steissd wrote:Quote:Joint Publication 1-02, DOD [Department of Defense] Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, as amended by JMGTM-085-97, offers this definition of WMD—
In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people.
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr02/MS722.htm.
that doesnt help much in ways of definition ... what is "high"? what is "large"?
the irony is that 11 september proved that a small number of terrorists could use very
low-tech means - just a regular airplane - to impact "a high order of destruction and [..] destroy large numbers of people".
bit odd, really, that we are to believe that if osama bin-laden attacks the US with low-tech means, the big lesson to take from that would be that we have to stop saddam hussein from having high-tech weapons.
when exactly
did osama morph into saddam, and when did the threat we should defend ourselves against morph from the terrorist hijackers osama has been proven to use to the WMDs saddam might allagedly have wanted to use in some undefined future?