I don't think theres a time frame involved in the equation. Just the total amount or maximum carnage that can be inflicited. Dont think it matters if its cluster bombs or daisy cutters or some bio-bomb or a 100 megaton bomb. What a world we live in.
My 2 bits. Feroze ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 7:37 PM Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > ----- 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 > > >
