The alleged Boston Bomber is being charged with using WMDs...?

Question

What exactly is the definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

I can't help but think back to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction. Certainly Hussein's army had bombs more powerful than a couple of pressure cooker IEDs. Would those count as WMDs under the prosecution's definition? In that case the US miltary absolutely has, and uses, plenty of WMDs.

Or can they just call it a WMD if they decide that's what they want it to be?

Kenneth · Answer

A WMD is defined differently when dealing with international law vs. domestic terrorism.

When WMD's were being discussed in regards to Iraq, it was defined as chemical or biological weapons. Thats what we were specifically told Iraq had and was the definition of WMD as used by the US Government for those purposes.

Under domestic terror laws, a WMD is any weapon designed to cause mass destruction, and IED bombs are specifically included under that definition. 

So basically, the definition depends on the context and how the speaker defines the word.

Libraryanna · Answer

It's a weapon that can cause damage, death and injury over a wide area. Granted, a bomb is a small one, but ti's still a WMD.

Of course we have WMDs, we never said we don't. But Iraq was not allowed to have them and they found sign of them having them when Bush illegally attacked the country.

Per dictionary.com

A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Anonymous · Answer

I think we have treaties that define what kind of weapons can't be used in war (ie, nuclear, chemical...), and WMD should be reserved for that. 

Other types of explosives....pretty weak.

Of course the government wants to slam this guy with as much as it can. But we are supposed to have a system that prevents abuses

Trending News

The alleged Boston Bomber is being charged with using WMDs...?

3 Answers