SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (192008)1/7/2007 5:01:21 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793927
 
Mq...You keep saying Iraq didn't have WMD's. The Definition of WMD's is below... We KNOW they had chemical WMD's. We know they were at least working on Bio weapons, and wanted to obtin Nukes..... WHY do you keep saying they didn't have WMD's???

Generally refers to chemical, nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices.
www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

weapon of mass destruction: a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD

Definitions of WMD

nti.org



Produced by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies

Updated November 2006

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."

The U.S. president has used this definition in communications with Congress.

"Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction," November 9, 2000, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 2842-2851.
"Statement on Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction," May 8, 2001, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 718-719.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has used this definition in reporting on proliferation to Congress.

Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1 January Through 30 June 2000.
The U.S. Department of Defense has used this definition in a series of major reports to Congress on proliferation threats and on measures for countering proliferation.

U.S. Department of Defense, Proliferation Threat and Response 2001, "Message of the Secretary of Defense," refers to weapons of mass destruction as those with "...capabilities to inflict mass casualties and destruction: nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons or the means to deliver them." (page 4 on the screen)
U.S. Department of Defense, Proliferation Threat and Response 1997, "Message of the Secretary of Defense," refers to "Weapons of mass destruction . . . nuclear, biological, or chemical . . ."
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, has used this definition, as well.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Weapons of Mass Destruction: State Department Oversight of Science Centers Programs (May 10, 2001), opening letter to Senators Mitch McConnell and Patrick Leahy, describing the document as reviewing U.S. programs to help former Soviet scientists who once developed "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons systems."
Some U.S. laws likewise use this traditional definition of WMD.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, Title XV of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, P.L. 102-484 (enacted October 23, 1992), relates "to the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and their related technology . . ."
This definition of WMD is also used internationally.

Guidelines for Sensitive Missile-Relevant Transfers of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) refers to WMD as "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."
However, some more recent U.S. laws, official statements, and documents define WMD as including additional types of weapons, such as radiological weapons or conventional weapons causing mass casualties. Often these laws and documents are focused on responding to possible WMD incidents in the United States.

The definition in the U.S. Code, Title 50, "War and National Defense," includes radiological weapons. It defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity."



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (192008)1/7/2007 5:43:10 PM
From: skinowski  Respond to of 793927
 
During the 1990 war, I did wonder whether Saddam had managed somehow to get hold of a nuke or three. I was holding my breath.

Me too. I was also worried during the first several days of the 2003 campaign. Ex post facto it is easier to believe that SH was bluffing, and that, in fact, he didn't have much in a way of WMD's. But back then things were different. Under the ceasefire agreement the burden of proof about the dismantling of the WMD programs was on SH - and instead, he did a fantastic job of acting as if he still had plenty of things up his sleeve.

There were many credible stories about hundreds of former Soviet scientists working for SH. Many other things... you know them all. I do not believe for a moment that Colin Powell would agree to make his presentation if he didn't accept the evidence.

Anyway, I think that the reasons for the invasion were many - and complicated. Preventing SH from eventually becoming a hostile nuclear power was one of them. A no less important reason was the need for a strategic positioning for the larger conflict - with the growing wave of aggressive islamism. Liberating Iraq from SH's dictatorship - and making it instead into a strategically important friend - was an interesting idea, and a good one. But - it was, and still is - just a single campaign in a larger conflict.

A word about China... Hundreds of thousands left Hong Kong - and helped trigger the real estate bubble in Queens and parts of Long Island (NY). In the meantime, their fears proved to be unjustified - the red Chinese left Hong Kong unmolested. I think that for as long as Taiwan does not push their luck with claims of (paper) independence, they are safe. If they are smart, they'll continue to enjoy their good fortune, and avoid making continentals lose face.