Merry Christmas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Browne
  • Start date Start date
Pudentame said:
The distinction in the definitions are from a STANAG - STandard NAto
AGreement... so everyone is using the same terminology & understands the
what each other mean. So the people most likely to have to deal with
them in the consequences of use.

For military purposes the difference is how those weapons affect the
battlefield. Generally the distinction is whether you can "continue the
mission" if attacked with the weapon. Nuclear weapons have significantly
greater effects (order of magnitude) on the ability of military forces
to maneuver, hold territory, engage the "enemy" and reach the military
objective than Chemical/Biological weapons.

Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not
definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not
differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not.

Many carelessly confuse the two. I don't.
Click to expand...

WMD is generally (including in NATO, US forces and most everywhere else
defined as I stated in my other post.

""Research for this paper identified more than 40 different definitions
of WMD.29 Some of the definitions with official standing are identified
in appendix A (used in the U.S. executive branch), appendix B (enacted
into U.S. Federal law), appendix C (versions used internationally), and
appendix D (enacted into U.S. state laws). Almost all of the more than 40
definitions listed in the appendices fit into 1 of 5 alternative
definitions,
allowing for some slight variations in meaning.30
n WMD as a synonym for nuclear, biological, and chemical
(NBC) weapons31
n WMD as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons32
n WMD as CBRN and high explosive (CBRNE) weapons33
n WMD as weapons that cause massive destruction or kill large
numbers of people, and do not necessarily include or exclude
CBRN weapons34
n WMD as weapons of mass destruction or effect, potentially including
CBRNE weapons and other means of causing massive disruption,
such as cyberattacks.35""

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occassional_Papers/CSWMD/OP4.pdf
Refers.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Pudentame wrote:

Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not
definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not
differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not.
Click to expand...

Hi...

It sounds like you may not be aware of it, so on the off-chance I'm
right, you can get google to look for definitions only, like this, for
example...

define: wmd

and the only hits returned will be actual definitions. If I recall
correctly, the above example returned only (or about) 4.

Take care.

Ken
 
Alan said:
"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."
http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

"Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition
with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living
beings." --Wikipedia

I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction.
Killing a lot of them is mass destruction.

Cheers,
Alan
Click to expand...
Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass
destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London
were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first?
 
Ron said:
Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass
destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London
were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first?
Click to expand...

Certainly. But Mr. P seems to believe that the killing of humans on a
grand numerical scale is not mass destruction. It certainly is. Back
in the 70/80's the US were contemplating a neutron bomb ("Enhanced
Radiation" weapon. A relatively small nuclear weapon designed to
release a lot of neutrons and not so much "mechanical" energy. The
intent is to kill people (all living things, actually) and to disable
electronics with the EMP. Infrastructure (cities, airports, etc.) would
not be destroyed or even mcuh damaged).

There is no way to not call this a WMD. Congress voted against the
weapon under political pressure (that doesn't mean they made the right
or wrong decision, it just means they made it for the wrong reasons, IMO).

(In physics, mass destruction is not possible, but it can be transformed
into energy ... and back).

You can google around and find all sorts of studies on gas dispertion
models and Pk associated with gas. It is definitely a WMD.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Alan Browne said:
Certainly. But Mr. P seems to believe that the killing of humans on a
grand numerical scale is not mass destruction. It certainly is. Back in
the 70/80's the US were contemplating a neutron bomb ("Enhanced Radiation"
weapon. A relatively small nuclear weapon designed to release a lot of
neutrons and not so much "mechanical" energy. The intent is to kill
people (all living things, actually) and to disable electronics with the
EMP. Infrastructure (cities, airports, etc.) would not be destroyed or
even mcuh damaged).

There is no way to not call this a WMD. Congress voted against the weapon
under political pressure (that doesn't mean they made the right or wrong
decision, it just means they made it for the wrong reasons, IMO).
Click to expand...

Yes....I always thought the neutron bomb was a good idea....Just kill the
people, but not destroy the rest of the city.....But they decided that
destruction of the city was one of the chief reasons why people thought war
was so horrible, so to eliminate that would make war too palatable......Of
course, that was before terrorists....Today, the terrorists would really go
for such a thing, since killing the people is exactly what will get them
into heaven, and those 72 virgins........
 
Yes....I always thought the neutron bomb was a good idea....Just kill the
people, but not destroy the rest of the city.....But they decided that
destruction of the city was one of the chief reasons why people thought war
was so horrible, so to eliminate that would make war too palatable......Of
course, that was before terrorists....Today, the terrorists would really go
for such a thing, since killing the people is exactly what will get them
into heaven, and those 72 virgins........
Click to expand...

The old, "Let's make war so horrible people will not stand for it"
idea.
A Dr. Richard Gatling had the same idea. Didn't work.

--
Hillary Clinton was sworn
into the Senate Thursday
with her hand on a Bible
which was held by her husband
Bill. You could see it was
an old dog-eared family Bible.
It still has the yellow
highlighting on the passages
that say oral sex is not adultery.
 
Back
Top