and



Source

the questions are this:

1)should this weapon be considered a WMD, since it has the equivalent explosive power of a small nuke?

2)because it is intended to terroize Iraqi's (civilians will be just as terrorized as troops) does that make us terrorists?

3)should weapons like this be banned?

1) Yeah I do think it is considered a weapon of mass destruction. The U.S. already has many WMD.

2) Can't really say as to whether it's intent is to "Terrorize" Iraqi civilians. In the Gulf war I believe they used the "Daisy Cutter" as a bunker buster to flush out the Republican guard and chase them across the desert. So no, we're not terrorist as long it's used in a military aspect.

3) Seeing as this is more of a conventianal weapon that has much less (If any) residual effects then nuclear or biological weapons. I believe it would be at the bottom of any list needed to be banned.

No, I dont believe it should be classified as a WMD.

First off....

The MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon.

This 'source' could be the janitor at ABC.

A weapon of massive destruction? I doubt it. Its not going to be dropped on downtown Bagdad, it will be used on large Iraqi military installations or Saddam's hardened palaces.

For the most part, I believe this is weapon of psychological warfare. Remember these are all threats to get Saddam to comply. If we start hinting at these awesome weapons at our disposal, maybe the this show of force will give him an ethical streak. (Or self-preservation, whichever comes first.)



You can twist the word "Terrorist" anyway you feel like. I believe its defined as someone who is killing the innocent 3rd party, namely women and children.

I dont believe putting a parking lot in place of Rpublican Guard HQ is being 'terrorist'. These guys definitely are not innocent, and definitely 'terrorists' themselves.



No.

In my not-so-humble opinion

Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be characterized as civilian killers via terrorism. One of these Daisey Cutters could probably kill as many people (Military or civilian) as a SCUD loaded with biological agents if used correctly.

Just because a weapon is ranked as WMD, doesn't mean it's a terrorist weapon. It just means it kills a whole lotta people and causes a whole lotta damage.

No because it will be used far from civilian targets plus the news source you have says this:

"It is intended to obliterate a command center hidden in tunnels and bunkers or a concentration of Iraqi tanks."

So obviously this will not be used on civilians unless Saddam puts civilians in those command centers or Iraqi tanks or bunkers



No because somehow, we will need to get to his hidden weapons caches & such that are in underground tunnels & normal bombs just won't do that.

Hercules Posted: Feb 26 2003, 03:47 PM


Nukes maybe but nothing else. We signed treaties for that:

Geneva Protocal
Biological Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention



Wanna know a really powerful bomb that we have? The
E-Bomb!
Popular mechanics

And it might see action in Iraq
E-Bomb in Iraq??

Call it whatever you'd like. As long as Iraq doesn't have one it doesn't much matter.



It is to be used in areas where there will be no innocent civilians.



For Iraq, yes.

One must not forget what this weapon is actually for. It is not an attempt to terrorize or kill mass numbers of people. The military hopes the intense heat and pressure could destroy chemical and biological weapons

The U.S. still has chemical weapons stockpiled. Total destruction via the CWC is not expected til 2004. Just FYI.

I don't think a big-a$$ bomb is a WMD.

I thought weapons of mass destruction were weapons that indiscriminately kill.

Although a big bomb does in a sense, it's range is limited in nature. If a bunch of the enemy is hiding in an area like, for example, Tora Bora, weapons like these would be good to target a wider range..although not an indefinite range.

WMD in the "traditional" sense do not have a specified range. Some are transmitted by the wind and some by human contact.

A hand grenade could have the power of a small nuclear weapon, depends on how small you get.

Actually no. A 'nuclear weapon' requires a minimum amount of radioactive material to produce fission. Subcritical masses of such material will not produce a chain reaction - there is no nuclear reaction, so they are not 'nuclear' weapons.

A 'dirty bomb' may contain radioactive material, but that doesn't make them nuclear weapons any more than the glow-in-the-dark paint on the hands of your wristwatch makes it a nuclear clock.

On thread - 'weapons of mass destruction' is a term that literally refers to the purpose to which a particular weapon is put, not it's provenance. One can cause mass destruction with a BB gun given enough time and determination.

This interpretation from effects applies even more to terrorism - the Beltway Sniper certainly caused terror, armed with no more than a hunting rifle. (Although that doesn't necessarily make him a terrorist - just because the god that told him to do it was Allah, it doesn't make him any different from other garden-variety gun-nut serial killers). The 'randomness' seems to be the biggest factor in causing terror, but has nothing to do with the relative mass of the destruction it causes.

However, usage suggests that WMD refers only to Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, or (most recently) just biological and chemical ones ( since most commentators (and actors) prefer to refer specifically and separately to nuclear weapons).

So on both these grounds, the new bomb cannot really be called a WMD. It's terrorist potential depends on just how accurate the sattelite guidance system is.

If it can obliterate the Iraqi chemical weapons bunker next door without so much as rattling the windows of my house, then it is a precision instrument. If, on the other hand, it accidentally lands on the Chinese Embassy, or a detachment of British or Australian troops, it makes the American military look like either terrorists or incompetants, or both.

1) yes
2) war=terror
3) good luck banning any weapon

To avoid the dreaded one-liner condemnation, permit me to elucidate. Mass destruction is mass destruction. Dresden fire bombings killed many civilians in WW II. If we did it in the "good" war, we can do it in the not-so-good war too. Eh, spin and cover will make it go away.

War is terror. Any other analysis is rather, well, not exactly in line with reality. Okay, I will come right out and say it: insanity. It is insane to blow each other up, poison each other, shoot each other, and so on. But then, that's just the way we are. Oh well.

Mustard gas is supposed to be banned. Do you really believe we have none of this stuff, you know, just in case? Maybe so. We've got far more deadly stuff. Who needs any stinking mustard gas.

Anway, let's just go blow the hell out of Iraq, you know, because Saddam scares us. All those nasty elwhosits scare us. We are just a bunch of scared little folks. So long Iraq.

No, wait! We can't let the world go on with Saddam! (strains of "Hail to the Chief")

Geez, what was I thinking??? War is peace.

Not if you have a reporter in every unit I heard that there are gonna be a lot of reporters tailing many of the ground units in an Iraq war




Unless you have proof that we do, we don't have any. Saddam's the one that has yet to show us where his missing VX gas is.

I'm starting to think the term "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is too subjective and there is no definate means of putting a weapon in that category ('cept for nuclear).

Although war is not peace it does lead to peace. As does the threat of war, which is even better. But you must believe the threat will be carried out or else it has no effect. Much like the UN resolutions.

The problem with this context, in my opinion, is that this really isn't a war.

I think it is true that peace follows victory, but we're really not going to war. We're going to invade and occupy another country in the hopes to interfere with a tactic.

We can't be at war with a tactic. And that's all terrorism is (not to minimize how bad it is).

Terrorist have figured out a way to circumvent the billions of dollars we've invested into our security but going "low tech". They've brought on a new kind of fight to us.

So, what do we do? Go back to our old ways of fighting a new type of threat.

Only my opinion, but anytime bullets are flying over my head, I'm at war.

And I don't, no, can't believe that this type of weapon would be used against targets with a high concentration of civilians nearby. It would be politically suicidal and of little strategic value.

I respectfully disagree. Terrorist target civilians. In a war it's soldier vs. soldier and they know they could die. U.S. Troops are not trained to put innocent civilians in their cross-hairs.

I guess we could call this a "police action" that uses military against military?

I'm with DTOM--whatever we call it, bullets (bombs, rockets, shells) fly. It's a rather personal thing when these fly around you.

The tactical effect of the super bomb isn't as important as the psychological effect, according to the report I saw last night. Can you imagine a "small nuke"?

Sure you can. Happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We've got footage of those small nukes going off.

I really hope civilian populations are spared, but war is war you know.

goamerica, I can't prove if we have banned weapons in our arsenal. That is classified information

However, we indeed have discovered old mustard gas artillery rounds around Colorado, burried in old armory sites. This happened just a few years ago. The gas was destroyed, through incineration I think. Were these banned weapons burried by accident or intent?

How do you accidentally bury a whole bunch of artillery rounds? And in multiple sites? It really made me wonder, but most people just shrugged it off back then.