carnage as other WMDs. I wouldn't consider an e-bomb a WMD; I probably wouldn't consider a nuclear-driven e-bomb a WMD either, though obviously you'd have to know for sure that that was the only property of the nuke being utilized. But again, it is a question of semantics to some degree: if someone possessed a nuclear weapon in any capacity they'd be guilty of possessing WMDs, for one never can trust how they'd be used (India's original "peaceful bomb" is as much a WMD as any other nuke, in my opinion). --Fastfission (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AHEM...

Weapons of mass destruction don't exist and it was an excuse to enter Iraq!!! Eenyminy 00:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Say what?--J-Star 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Meh, chemical weapons were found in Iraq, and by the wiki definition, there were WMDs in Iraq.[6]Merechriolus (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Saddam's boasting, planning, preparation, actual production apparatus, use of and training of scientists in programs to produce them, and mass buying of materials, (all this is proven fact) ad libitum, etc., etc. was so successful that his own generals believed they existed and were still in Iraq, and the CIA was foolish enough to believe that they must be right. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah. Calling anything found in Iraq a 'weapon of mass destruction' is such a massive exaggerative lie. I mean nothing there remotely threatened America. The only real weapon of mass destruction is the nuclear bomb; which Iraq/Saddam self-evidently didn't have.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thermobaric weapons

considering that Russia has just demonstrated the "dad of all bombs", should thermobaric bombs be added to Weapons of Mass Destruction?(discuss here)--190.74.124.4 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ................................................................................................................................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.253.181 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No. They're just very efficient conventional bombs. --Fastfission (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "mass destruction" based on the amount of destruction, rather than the nature of the weapon? I don't really know anything about thermobaric bombs, but if they produce mass destruction then I'd say they're WMDs. LachlanA (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to NBC Weapons

Wouldn't it be better to rename this to NBC Weapons, as that is what the military calls them?--219.79.73.249 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] US Politics Sections

Not this may have been changed by the time you read this.

Sections 4-13 are all 'United States politics." All of the sections start out the same, and appear to have the same content. I have not gone through to verify that they are the same though, which is why I did not delete them. Does someone want to look into this?

(Please delete this if the problem has been resolved.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IKrolm (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does the poll belong

Moving text from the article (where it didn't belong). This came immediately after a paragraph saying many members of the public believed WMD had been discovered in Iraq.

This poll really does not belong in this article. Whether or not people believe that WMDs were found in Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened historically. Either the weapons were found, or they were not. Take the opportunity to educate your readers here, not skew the facts with media opinions. If one chemical agent was found in Iraq, then that needs to be in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

My view is that this discussion of the poll would be more appropriate in an article on Iraq and WMD, though a brief mention of the Iraq issues should be in this article. NPguy (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)