quote:

When Did IEDs Become WMD?
After the WTC bombing.
By Brian PalmerPosted Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 1:18 PM ET

...In 1994. Since its origins in the 1940s, the phrase weapons of mass destruction has typically referred to some combination of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radioactive weaponry. But, in a sweeping 1994 crime bill, Congress defined the term to include weapons previously known only as "destructive devices," such as bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter that are not common in sport hunting. Under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2332a, murder by WMD is now one of 50 death-penalty-eligible federal offenses, along with treason, espionage, drive-by shooting, and murdering a member of Congress. There is nothing in the congressional record showing why then-Sen. Joseph Biden, who drafted the language, defined the term so broadly, but the bill was introduced a few months after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in which conventional weapons killed six and wounded more than 1,000 people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

When Did IEDs Become WMD?
After the WTC bombing.
By Brian PalmerPosted Wednesday, March 31, 2010, at 1:18 PM ET

...In 1994. Since its origins in the 1940s, the phrase weapons of mass destruction has typically referred to some combination of nuclear, biological, chemical, and radioactive weaponry. But, in a sweeping 1994 crime bill, Congress defined the term to include weapons previously known only as "destructive devices," such as bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter that are not common in sport hunting. Under U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2332a, murder by WMD is now one of 50 death-penalty-eligible federal offenses, along with treason, espionage, drive-by shooting, and murdering a member of Congress. There is nothing in the congressional record showing why then-Sen. Joseph Biden, who drafted the language, defined the term so broadly, but the bill was introduced a few months after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, in which conventional weapons killed six and wounded more than 1,000 people.

Full story

This question came up in the thread about the militia group raided by the FBI. I felt it deserved its own thread simply on the grounds that I feel that a pipe bomb should not be in the same category as a truck loaded with explosives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

"Pipe Bombs?" We made those when we were kids! Blew up mailboxes and all kinds of stuff with them.
To me a "WMD" would be a "dirty" nuke or worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
"Even though its pure bullshit"!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions.

Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions.

Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009




That's a great description of your post

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

It would be useful if the term mass was defined if we are to apply the term; WMD to weapons, so we all know what is meant and hinder any silliness on the parts of those who wish to justify their actions.

Indeed. I always thought, from the way I've heard the acronym used, that it intended a nuclear, thermonuclear, or widely-disseminable biological weapon capable of inflicting damage on a massive scale. Somehow, "bombs, grenades, mines, and guns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter," don't seem to make the grade.

K.

Kirata, one would think anyway that any "WMD" would be capable of killing "thousands" at once. You can lose 250 people in a plane crash.
And "shaped charges" are easy to make but they don't even kill "dozens" or "tens." They're made for penetrating armoured vehicles and may or may not kill the people in them.
A "WMD" is probably way beyond the capabilities of any individuals or groups, thankfully!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal.

E

The precedent was already set with the Bush Doctrine.

We only have to believe there is a threat and off we go to war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

On a positive note, there is now no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the precedent has been set for a lawful invasion of any state that has so much as a hand grenade in its arsenal.

E

The precedent was already set with the Bush Doctrine.

We only have to believe there is a threat and off we go to war.