----- Original Message ----- From: "Treena" Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor
> If we're going to use the phrase "mass destruction," and I suppose we are > since it seems to be officially sanctioned by the UN, how much does it have > to destroy to qualify as being of "mass destruction?" Aren't ordinary bombs > meant to destroy lots of things at once? What if someone deployed a chemical > weapon and it killed just one person? Would it still be a weapon of mass > destruction, or would it be just a weapon of very small destruction? I find > that phrase so odd, because most of the things used by militaries are > supposed to destroy a lot at one time - otherwise we'd go back to countries > fighting with bows and arrows, and sharp, pointy sticks. What is the time span needed for something to be called a weapon of mass destruction (if we are going to put the term into the language)? A bomb dropped on a city can kill thousands at once, and would qualify. An army using nuclear waste material (inexplicably called depleted uranium) in tank destroying weapons can poison an entire population over a few generations with the fallout from vaporized uranium. Does this count? Or does it have to happen all at once? Just wondering. William Robb
